DDL on 27/11/2009 at 12:33
I like that: apparently the fact that some newspapers confused northeast passage (been open for years) with northwest passage (only recently been traversable because all the fucking ice has gone)...somehow makes the fact that the northwest passage is open (because all the fucking ice has gone) incorrect?
Reporting facts incorrectly != facts are incorrect
Fragony on 27/11/2009 at 13:25
Quote Posted by DDL
I like that: apparently the fact that some newspapers confused northeast passage (been open for years) with northwest passage (only recently been traversable because all the fucking ice has gone)...somehow makes the fact that the northwest passage is open (because all the fucking ice has gone) incorrect?
Reporting facts incorrectly != facts are incorrect
It's incorrect because it's not true, doubt it was a mistake.
Ice hasn't been that thick for a while btw
(
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/ice-at-the-north-pole-in-1958-not-so-thick/)
Aerothorn on 27/11/2009 at 15:24
One-man editorial sites are scraping the bottom of the barrel as far as "supporting evidence" goes.
Matthew on 27/11/2009 at 15:44
Quote Posted by Fragony
to not see a piece of ice the size of Texas
Beggin' your pardon Mister President, it's a big-ass ocean.
Muzman on 27/11/2009 at 17:14
It's a slightly scary prospect, this denialist nonsense taking hold. It's a bit like the Davinci Code/Holy Blood, Holy Grail or 9/11 trutherism; this tiny thread of interconnected details and quibbles that amount to no evidence for anything but somehow form a picture that people believe completely in. Plus it has that bonus of "You mean everything's fine? I don't have to do anything?! Woohoo!" which is a suggestion with universal political appeal.
That it's such a complex thing to explain climatology to people means so few will follow the thread to discover that denialists are universally full of shit, their logic requiring a massive conspiracy of Illuminati proportions, denying every statistical technique known to science, and even, when all else fails, disputing that CO2 is a greenouse gas and much of known physics and chemistry in the process.
It's a religious epistemological war whose methods are equally applicable to denying evolution and even atomic theory. It's so insane I have to throw in my own conspiracy theory to make sense of it: These people know we're going to lose when it comes to the climate so they'll do their best to return civilisation to the dark ages to help the ride along.
jay pettitt on 27/11/2009 at 17:22
Quote Posted by Aerothorn
One-man editorial sites are scraping the bottom of the barrel as far as "supporting evidence" goes.
Yeah, but what you don't understand is that the websites of the so-called "science" institutions are biased toward science, so you can't trust them. Whereas blogs are independent and therefore right (and the more they disagree with so-called "science" the more independent and therefore right they must be).
Fragony on 27/11/2009 at 19:34
hardly as it was used in medieval times, just because nobody did doesn't mean they couldn't. Few ' scientists' got theirselves into abit of trouble by the way, oh fuck ice everywhere, good for them we have planes, could be flown out
Kolya on 29/11/2009 at 04:08
<embed src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/FxudKL1IB6U&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="530" height="418"/>
