The only man to prove that a Boeing 757 is cheaper per-hour than a GV. (Hint for non-aviation types: It isn't, because the one is a naff-off big airliner and the other is a relatively small business jet.)
We should definitely treat this ICECAP stuff with all the respect input from a TV weatherman deserves, yes indeedy! (Check out the list of leaders of this group to see who is at the top, when that is not just down to the alphabet unless these people are not just possibly deluded but definitely dyslexic.)
jcbmack, when you were flying around in your Leer Jet did you see anything that led you to personally doubt this 'climate change' stuff? I have to ask because my time as a pilot led me to sort of believe in it, albeit in a rather unscientific, almost data-free manner, as is my wont. What did your time as a pilot in the Leer Jet lead you to believe, (when you did tell us at one point, or perhaps just lead us to believe, that you are a qualified Leer Jet pilot)?
I am happy to read contrasting opinions on AGW, when I might well have it wrong in large part. (I was just chatting with a German prof at my son's graduation do, when he had some surprising things to say about AGW.) What makes me rather unhappy is to have some clown try to pull the wool over my eyes.
When Lord Monckton tries to put a curveball over the plate by stating that Amundsen sailed the Northwest Passage as proof that it was largely ice-free at that time, well, that is quite annoying. The questions are much more, 'How stupid does this man think his audience is?' and, 'Does he believe his own BS?'
jcbmack, when you were flying around in your Leer Jet did you see anything that led you to personally doubt this 'climate change' stuff? I have to ask because my time as a pilot led me to sort of believe in it.
Going to bless us with these "events" like you refuse to do so with your other "experiences" in Africa or are you just going to try and belittle someone who doesn't agree with you. Again.
Come on chuks, that's another allegation of your "experiences" so put up or shut up.
I finally managed to find the article I mentioned earlier, this was one of a few articles that started me to question the whole AGW bandwagon, the figures about 'greenhouse gases' make very interesting reading.
It was not completely correct to state that no ships had managed the Northwest Passage until recently, since a very few had done that. They had done that despite the ice, however, so that it was correct to say that the ice has only recently receded. Just think about this matter of the oil from Alaska's North Slope, and how it is brought to market, when that pretty well shows where the larger truth in this one lies.
On the other hand, to imply that Amundsen's transit from 1903 on showed that it was then ice-free... that was just a feeble attempt at deceit when you get right down to it. Someone told that wants very much to believe Monckton and is totally ignorant of what Amundsen achieved not to see a charlatan in action.
Given that I am not going to be found out doing original climate research, but just reading about that second- or third-hand, the question of 'trust' arises, when I would not take Christopher Monckton's or Dr Mörner on trust about much of anything. Come to that, I have never seen this movie An Uncomfortable Truth, but it would not surprise me to find out that it has shaded the truth in some areas in order to make its point. Movies (and politicians) tend to do that, I find. Please don't think that I am a blind believer in Al Gore, despite his Nobel Prize.
I am sure that we are not going to be doing anything drastic about AGW. Yes, there should be some carbon credit trading or whatever, but whether this is a good or bad thing I don't think there will be much more action than that. 'We the public' usually have a gnat-like attention span and next year should bring something new to agonize over. Well, until AGW, if it is a fact, becomes too obvious to ignore.
hellsbrink, you do not know what you are asking for! For me to share my deep knowledge from Africa with you... What happened when you tried to charge your mobile phone battery from that 380-volt, three-phase outlet? We cannot risk it, sorry.
Oh, alright, 'wrong,' then! Have it your way. And Monckton telling us that it has been ice-free in the past and that Amundsen used a sail boat to cross it? I guess that one gets a 'factually correct but a big, fat, flaming porkie none the less!'
You guys are not fitted with reverse gears, are you? There is no backing off from Monckton or Mörner, just an attempt to show that AGW people can come close to being that batty, not that they can get there.
Anyway, I still believe in Oppenheimer. He says 83 feet and we still have 8.5 years to go, less than ten feet a year, so 'Go, Global Warming!'
See, you just need to have faith! Blind, fanatical faith... sort of like going on a crusade, if you like to think of it that way....
err, chuks. You do understand that the world has been going through climate changes for millions of years now..
The earth is currently warming up from the last little cold period it had. Been warming for 150 years now. It would be expected that the sea ice area extent would be reducing from the 'highs' of the last mini ice age...
Our ever changing Climate through the Ages...
(My comments in brackets)
"...Traffic across the Alpine passes, as shown by the transmission of culture, became important about 1800 B.C. when (due to global warming) the Brenner Pass first became traversable, and reached a maximum at the end of the Bronze Age and in the early Hallstatt period, or about 1200-900 B.C. The valley settlements of the late Hallstatt period developed independently apparently in complete isolation, and traffic across the passes was at a minimum ( due to global cooling ) There was a slight revival at the end of the La Tene period and in the early Roman Empire (200 B.C. to A.D. 0 ) but it was not until between A.D. 700 and 1000 that this traffic again developed on a considerable scale (due to global warming) There was a re-advance of the glaciers in the western Alps about A.D. 1300, followed by a retreat to a minimum extent in the fifteenth century ( due to global cooling ) Near the end of the sixteenth century the glaciers advanced rapidly and about 1605 they overran settlements which had been occupied since the beginning of history. About the same time the glaciers advanced in the Eastern Alps, Iceland, where they almost reached the moraines of the late glacial stages, and probably in other parts of the world and the period from 1600 to 1850 has been termed the “little ice age.” There were minor maxima of glaciations about 1820 and 1850 since then the glaciers and ice sheets have been in rapid retreat in all parts of the world..."
via Climate through the Ages, C. E. P. Brooks. First published 1926
I think I have read a few books about this sort of thing, yes, but thanks for pointing it out.
Lord Monckton was writing about the Northwest Passage to say that it had been traversed around 1903 by Amundsen who sailed it or used a sail boat or something like that. I think that any reasonable person who knows the full facts of how Amundsen did this feat can understand that the Northwest Passage was anything but largely free of ice at that time.
In the same way, to baldly state that the S.S. Manhattan went through in the recent past is BS if it is not made clear that this ship was specially reinforced against ice damage, plus it was accompanied by a Canadian ice-breaker. Otherwise you are again giving the totally false impression that this was a normal ship using an ice-free Northwest Passage. No, it was a ship that plowed its way through heavy ice, after which it was judged impractical to do that on a commercial basis.
Here we are speaking of the recent past! You would be a bit peed off if I told you that you could walk from the shores of the Mediterranean all the way to Timbuktu just because Ibn Batuta did that, leaving out the fact of a bit of climate change in the meantime.
Medieval warm period “…near Cape Farewell (Greenland) The most important evidence is derived from the excavation of the churchyard, in soil which is now frozen solid throughout the year, but which, when the bodies were buried, must have thawed for a time in summer, because the coffins, shrouds, and even the bodies were penetrated by roots of plants. At first the ground thawed to a considerable depth, for the early coffins were buried comparatively deeply. After a time these early remains were permantly frozen in, and later burials lie nearer and nearer to the surface …. Finally, at least 500 years ago, the ground became permantly frozen, and has remained in that condition ever since, thus preserving the bodies…”
Quote via Hovgaard, Climate through the Ages, C. E. P. Brooks, First published 1926.
Hmmm, so Greenland once were a lot warmer then today.... aint that somewhere near the North West passage ?..
Thanks so much for telling me stuff I had absolutely no idea about...
You can go back even further than that if you want, Mr Binghi. The history of the Viking settlements on Greenland is a very well known story, how the climate there was mild at first but gradually became colder, so that the Norsemen went down unwilling to adapt, the way their Inuit neighbors did to survive.
You know, I bet there was Kristof Rolling-eyes Munkten there in the mead hall, giving a talk about how Climate Change was just a hoax put about on the part of those who wanted to see people reduced to eating fish instead of beef, that there was no cause for concern over wild allegations that it was getting too cold to farm in the old way. After concluding to rapturous applause he excused himself, saying that he had to go chip the ice off his cow...
The big palaver now, I believe, is this wild allegation that the latest change is much more extreme than those we have seen in the past, made that way by high levels of carbon dioxide, what we loosely call AGW. I am quite sure this was just something all those scientists cooked up, along with Al Gore and the University of East Anglia. There soon will be a special bus along to tell us more about this, I believe.
'We' in the sense of people nowadays, when you don't have to believe in it, you just have to know what the acronym 'AGW' stands for.
I don't believe in 'laying on of hands' but I know what the term refers to. Just take that for being educated, knowing how 'we' refer to this or that with belief set aside, and then go have a lie-down, why don't you?