Chinese Icebreaker Is Stuck In Ice After Antarctic Research Vessel Rescue 361
New submitter Cochonou writes "In an unforeseen turn of events, the Sydney Morning Herald reports that the Chinese icebreaker Xue Long is now stuck in heavy Antarctic pack ice, just a day after its helicopter was used for the rescue of the passengers onboard the ice-trapped MV Akademik Shokalskiy. The Australian icebreaker Aurora Australis, which is now carrying the passengers of the Shokalskiy, has been placed on standby to assist. The Chinese vessel is waiting for favorable tidal conditions on Saturday to make another attempt at freeing itself."
Hey dawg.. (Score:5, Funny)
We heard you needed an ice rescue, so we're sending you an ice rescue for your ice rescue.
Re:Hey dawg.. (Score:5, Funny)
Or to quote Hot Shots Part Deux,
Now we have to go in to get the men who went in to get the men who went in to get the men.
ICE CAPS ARE MELTING! (Score:2, Flamebait)
I suggest you watch THIS [youtube.com] instructional video.
Re: (Score:3)
To a person, the recently rescued passengers are quietly bitching under their breaths, "Why does everything always happen to ME?"
Re:Hey dawg.. (Score:5, Funny)
Additionally, the captain was overheard saying "I'm getting too old for this shi...p"
Re: (Score:3)
"Why does everything always happen to me?"
Mostly because they're at the frickin' south pole.
Re: (Score:3)
Not sure if I am feeding a troll here, but it is currently (January 2014) the middle of the summer in the southern hemisphere.
Re:Hey dawg.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, most of the specific claims of specific models that are 15+ years old have been falsified, to a degree that should be embarrassing. Are current models vastly better? Maybe so, but the specific details of models are usually kept secret so how can we judge (until those models are old enough)?
Time will certainly sort the good science out from the bad, but IMO that hasn't happened yet, and structurally this area of research sure seems to shy away from the usual public culling of specific models by specific falsifiable predictions. "Average worldwide temperature increases, over a sufficiently long measurement period" doesn't cut it as a prediction - that sort of hand waving isn't science. merely fortune-telling. It's easy for a clever man to explain how Nostradamus's vague predictions were all accurate as well. Specificity is a requirement for falsifiability.
Re: (Score:3)
That however is a very weird thing to say about material that is published.
That's my single biggest complaint/concern with climate science. What's published is (normally) not enough to reproduce the model, because the source code for the model is what's being monetized for funding, and if you make that public it's no longer your advantage. To the extent that happens, that's a broken approach to science, and every bit as bit a scandal as all the false published biotech synthesis claims.
Re:Hey dawg.. (Score:5, Funny)
well, they're not on the ship that's stuck now(the chinese breakers helicopter used to get them to the ship)..
just on the one that will get stuck soon.
Re:Hey dawg.. (Score:4, Funny)
What to do, what to do, call an ice breaker? (Score:3, Funny)
Yo Dawg, I herd you like to break ice, so I put an ice breaker in your ice breaker so you can break ice while you break ice.
How much ice.. (Score:5, Funny)
could an icebreaker break, if it could actually break some freakin' ice!
ice (Score:2)
In Soviet Russia, missing ice find you!
Unforeseen (Score:5, Insightful)
If you send a ship to rescue another ship from ice, and that ship gets stuck in ice... I don't think that's exactly an "unforeseen" event. They knew the ice was there. And building up fast. It's a humorous turn of events, sure, but hardly unforeseen.
Yes, but what about the problem of Global Tilt (Score:2)
Yes, but what about the problem of Global Tilt -- Caused by the mass of all the icebreakers stuck in the Antarctica
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Aww you beat me to it! (Score:2)
I'll go with:
I don't think "unforeseen" means what you think it means...
Of course this is Australia, up is down, black is white, and sending a ship to rescue a ship stuck in ice and by doing so also gets stuck in ice is unforeseen.
Re:Unforeseen (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody said anything about the helicopter having problems. However, the helicopter is from the Chinese ship that did get stuck, which is a polar resupply ship and not an full-fledged icebreaker. Even if it was an icebreaker, they have significant limits to how much ice they can break through. Therefore, it's not entirely unexpected for a ship, icebreaker or otherwise, to get stuck rescuing another icelocked ship than it is unexpected for a pickup truck to get stuck in mud trying to pull out a car from mud. It's less likely, but certainly not unforeseen.
Re: (Score:3)
A car analogy! Hooray! Slashdot lives!
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, hey, remember this [sillyhumor.com] from the internet?
Fiasco (Score:2, Funny)
International cooperation (Score:5, Funny)
I just think it is cool there is such cooperation between Russia, China, and Australia on this "saving" of essentially Antarctic party animals, on a Russian drinking and discovery cruise.
JJ
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's all a waste of resources. They should have done an airdrop of food/supplies and had them weather it out. IIRC it was shortage of food that was the issue, they have fuel needed to duke it out.
Re:International cooperation (Score:5, Informative)
Millenia-old "law" of the high seas: A ship is in distress, all ships capable of safely helping shall reroute to assist.
No-one who sails for a living wants to be the guy known to break that sacred rule.
That's a problem... (Score:5, Funny)
That's the problem with Chinese ice breakers. You get stuck again in an hour.
SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid (Score:2)
Question (Score:2)
So, how many icebreakers would it take to form a continuous bridge back to Australia?
Re: (Score:2)
African or European?
Re: (Score:2)
Russian and Chinese so far, so I guess you'd say Eurasian...
We apologize again for the fault in the subtitles. (Score:2)
trip climate change "ecotour" (Score:2)
Both poles have been cooler than average the last year with a lot more ice. The long term trend at least in the north still appears to be warming.
Jonah! (Score:2)
Sounds familiar (Score:2)
Climate Change Made Simple (Score:2)
Re:Climate Change Made Simple (Score:4, Funny)
To be fair, January is the middle of summer in Antarctica. That said, within the past decade I've still seen it snow in June in NY and have gone outside on Christmas in shorts. Personally, I'm in favor of the God Is Trolling Everybody theory.
For more about Antarctica (Score:3, Interesting)
If you'd like to read more about the Antarctic ice and how hard it is to survive down there, I highly recommend the book Endurance [amazon.com]. It's about the voyage of Ernest Shackleton and crew in 1914. Their purpose-built ship got stuck in the ice for months then ultimately crushed. They survived on the ice floes for many more months before finally escaping. It goes into lots of detail and is a fascinating read.
Ice breaker? (Score:2, Funny)
Why do they keep using that term? I do not think it means what they think it means.
Re: (Score:3)
Because they're *really* good at starting conversations with new people. I mean, just look how long this thread is already. They really broke the ice.
Figures... (Score:2)
That's what happens when you send a snow dragon to do an ice dragon job.
Ideally you would think they would have a Fire Dragon that might be a lot more effective.
Fire Dragon (Score:2)
BTW if China ever builds a nuclear icebreaker they totally have to name it Fire Dragon, which Google translate tells me is: Hulóng.
Wow (Score:4, Interesting)
On a side note, I live in Alabama (USA) and where it's generally been, for the past 8 years or more, 70+ degrees in January, it's 35 today. I wonder if the last 8 years or so have been hotter due to the sun's cycle. Because supposedly it just ended (last summer was the coolest it's been in 8 or more years) and now it's cold as shit this year.
Four men and an Elephant (Score:2)
The whole climate Warming or Change issue reminds me of the old story of four blind men meeting an elephant for the first time. One feels its truck and says "An elephant is a snake", another man feels the leg and say "An elephant is like a tree trunk". The third feels an ear and exclaims "An elephant is like a leaf and the fourth, having not moved in time says, just before getting crushed by its feet, an Elephant is like a huge rock". What they perceive is just a part of the whole and when put completely
Re: (Score:2)
...global warming is supposed to be melting all this ice.
... said the guy completely clueless to how chaotic systems work.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
...global warming is supposed to be melting all this ice.
... said the guy completely clueless to how chaotic systems work.
The "system" is determinist, not chaotic. If the weather is hot, its caused by global warming. If the weather is cold, its caused by global warming. If the predictions are wrong, there is still global warming. The "science" is settled, but if it has to be fudged to match predictions, then there is still global warming. If the predictions are right, it's, "Yeah! We were right. It's global warming!"
And, the followup is always, "give us money and your freedom because global warming!"
Re: (Score:2)
...global warming is supposed to be melting all this ice.
... said the guy completely clueless to how chaotic systems work.
All of those scientists must be clueless too, seeing as that was the whole point of their expedition.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
FTFY
Look, there are idiots on both sides of the isle You got the people who are no matter what going to say that man caused all the problems, there are those who will claim that the climate is not changing even when its clear that there is change, what is not clear is whether or not we caused the changes or if they are natural, and is there anythi
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What everyone needs to remember is that believers are idiots who think it is all or nothing, Man is causing the problem and there are no possible other reasons
Except that's a stupid proposition that is just untrue. Of course people who understand global warming don't think it's "All or nothing". It's cold where I am today, and that has nothing to do with the fact that this winter is still, on average, almost a degree warmer than a decade ago. Your placing yourself right in-between scientifically accurate and idiotically wrong just makes you wrong too. It doesn't make you a "reasonable moderate" it just makes you another willfully ignorant person who doesn't
Re: (Score:3)
The winter has just begun.
Where the hell, did you get your 1 degree warmer average?
And are you talking about your little tiny local area or globaly?
Seriously, can we at least make it half-way through a season before saying its average anything?
Re: (Score:2)
Globally. Obviously, I don't have detailed data on my particular microclimate, and the data is leaning towards cooler than last year, but way warmer than a decade ago. obviously december isn't done yet, check back in a week [noaa.gov]
Re: (Score:3)
there are idiots on both sides of the isle...
So, is that Gilligan's Isle you're talking about?
Re: (Score:2)
I love a good straw man argument in the morning!
Your logic appears to be the equivalent of this:
1. Some people who believe in evolution are idiots who believe Lamarck was completely right about how traits evolve.
2. Ergo, evolution is wrong.
Now, as far as the "It's naturally caused" argument, there's lots of evidence that it isn't, and to claim otherwise is to be deliberately misleading.
Re: (Score:3)
I am simply stating that there is not enough proof either for OR against AGW.
What exactly constitutes "enough"? Consider an argument of this form:
- A happened.
- B happened after A happened.
- In lab tests, A leads to B.
- Causes C,D,E,F,... that experts in the field proposed for alternative reasons why B might be happening have been ruled out.
Would you consider the statement "A causes B" to be probably true, or probably false?
Substitute in "anthropogenic CO2 release" for A, "increasing global average temperature" for B, and a whole bunch of natural causes for C,D,E,F,..., and that's e
Re:Just remember now... it's just weather? (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
This comment — and its "insightful" moderation — are really telling...
Why would not neither TFA nor the /. write-up even mention, that the people, who needed to be rescued from the ice, went there in search of proof, the ice is melting?
Re: (Score:2)
Because that's not what they were there for? That can be done with satellites, and they're more interested in things like ice core data, and plenty of non-climate research.
Re: (Score:3)
But that's speculation, of course... Yet, here, for example, is what MSNBC had to say about them (emphasis mine):
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your the one that points out every storm or high temperature is PROOF of global warming.
No one is seriously doing that. The proof is in the absolute fuck-ton of easy to validate wide scale observational data, core sound principles(like absorption spectra of greenhouse gasses), and the staggering accuracy of mainline predictive theories.
Re: (Score:2)
No one is seriously doing that.
Except when they do.
Like when a Lack of snowfall becomes a sign of global warming. [independent.co.uk] Until it gets cold, then cold winter is a sign of global warming. [huffingtonpost.co.uk] And those are scientists quoted in both those articles, it's not just some 'unscientific journalists.'
Every time some 'weird weather' happens, it's a sign of global warming. If you don't realize this, it's because you aren't paying attention. Hurricane Sandy, Japan Tsunami, whatever it is, you see articles popping up about global warming.
The proof is in the absolute fuck-ton of easy to validate wide scale observational data, core sound principles(like absorption spectra of greenhouse gasses), and the staggering accuracy of mainline predictive theories.
The core principle
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's a statistical change in precipitation over time, which is one of the things that does change. That's not the same as going "it's 32C today, therefor we have global warming".
You're still conflating the long-term with the short term, which is the problem with your attitude.
Re: (Score:2)
You're still conflating the long-term with the short term, which is the problem with your attitude.
Observing that models are inaccurate when compared to data is not a problem of attitude, it's a matter of reading a graph.
Scientists predicting 'no snow as a result of global warming' and then predicting 'there will be snow as a result of global warming' is a problem of scientists predicting when they really shouldn't have (possibly in their overeagerness to push the AGW hypothesis).
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, so we're talking British Isles here.
There's one very very very important factor in that region. It's the gulf stream. It's a major subatlantic current that moderates temperatures in the U.K. in the winter it brings warm water and moisture from the south atlantic. This causes a more moderate winter, with lots of snowfall(compared to similar latitudes elsewhere).
There's a lot research about it [google.com] but the summary form is that the greater subatlantic currents that drive the gulf stream are dying as a resu
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, so we're talking British Isles here.
That's one example. Take any major weather event (even non-climate events like earthquakes) and people will use it to try to push AGW.
And you know it.
Re: (Score:2)
Your the one that points out every storm or high temperature is PROOF of global warming.
No one is seriously doing that.
Except of course for those stuck scientists, entire expedition was to 'study' how much warmer south pole got since last expedition (sweet sweet AGW grants). Oops.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the expeditions to the south pole are primarily(i mean they do do other things too) concerned with ice core data, and looking at very long ago carbon dioxide and temperature variations, which deepen our understanding of the natural component of temperature variation.
Re: (Score:3)
As with everything ever said by deniers this is triviially proven false [wikipedia.org] with the barest examination of facts.
In 2013 Akademik Shokalskiy was chartered by the Australasian Antarctic Expedition 2013-2014 to celebrate the centenary of the previous expedition under Douglas Mawson, and to repeat his scientific observations.[14] The expedition had nine scientific goals related to observations, mapping, and measurements of environmental, biological, and marine changes associated with climate change.[15]
That's multiple goals only some of which are applicable to the category. So, even in the off-topic, completely irrelevant to the accuracy of science discuss, you are unable to be correct.
Re:Just remember now... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, and if weren't for the other parts of the post, that'd be a pretty good critique. It ignores the former(widescale observational data) and the latter(astounding predictive accuracy on primary variables, by mainline predictions, such as IPCC).
But yeah, if you ignore reality and data, it is "just a theory". Just like gravity
Re:Just remember now... (Score:5, Funny)
Just like gravity
Go outside and look up. What do you see? Birds! Gravity isn't stopping them. If gravity were real why do we see things like dust floating around seemingly freely. Gravity is just a scam to keep airline profits sky-high.
Obvious sarcasm is obvious- I hope.
Re:Just remember now... (Score:5, Interesting)
Observed data does not support the models [drroyspencer.com]. Exactly opposite of what you just claimed.
You cannot toss out data that does not fit into your model; you have to change your model to explain/include the observed data. Data trumps every time. The IPCC models do not reflect actual, measured data - and thus they are wrong. Go ahead, explain the data in that graph - how temperatures haven't come close to the levels of warming reflected in even the most conservative IPCC model.
Re:Just remember now... (Score:4, Informative)
First, it is important to note that Dr. Roy Spencer has a track record of providing misinformation on climate issues [skepticalscience.com].
Looking at his graph and notes, I don't understand why he chose 1979 as the starting period for his graph, and what he's done to model runs that start after 1979 to extend their trend lines backwards. I would expect a single line with many points of divergence along it to show where each model begins to overestimate warming, the fact that they all seem to start overestimating by 1982 is a clue that someone is playing games with the data. Furthermore, just from looking at the graph it appears to be indicating that the average of the models is between 0.3 and 0.4 degrees per decade. That is significantly higher than the average from the IPCC1 report (which was between 0.15 and 0.3 degrees per decade) so where are these numbers coming from? Did Spencer cherry-pick the worst performing models for his graph or did he alter the results produce by the models in some way? The attached commentary doesn't provide the data or explain the methodology used to generate the graph.
Additionally, the only two reference points are an average of two sets of satellite data and 4 balloons? Where are the ground temperature series in this graph?
Skeptical Science has posted several blog posts that show a much closer match between models and observation [skepticalscience.com], so I'm inclined to believe that Spencer screwed it up unintentionally or otherwise.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Just remember now... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Just remember now... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, aside from the long term economic viability of my planet and region(which I consider a pretty big deal), I view ignorance, and particularly scientific ignorance a thing to be combated at every turn.
Re: (Score:2)
IPCC is generally considered mainline, due to scope, scale, and review levels. We've been trending just a hair warmer than "most likely warming" predictions(but well below "worst case") for a while now.
Re: (Score:2)
Its not easy to validate when you cannot get your hands on their raw data. You only get summary reports from the "climate scientists"!
You have to ask nicely.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Its not easy to validate when you cannot get your hands on their raw data. You only get summary reports from the "climate scientists"!
You can't?
Have you tried?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/#Climate_data_raw [realclimate.org]
What exciting analysis are you going to do with this data now I've told you how to get it?
How come you didn't find it using Google? It's the first result.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because supporter of an idea "X" is saying stupid shit doesn't necessarily make idea "X" wrong. Gore is frankly doing the climate science a disservice.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That, my friend, is known as the gish gallop [rationalwiki.org] where you propose so many wrong headed ideas(each of which a reasonable explanation of would take 10 times as long as spewing out) so quickly as to appear to have an undeniable point.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't that require that the person be intelligent enough to recognize that they are, in fact, spouting off lies and half-truths?
Re: (Score:2)
No, once one shill prepares an item on the list, a thousand suckers can repeat it easily.
Re:Just remember now... (Score:4, Interesting)
To tie this to another Slashdot story, this is exactly the reason I fear the Bill Nye-Ken Ham debate. I have no doubt that Bill Nye knows his stuff, but I fear that the creationist will toss a hundred "arguments" out and Bill will only tackle one or two successfully (simply because spreading information/proof takes more time than spreading unfounded assertations). Thus, he will be seen as having "lost" the debate because he "couldn't" counter all of Ken Ham's talking points.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure reddit is just mostly comprised of uninteresting people repeating the same 5 "jokes" forever on every subreddit.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, Antarctica had subtropical climate IIRC.
Re:Just remember now... (Score:4, Informative)
"Don't forget that Antarctica was void of ice during the Mesozoic era. It was pretty warm then."
As I recall, Antarctica as also north of Australia at that time, and just south of Africa and South America (as in you could walk from one to the other).
Re:Just remember now... (Score:5, Insightful)
The AGW bigots are kind of like Jehova's Witnesses. JWs, several times throughout their history, asserted the end of the world was coming. When the end failed to materialize -- each time -- the church would sidestep their inaccuracy with things like "well, we have 'new light' now." Or they'd flatly deny they ever said the end was coming, instead claiming they only meant a change of some sort was coming... and oh look, some kind of change did happen!
So how does this apply? When I was a wee lad, the "settled" climate science was that Earth was cooling, and we were careening head-on into a new Ice Age that was going to destroy us all. It wasn't just a tale, either -- they had mountains of data and the most sophisticated models the computers of the day allowed.
Then, as the science progressed a bit (and as the Coming Ice Age had failed to raise the requisite amount of alarm in the populace) it was decided that no, we're not cooling -- we're warming. In point of fact, the phenomenon was called "Global Warming". Pretty specific, that. Not, "we're not sure what's happening but it ain't good," but "it's definitely getting, and will continue to get, warmer, and we're all gonna fuckin' die!"
Then, as science, data collection, and computer modeling advanced yet further... "Global Warming" has been called into question. So much so, in fact, that many of the climate scientists of today will not use the phrase "Global Warming", but have chosen the trademark of "Climate Change". It's back to "we're not sure what's going on but we're all gonna die!" "Climate Change" is a delightfully vague yet alarming turn of phrase, and a stroke of genius.
So now, every time something odd, unusual, rare, extreme, or even normal happens with weather, it can be attributed to "Climate Change" -- because something changed, see? Climate Change equals different weather, so something in weather that didn't happen last year or the year before is now because of Climate Change.
This, kiddos, is what we call circular reasoning.
Go ahead, Climate Change bigots. Mod me down. I've got karma to burn. I could post AC, but I'm thumbing my nose at you.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
When I was a wee lad, the "settled" climate science was that Earth was cooling, and we were careening head-on into a new Ice Age that was going to destroy us all.
No, it wasn't. [skepticalscience.com] What this statement shows is that you don't know the difference between a new reporter and a scientist. There was a little media hysteria over the possibility of a ice age, but the science supported warming over cooling at nearly 6 to 1 already by that point. The debate at that time was over whether the natural cooling effects that causes ice ages could overcome anthropogenic emissions (which were quite a bit lower at that point).
Then, as science, data collection, and computer modeling advanced yet further... "Global Warming" has been called into question. So much so, in fact, that many of the climate scientists of today will not use the phrase "Global Warming", but have chosen the trademark of "Climate Change". It's back to "we're not sure what's going on but we're all gonna die!" "Climate Change" is a delightfully vague yet alarming turn of phrase, and a stroke of genius.
This is also false, the IPCC has never been the IPGW. Many
Re: (Score:3)
There was a little media hysteria over the possibility of a ice age, but the science supported warming over cooling at nearly 6 to 1 already by that point.
In terms of what scientists talked about with other scientists, you may be correct. However, it was not the public perception driven by the media. My (admittedly anecdotal) evidence is asking older folks what they remember about the time -- preferably people who were well mature, 30-40+ adults -- and the overwhelming majority remember hysteria about cooling/Ice Age, and not warming. Remember that most people did not seek out scientific papers; they watched TV or read newspapers. The message they heard w
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Arctica !== Antarctica.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd still like to see a citation.
I can't find his actual quote offhand, reported in original context. I can find, however, that he was apparently citing Zwally, as also cited by National Geographic. [nationalgeographic.com] Ggiven that it is going down by steps and not in a continuous flow, however, I think the real year that the arctic will be free of ice in the summer will happen sometime between next year and 2040 (one of the more realistic original estimates), but we can't really be sure which year it'll be. It'll also be interesting to see what the impact
Re:It's still there? (Score:5, Insightful)
* consensus in this case means 90% or more, as there are always guys who disagree.
Consensus != Fact
There was once consensus that bleeding patients was the cure for disease. There was once consensus that Earth was flat. There was once consensus that there was no relationship between eating citrus and preventing scurvy. And etc etc etc.
This goes to the fallacy that we (humans who are alive right now) have solved all the problems and now know everything worth knowing. Think about it. The elites who persecuted Copernicus thought themselves wise and modern at the time.
Thus: while I will not necessarily assert that today's climate "consensus" is wrong, I do maintain that there is a very real possibility that we will someday discover it to be, at the least, inadequate. Every generation finds previous generations to have held some pretty stupid ideas.
Re:It's still there? (Score:4, Insightful)
There was once consensus that bleeding patients was the cure for disease. There was once consensus that Earth was flat. There was once consensus that there was no relationship between eating citrus and preventing scurvy. And etc etc etc.
You mean before the use of the scientific method was the consensus?
You've set up a false equivalency comparing superstition and folklore to scientific inquiry. Science, by definition is open to reevaluation. Because humans are involved it isn't a perfect process. But if the scientific consensus on global warming is the equivalent of blood-letting with leaches then the opposition to the consensus is on the order of suffocating a patient with a stubbed toe to put him out of his misery.
Re:It's still there? (Score:4, Interesting)
Science, by definition is open to reevaluation. Because humans are involved it isn't a perfect process.
That, sir, is exactly my point. There can be no such thing as "settled science" because of this. There was no false equivalency; I was alluding to the fact that humans are arrogant when it comes to their place in the time-line. We always think we're not only smarter than those who came before us, but it carries forward such that we think we're not going to get any smarter than we are now. *That* fallacy is why we have people saying absurd things like "settled science". (Yes, I know more politicians than scientists are saying that; it does not, however, disprove my point.)
It's like this: my old man had some rather... interesting... ideas about things. I had my science education, and I could scoff at some of his ideas. Haha, I'm superior in knowledge to my parents. Thing is, though... my kids and grandkids are going to do the same thing to me someday, unless I have already somehow achieved omniscience. Since I'm not certain I have achieved omniscience (I would know if I had, right?) I can assume, safely, that there is more yet to learn.
But if the scientific consensus on global warming is the equivalent of blood-letting with leaches then the opposition to the consensus is on the order of suffocating a patient with a stubbed toe to put him out of his misery.
It's not the equivalent, and I didn't say that. Kindly let me put my own words in my mouth. Here, I'll spell out exactly where I'm going with this:
I am strongly environmentalist, precisely because of science -- science that is of course not settled, but solid enough that I'm comfortable taking action on it.
For instance: I support, very strongly, alternative energy sources. Why? This is simple math. We live on a planet of a finite size, therefore, oil, gas, and coal must be of finite supply. Also, air pollution is an obvious factor -- more so in the developing world. Car exhaust, say. While the battle rages over the danger of C02, I already know that CO, NOx, and HC emissions are unhealthy. Duh, right? So THAT is why I follow biofuel research.
Coal plant emissions are unhealthy. Soot, acid rain, etc... we've been through this, and we have people working on it. Dear gods, look at China. You have to swim through the smog. It doesn't take much scientific data to prove to me that it's not a good thing. It's not that I see solar power as a panacea, but I'd call it a step in the right direction. I'm torn on nuclear. It rarely goes wrong, but when it does... hoo boy.
I live where a lot of fracking for natural gas goes on. There is debate on how much harm it causes, but again, it's not a pure process by any stretch. We use gas to heat our houses. Could we do something different? Sure. Passive solar design for newer houses. I have seen houses in the Colorado mountains heated through entire winters, with nights down to -30F, without fuel -- only passive solar heat and thermal mass and good insulation. This is scientifically sound stuff here, as well as economically.
I hope these examples will illustrate my position. There are many things, easy and hard, that we can and should be doing, to improve our environment. If (and I do mean, IF) AGW people are right, then I have already taken steps in the right direction. If not, I've still done the right thing. Simply put, I refuse to waste time arguing over whether more CO2 is bad, or whether polar bears are drowning, or whatever other ManBearPig lunacy the Algores of the world are spouting. I'm working with what we DO know. And unlike Algore, I'm not flying around in a private jet or spending a small country's GDP to heat my house.
I plant trees, not because Global Warming, but because I like trees for shade, bird habitat... it also turns out that trees remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Nifty, eh? I drive a fuel efficient car, not because Climate Change, but because I'm chea
Re: (Score:3)
*With the exception of a few obtuse contrarians that you can find in any human endeavor.
Like Semmelweis? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis [wikipedia.org]
The overwhelming consensus, among the educated doctors and scientists of his day, was that washing your hands was pointless. We look back now and laugh at the folly of Semmelweis's detractors. But then, he was laughed at, driven to madness, and beaten to death.
My point was simple: just because there is consensus (which may or may not be manufactured*), does not mean that the consensus is correct.
Hence:
Consensus != Fact
* See Noam Chomsky's "Man
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think anyone is viewing this as a failure/success by any given country. And the only people that look bad are the scientists from the original ship. If anything, it makes the Chinese look good because they put themselves at risk to save people from a completely different region of the planet. It just looks like you want something to bitch about. If this isn't newsworthy to you, just skip over it. The fact you felt the need to comment on it makes it all the more newsworthy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
First one is a joke, second one is ambiguous as to what's a fiasco. Third one is kind of a moron and judging the the use of "lol", is apparently also a joke. None of them are seriously saying anything about China or the Chinese in general. There are a hell of a lot more people criticizing the original group of scientists and the captain of the original (Russian) ship.
Re: (Score:3)
I do not think that word is spelled how you think it is spelled.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sea ice has been steadily increasing, despite the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's gloomy forecasts.
And that, folks is why only an idiot would read the Australian. (Or any other Murdoch rag).
Hint - total sea ice extent is decreasing. Antartic sea ice extent is increasing, but not as fast as Artic sea ice extent is decreasing.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-s/mean:12/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/mean:12 [woodfortrees.org]