Home > global warming, Liberalism > Global Warming Activist Freezes in Antarctica (Updated)

Global Warming Activist Freezes in Antarctica (Updated)

(Core story retracted by the media: While reported by many news organizations, including ecological websites, it appears that this individual did not actually die in Antarctica–I do stand by the rest of my comments, however)

This is too ironic to ignore. But it isn’t the first time that one of the “Greens” has gone to one of the two poles and found out it was not the expected sultry 40 degrees Fahrenheit. Dog sled “musher” Will Steger had a similar, if less tragic experience years ago. Did he learn? These type rarely do.

According to a story by Fox News, James Sneider and a Journalist friend talked about going to document the “devastation” of Global warming, but did not even disclose the details to his own wife:

“He kept talking about when they ‘get down to chili’, and I thought they were talking about the order in which they would consume their food supplies”, Mrs. Schneider recounted. “I had no idea they were talking about Chile, the country from which you usually fly or sail in order to reach Antarctica.”

Again, not smart. I constantly have to question the intelligence of these “Professors” of Climate Change, who are apparently completely unaware that temperatures in Antarctica get as low as 70 below zero (Fahrenheit).

I have reported on this nonsense before when we were told by some in the Goracle’s rabid legions in the media, “The North Pole might be clear of Ice this summer”. It’s easy to make such ridiculous claims, not much about Global Warming is based on facts, but what they also failed to recognize is that there are web cameras there where we can watch and see the facts. The result? Ice and more ice. In fact, there were times in mid-summer when the cameras seemed iced over.

Sneider and his friend were found frozen near their two snowmobiles, with orange rope spread out on the ice stating one cryptic message:

“Help-COLD” (No duh).

Perhaps it seems fitting that these people were eliminated by Darwinism, for it is certainly true that if one is not intelligent enough to prepare for extreme subzero temperatures simply on the basis of “I think they are lying about the temperature in Antarctica” is foolhardy.

I am not trying to make light of the deaths of two people, but some actions certainly lead to death. If Al Gore told you that gravity did not exist, would you jump off a skyscraper? Science is often common sense, and some should try to have some.

DreadPirateRoberts

Advertisements
  1. Kelly
    April 1, 2010 at 1:28 am

    You probably don’t want to bother with messy old facts, but you’re passing on falsehoods. Doesn’t bode well for the credibility of anything you post.
    http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/freeze.asp

    • April 1, 2010 at 12:40 pm

      Point taken, Kelly. But considering that Will Steiger had a similar experience, and that other ecological websites wrote on this as well, one can only admit an honest mistake:

      http://www.ecoenquirer.com/south-pole-tragedy.htm

      And they have not retracted the story like FOX. But thank you for your correction–keep commenting.

  2. May 27, 2010 at 12:58 am

    If Al Gore told you that gravity did not exist, would you jump off a skyscraper?

    If NASA told you America made it to the moon, would you believe them?

    If FoxNews told you that some really important real scientist actually said that there had been no global warming since 1995, would you believe them?
    Sadly, yes.

    Fact check.
    Go to primary sources of information, quote people in full and in context, look up and understand scientific terms.
    Don’t fall for bogus crap like this stupid story.
    Do a little fact-checking.
    The same credulity that suckered you into this story is the same credulity that sucked you into climate denialism.

    Yeah, I get it that some brain-dead eco-website got it wrong too.
    Well, ok. Shame on them for being brain-dead too.

    Yet using the old “tu quoque” doesn’t make you look any better.
    You failed to do any real research.
    That’s your responsibility.
    Raise your standards. Make them better that some brain-dead eco-website.
    Stop allowing yourself to be lied to just because it’s stuff you want to hear.
    Stop trusting the source of the information just because they are part of your “tribe”.

    Science is often common sense, and some should try to have some.

    Science is not a synonym for common sense.
    Common sense has been around for a long time.
    Didn’t get us very far.
    The Enlightenment, however, only happened a short time ago.

    Common sense tells you that the Sun moves over the Earth every day.
    Common sense tells you that “you didn’t come from no monkey”.

    NASA is not part of a sekrit conspiracy to lie to you about global warming.
    They have not lied to you about the moon-landings.
    They have not lied to you about global warming.

    It’s not “the hippies”. It’s not “the commies”. It’s not the “enviro-fascists” or something. It’s not even (gasp) Al Gore!

    It’s NASA.
    Don’t let FoxNews tell you what NASA says.
    Go to NASA directly. Let them tell you themselves in their own words.
    That’s a good way to avoid spin.
    Go direct to the source.

    It’s NASA.
    In fact, it’s all the scientific communities on the planet.
    No exceptions.
    They all agree because they all independently do the work.
    They put the boots on the ground.
    They launch the satellites.
    They do the experiments.
    They conduct expeditions to Greenland and the polar regions.
    They publish their research and are prepared to defend it in the scientific arena.
    The work.
    The scientific work.
    Climate deniers don’t do science. They do PR.

    Understand the science better by understanding the history of how that science was done.
    It’s all been documented.
    One more link.

    • June 1, 2010 at 12:38 pm

      Note the word “often” in my statement. Observation is part of Science, true? If you drop and Apple and it falls to the ground, certainly some force was acting on it. From the viewpoint of the Green movement, the Apple didn’t fall, it doesn’t exist, and we need you to fund a study to prove it. Further, Al Gore will give unchallenged speeches about the serious challenge of “Apple’s floating into space” to which he will go unchallenged by the media, and will refuse to debate the issue with anyone.

      I think if you are willing to side with an utter buffoon and liar such as Al Gore, you have some big problems. Your first area of research might be on his incredibly poor grades in college, and his penchant for making up stories that benefit himself. Claiming to have invented the internet is hardly a robust point in Al’s favor.

  3. June 5, 2010 at 8:19 am

    From the viewpoint of the Green movement, the Apple didn’t fall, it doesn’t exist, and we need you to fund a study to prove it.

    I have no idea what you are talking about.

    Further, Al Gore will give unchallenged speeches…

    What’s Al Gore got to do with anything?
    He’s not a scientist.
    Obsess about a ex-politician all you want.
    That doesn’t change reality.
    Science is the study of reality.

    I think if you are willing to side with an utter buffoon and liar such as Al Gore, you have some big problems.

    I’m not the one that fell for a bogus story just because I was too intellectually lazy to do the most basic research.
    I don’t get my science from a film or some non-scientist making a presentation.
    I don’t just watch something on cable TV and then swallow it whole.

    I check out what the scientific communities around the world are saying themselves.
    I look at the peer-reviewed literature.
    I look at the work being done.
    I go direct to the source to avoid spin.

    NASA.
    Not Al Gore.
    NASA.
    (The people that planted the American Flag on the moon and helped the free world win the Cold War, remember?).
    That NASA.

    NASA never magically became a hotbed of pinko hippies one night in 1996 or something.
    All of the scientific communities on the planet are not involved in some vast, evil, Stalinist conspiracy just to get you.
    Really.

    The only way to find out about the Earth’s climate is to…study it.
    That’s what the scientists have been doing.
    That’s what they continue to do.
    They are telling us that the climate is changing and that we are responsible for it and that this is not good.

    It’s not about hippies. It’s not about “the commies” or something.
    It’s about the science.
    There is no conspiracy.

    • June 16, 2010 at 1:04 pm

      Perhaps you need to do your own research: NASA was disproved on Global Warming in relation to their assertion that “this is the hottest decade in recorded history” which is actually during the dust bowl era. And do you know who called them out on it? A teenager.

      On Al Gore: Seriously, you don’t think that Al Gore is the spokesman of the Global Warming fraud? So many details of his movie have been disproved, they should take back his Nobel Peace prize. Further, what does global temperature have to do with Peace?

      I have no problem with studying world climate patterns. But if you come out and state falsehoods and refuse to debate the issues, then you do not have Science, you have political indoctrination.

  4. June 19, 2010 at 2:30 pm

    NASA was disproved on Global Warming in relation to their assertion that “this is the hottest decade in recorded history” which is actually during the dust bowl era.

    I have no idea what you are talking about.
    Sound…fascinating.
    Details. Link maybe?
    Or is this another poorly fact-checked story of yours that will collapse utterly with 30 seconds of light investigation?
    Give me the details.
    I’m quite confident that I can get to the bottom of it all.

    On Al Gore: Seriously, you don’t think that Al Gore is the spokesman of the Global Warming fraud?

    Al Gore is an ex-politician.
    I could care less about what he has to say.
    If he died tomorrow, I would lose no sleep over it at all.
    I’m no fan.
    Never even saw his movie.
    Obsessing about Al Gore one way or the other is a waste of time.
    Focus on the science.
    That’s the only thing that counts.

    When I want to find out about science issues, I go and check out the scientists that do the work and put boots on the ground.
    That’s what educated people do.
    I don’t go to the nursing home retirees or listen to some talking head on TV.

    I have no problem with studying world climate patterns.

    I doubt it. Where do you get your information from on world climate patterns?
    Blogs? TV shows? The tabloids?
    I don’t.

    But if you come out and state falsehoods and refuse to debate the issues, then you do not have Science, you have political indoctrination.

    No idea what you are taking about. The global scientific community is not a high-school debating club. They have work to do. They do science.
    Creationists call for debate too.
    As do the anti-vaccers.
    And the HIV deniers.

    Science is not fair. All ideas are not treated equally. Only those that have satisfied the test of experiment or can be tested by experiment have any currency. Beautiful ideas, elegant ideas and even sacrosanct notions are not immune from termination by the chilling knife edge of experimental data.

    Less “debate”, more science.

    Academic debate on controversial topics is fine, but those topics need to have a basis in reality. I would not invite a creationist to a debate on campus for the same reason that I would not invite an alchemist, a flat-earther, an astrologer, a psychic, or a Holocaust revisionist. These ideas have no scientific support, and that is why they have all been discarded by credible scholars. Creationism is in the same category.

    Instead of spending time on public debates, why aren’t members of your institute publishing their ideas in prominent peer-reviewed journals such as Science, Nature, or the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences? If you want to be taken seriously by scientists and scholars, this is where you need to publish. Academic publishing is an intellectual free market, where ideas that have credible empirical support are carefully and thoroughly explored. Nothing could possibly be more exciting and electrifying to biology than scientific disproof of evolutionary theory or scientific proof of the existence of a god. That would be Nobel Prize winning work, and it would be eagerly published by any of the prominent mainstream journals.

    “Conspiracy” is the predictable response by Ben Stein and the frustrated creationists. But conspiracy theories are a joke, because science places a high premium on intellectual honesty and on new empirical studies that overturn previously established principles. Creationism doesn’t live up to these standards, so its proponents are relegated to the sidelines, publishing in books, blogs, websites, and obscure journals that don’t maintain scientific standards.
    Link

    If somebody has something to say about the climate, then they must enter the scientific arena and put their views to the test.
    There is no substitute for actual scientific work.
    Certainly not “debates” on the TV.
    That’s not science.

    If you want to understand the Earth’s climate, then you have to conduct active scientific research on it.
    You have to do work.
    All the scientific communities on the planet that do the research are in agreement that global warming is real, that we are responsible for it and that this is not good.
    That agreement came about slowly after decades of peer-reviewed research.
    There were no short-cuts.
    No hanky-panky.
    It just science done the boring, old-fashioned way.

    Invoking a paranoid conspiracy just because you don’t like what they are saying is dishonest.

    • June 23, 2010 at 2:26 pm

      Nytimes, is that acceptable?

      http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/10/hottest-year-data-meltdown/

      I could care less if you are bright enought not to follow Al Gore. The simple fact that he won the Nobel Peace Prize based on a movie filled with faulty data should concern you, as well as the fact he made 50 million dollars from his company dealing in “Carbon credits”. I can only imagine if George Bush had made 50 mil off Halliburton how much the Left would howl. He is the guru of faux climate change, like it or not.

      My point is simple on the whole subject, the World’s climate is not easily measurable and is incredibly dynamic. Simply “cherry picking” data to prove world destruction when that data is meaningless to the whole, is fraud.

      If you wish to hand over your money to a world governing body so they can shut down the U.S. economy with almost nil change in global temperature as the result–be my guest–but make sure it is your money you give away, now everyone else’s.

  5. June 25, 2010 at 2:57 am

    Nytimes, is that acceptable?

    Heck no.
    Why would it be acceptable to get science information from…a newspaper?
    Go direct to the scientific community.
    Read what the people who do the actual work themselves have to say.
    Not some clown of a reporter.

    NASA was disproved on Global Warming in relation to their assertion that “this is the hottest decade in recorded history” which is actually during the dust bowl era.

    Still waiting for you to back up this one.
    The link you provide doesn’t help at all. There is no mention of NASA being disproved that this is the hottest decade on record. In fact, there’s no talk of decades at all. Just individual years.
    Nor is there any mention of this mysterious teenager.

    I could care less if you are bright enought not to follow Al Gore.

    If it’s bright not to follow Al Gore, then surely you should do the same?
    I don’t care what he has to say one way or another.
    Really.
    Yet…you do.
    You seem obsessed with him.
    You don’t seem to be capable of writing a post without mentioning him.
    Stop following him and just focus on the science.

    My point is simple on the whole subject, the World’s climate is not easily measurable and is incredibly dynamic.

    So what?
    Do you really think you have said something significant or profound?
    The same can be said about Biology and Astronomy and Vulcanology and a whole range of scientific subjects.
    Science is hard.
    Science is tough to understand and research.
    Deal with it.
    That’s why there are this people called scientists who devote their entire lives to it using complicated equipment and massive computers in order to gain knowledge.
    Some of the best of them work for NASA.

    Simply “cherry picking” data to prove world destruction when that data is meaningless to the whole, is fraud.

    That would indeed be wrong, if it’s true.
    Yet once again I have no idea what you are talking about.
    What data has been “cherry picked”? What “whole” are you referring to?
    Or is this just vague, handwaving on your part.

    If you wish to hand over your money to a world governing body…

    You mean the Illuminatii? The Vatican? The Elders of Zion?
    Paranoia is a poor substitute for science.

    As I have said, if you want to understand the Earth’s climate, then you have to conduct active scientific research on it.
    There’s really no other way.
    Science is about the study of reality.
    You don’t seem to be interested in it much.

    NASA is a good place to start.
    They have a web-site that carefully explains to the public about their work on global warming.
    No need for blogs or talking heads on cable TV or odd-ball newspaper articles.
    Go direct to the source.
    Here’s their link.

    • June 29, 2010 at 3:18 pm

      Cedric, now you are being completely myopic, which seems to define your type. I gave you the link to the NYTimes article, which had included links, but apparently you refused to read it. If you will not read a newspaper with a Leftist bent that agrees with you more times than not, then you expose yourself as someone who has succumbed to Global Warming as your religion. This means anything I say you will never listen to, so why bother? It could be 20 degrees below normal all over the world for a period of time, and you would still state it was Global Warming that was causing it.

      Remember that Science is about testing a hypothesis. And and any hypothesis should be challenged. If it holds up, it becomes closer to “fact”, but is always open for new Scientific scrutiny. The fact that you and your brethren scream “settled Science!” shows you are intellectually vacuous, because Science is never truly settled. If it were, we would still consider the Earth as the center of the galaxy, a point I have made before.

  6. June 30, 2010 at 12:54 am

    I gave you the link to the NYTimes article, which had included links, but apparently you refused to read it.

    No, I followed the link you gave me.
    I read all of the article.
    Carefully.

    There was NO mention of a mysterious teenager debunking the evil NASA conspiracy.

    This is what you claimed…

    NASA was disproved on Global Warming in relation to their assertion that “this is the hottest decade in recorded history” which is actually during the dust bowl era.

    So far, you have provided nothing to back this up.
    I really did read the link.
    I read it.
    Zilch. Nada. Opso.

    There’s nothing there that helps you out.

    Do you have more specific information? A better link? Then let’s have it.
    This is not a game for me.
    Produce your evidence.

    If you will not read a newspaper with a Leftist bent that agrees with you more times than not…

    Several problems here.
    I don’t get my science information from newspapers.
    Never.
    Why would I care what a stupid newspaper has to say about science?
    If I want to know about science then I will go directly to the scientists.

    A newspaper with a Lefty bent is no more interesting or inherently more trustworthy than a newspaper with a Righty bent.
    They are both equally worthless.

    I’m not telling you to not trust newspapers with a Lefty bent.
    I’m telling you not to trust newspapers on science issues.
    They don’t know anything about science.
    They are just reporters working to a deadline.
    Get your science from science sources.
    That’s the smart play.

    …then you expose yourself as someone who has succumbed to Global Warming as your religion.

    Nope. Not getting your science from newspapers is smart.
    It’s the best way to avoid spin.
    That’s not being “religious”.
    That’s being careful.
    That being careful about sources of information and trying to get the best sources possible.
    Being discriminating and demanding only the best is a…good thing.

    This means anything I say you will never listen to, so why bother?

    I am listening to you.
    You just don’t seem to be interested in science.
    (Though you deserve to be congratulated for not rambling on about Al Gore this time around. Thanks.)

    I asked you to back up your assertion that NASA was wrong about the hottest decade on record.
    I listened to you.
    I read the link.
    I read it. I didn’t refuse to read it.
    I actually read it.

    But…there’s nothing there that supports your assertion.
    Nothing.
    Go ahead and quote the part that I missed.
    Please.
    Yet I think you will find that I’m right on this one.
    This “NASA was proved wrong about the decade” story seems to be nothing more that a misunderstanding on your part.

    The fact that you and your brethren scream “settled Science!” shows you are intellectually vacuous, because Science is never truly settled.

    Nope. I’ve never said “Settled science”. Neither does the US Navy. You are repeating a denialist meme otherwise known as a PRATT.

    You compare science to religion a lot. Have you noticed?

    He is the guru..
    …succumbed to Global Warming as your religion.
    …you and your brethren.

    The problem is that…NASA is not a member of any “brethren”.
    They don’t do a lot of religious mumbo-jumbo at NASA.
    They do science.
    They’re very good at it.
    Then there’s the Royal Society and the NAS and the USGC and NOAA and every single scientific community on the planet.
    Same goes with them too.

    Maybe I’m wrong but I’m pretty confident that they know more about science than you do and I don’t really think that they are part of some sekrit religious global conspiracy.

    Do you know why you are handwaving and trying paint science as a religion?
    You are doing for the same reason anti-vaccers and creationists and HIV deniers do it.
    You cannot compete in the scientific arena.

    Portraying Science as Faith and Consensus as Dogma

    Since the ideas proposed by deniers do not meet rigorous scientific standards, they cannot hope to compete against the mainstream theories. They cannot raise the level of their beliefs up to the standards of mainstream science; therefore they attempt to lower the status of the denied science down to the level of religious faith, characterizing scientific consensus as scientific dogma. As one HIV denier quoted in Maggiore’s book remarked,

    “There is classical science, the way it’s supposed to work, and then there’s religion. I regained my sanity when I realized that AIDS science was a religious discourse. The one thing I will go to my grave not understanding is why everyone was so quick to accept everything the government said as truth. Especially the central myth: the cause of AIDS is known.”

    Others suggest that the entire spectrum of modern medicine is a religion.

    Deniers also paint themselves as skeptics working to break down a misguided and deeply rooted belief. They argue that when mainstream scientists speak out against the scientific “orthodoxy,” they are persecuted and dismissed. For example, HIV deniers make much of the demise of Peter Duesberg’s career, claiming that when he began speaking out against HIV as the cause of AIDS, he was “ignored and discredited” because of his dissidence. South African President Mbeki went even further, stating: “In an earlier period in human history, these [dissidents] would be heretics that would be burnt at the stake!”.

    HIV deniers accuse scientists of quashing dissent regarding the cause of AIDS, and not allowing so-called “alternative” theories to be heard. However, this claim could be applied to any well-established scientific theory that is being challenged by politically motivated pseudoscientific notions—for example, creationist challenges to evolution.
    Link.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: