49

So the poles are going to melt huh?

by Whaleoil on December 27, 2009

The major thing the warm-mongering alarmists like to scare the population with is that the Poles are going to melt and sea water level will rise hundreds of metres submerging much of the worlds coastline. It is of course complete poppycock.

If all you read are faked up “peer-reviewed” scientific journals based on doctored data and politicians dreams then you will emphatically believe that.

If you read interesting articles about intrepid explorers you find that such a thing is impossible. I say impossible because the math doesn’t work. And it is simple math that you don’t need a complex algorithm to hide the decline.

While others have been dreaming of a white Christmas, Kylie Wakelin has been dreaming of Marmite on toast.

The Twizel adventurer is just days away from becoming the first Kiwi woman to trek to the South Pole; and she spent Christmas Day in sub-zero temperatures trying to stave off frostbite and towing an 80kg sled loaded with food and equipment.

Wakelin, 36, is one of seven women travelling over 800km to the Pole to the mark the 60th anniversary of the Commonwealth.

She stepped in as New Zealand’s representative on the expedition in early October after its British leader, Felicity Aston, axed a New Zealand Army doctor, Major Charmaine Tate, 33, who had trained with the team in both Norway and New Zealand.

The women, all from Commonwealth nations, have been skiing 24-28km each day and are on track to reach the Pole by the middle of this week.

Speaking to the Sunday Star-Times from the polar plateau where the temperature has been averaging about -30C, Wakelin said the journey was beginning to take its toll on her body.

Right so here is the math for the terminally stupid who can’t see what I am talking about. The warm-mongerers say that at halting the alleged warming of the world at only 2 degrees more we will still have doomed the planet. I call bullshit on that. Let’s take an extreme view and pretend the lying, cheating, scientists have got it right and then add in Al Gore’s penchant for exaggeration and say that the planet is going to warm a massive 15 degrees. What will happen?

Nothing, the poles will NOT melt. Still haven’t got it. Ok I’ll dumb it down a little more for the warmenisers.

In the middle of SUMMER some intrepid explorers are walking to the South Pole, they aren’t there yet they are some way off, but they are experiencing temperatures of -30C. Taking the IPCC goal of 2 degrees off of that leaves them still at -28C. Unless I was lied to at school and all the text books and Wikipedia entries are also wrong, water freezes at 0C. So let’s take what the warmenisers would call utter catastrophe a warming of 15C. There would still be Polar ice caps because our intrepid explorers would still be walking towards the South pole in a relatively balmy -15C, still some way off that snow and ice melting catastrophically.

So, who are you going to believe, lying scientists cosseted up in their air conditioned offices making up data, altering records and “hiding the decline” or a woman freezing her tits off at -30C?

Tagged:

Related posts

  • guest

    You don't understand climate science or physics in the even the tiniest degree, you moron. Try showing up at forums like "hot topic" and you'll get torn to pieces. You're not even remotely capable of quoting climate science claims correctly. It's a good thing anti-GW and anti-AGW types are for the most part as ignorant and stupid as you are – otherwise there would be a lot more to be nervous about. When the dim general public finally wake up and realise what aload of self-serving crap the likes of you (a "useful idiot" as the Lenin expression went) and your political/religious/corporate masters have been feeding them, you'll be in deep trouble, you nincompoop.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Whaleoil Whaleoil

      As if I am going to listen to anyone called Rupert.

    • jagilby

      Heh.
      I would have thought that the term "useful idiot" would be more applicable to those who believe in AGW

      If Copenhagen had been a "success" then we would probably be looking at the greatest redistribution of wealth in history and the end of capitalism as we know it. A lot of skepticism stems from the fact that the argument has been completely high-jacked by former Marxists, Maoists, Socialists et al.

      Lenin coined the term "useful idiot" as a reference to those who campaigned against capitalism in Western countries (i.e. Socialist and Marxist retards). While I don't disagree that the Whale's argument in this instance is pretty weak there is a certain irony in you using the term useful idiot.

    • Salinger

      Now that's what I call a thought-provoking argument… Whale might be a bit light on the science, but irony seems to be lost on"Guest". I look forward to reading his erudite contribution to climate science.

    • zork

      A Lenin quote, got anything useful from that prick Stalin, you commie creep!

  • Michaels

    Guest is a twat!!
    I was listening to Santa talk with Leighton Smith last week and he said there is shit loads of snow at the North Pole.

  • James

    I sincerely hope the Poles don’t melt. That would surely spell the end of pole dancing.

  • Paul

    The claimed 2C rise is an average over-all temperature, and the actual amount would vary depending on location and time of year. I don't believe the alarmist claims of extreme warming made by the climate pseudo-scientists. By 'pseudo scientists', I mean those identified in Climategate where it is clear they simply don't understand or practice the principles of science that have served humanity so well over the last few centuries.

    The South Pole has actually been growing in ice mass for the last decade or so and the North Pole melting hasn't been as alarming as claimed by warmers. The North Pole ice being primarily low-lying sea ice means that their melting would actually cause sea levels to decline.

  • mediatart

    During the last ice age maximum, most of the North Pole was about the same as now , in spite of Kilometres thick of ice covering much of north America. Simple really. You cant get ice sheets without snow . The antarctic being surrounded by ocean gets more snow , but still only small amounts.
    The warmongers have latched into melting as a 'visual' and the possibility of temperate coastal areas having rising seal levels to scare us. They can build sea walls faster than any melting which on current 'observations' is cm per century.

  • Guest

    Since top climate "scientists" boast about manipulating data and bullying editors to suppress other viewpoints, their claims can hardly be taken seriously. I wouldn't call Climate Science a "science" until they clean up their act.

  • zork

    If sea levels are going to rise, what is the Gov't doing now to get people to stop building their house anywhere near the beach and move the ones that are already there away from the danger?

    • mediatart

      In NZ the land is moving much faster than the ocean is rising. The most affected areas are coastal beach areas where the normal effect of waves removes the beach front. In the nineties it was Waihi Beach , this century is around Haumoana in HB. When it happens it happens . There are parts of Englands coast that have been disapearing for 100 years. Mainly on the Norfolk coast. Parts of germany went under in the 17th century.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/The_Grizz The_Grizz

        Lets not forget that the 1932 Hawkes bay earthquake increased Hawkes bay foreshore. The 1855 Wellington earthquake caused a 2metre elevation of parts of the seashore turning the Basin reserve into land and the Taupo estaury into a swamp. It is good to know that nature is alive and the level of the seashore has been rising and falling since the dreamtime.

  • BenT

    Now I'm not going to side with the alarmists on this one – I just want to make that clear, but WhaleOil your reasoning is not sound in this case.
    Have you considered the temperature at that Ice-Water boundary? That'll obviously be in the region of zero degrees C – that's where the ice turns to water.
    Now IF the global average temperature were to raise 2 deg C, it'd still be a chilly -28 at the pole, yes. But it'd also now be 2 deg C warmer at the Ice/Water boundary as well – meaning that boundary will move and stabilise on the point that is now zero deg C

  • BenT

    And the article you included really was unnecessary. The only remotely pertinent fact is that the temperature is averaging -30 deg C, reported in the last sentence of what is otherwise a completely irrelevant article. You carry on to explain to the "terminally stupid" how this constitutes a complete and valid argument against the claims being made.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Ciaron Ciaron

      perhaps in response to the alarmists who decree that all the ice will be gone?

  • PK:)

    What's even more alarming is in the original article if you read on further it states that there are seven women menstruating on that journey, now that's scary….

  • PK:)

    Ever heard of stadium building politics? The Auckland waterfront looks like shit anyway so who gives a fuck if it flooded after the RWC – wouldn't look any worse than it does now.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/billhicks billhicks

    Zork…..sea levels are not rising,It is coastal erosion that is affecting houses and batches by the sea…the real problem is people like this.. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/chr…

  • caleb

    all that ice melts into the ocean and cools it…

  • Chris

    My comment is only about method. As Editor of a scholarly journal (unrelated to climate), I'd suggest that peer-review, while not without its failings, does at least represent what Thomas Kuhn called 'normal science' in any given field, that is, the best assessment humanly possible, the current consensus among experts in a given discipline.

    Do scientists argue about the interpretation of observational results and about the methods used to gather them? Of course they do – they're meant to. To be 'scientific', a theory must, by definition, be falsifiable – capable of being disproven.

    Dispute about _the interpretation_ of observational data is not debate about _the existence_ of the data. They help keep science 'science', as opposed to belief, dogma, uninformed opinion, or rhetoric. While those things have their places in society, they are simply not 'science'.

    Credentialed scientists, within particular fields, are best equipped to assess the validity of theories, and/or of individual studies or articles in those fields – certainly more so than politicians or laypeople (however well-intentioned). If you do away with the process of peer-review, you are left with a world in which expertise in any field whatsoever, be it brick-laying or quantum physics – is no more valuable than uneducated opinion.

    How does peer-review work? In double-blind reviews, the reviewers do not know who wrote an article, and the authors don't know who is doing the review. New articles, stripped of anything to identify their authors, are read by at least 2-3 established experts, who ideally don't even know who the other reviewers are. They submit their recommendations to an editor or an editorial board, also made up of people who know the field.

    The article may be accepted outright, sent back for revisions, or rejected. The most highly respected journals tend to have the highest rejection rates – in other words, your work has to be very good indeed, both in its method and in its reasoning, before it gets published in those journals.

    That is how theories are refined, and sometimes overturned (Kuhn's 'paradigm shifts'). Without scholarly debate, the process doesn't work. Informed disputes over the meaning of observational results are expected – in fact, essential. Those who claim that the results are 'fudged' do not understand the process. If they were, they would eventually be found-out and rejected. One or two clever fakes might make it through, but not hundreds of similar articles.

    The idea that individual authors, or even large groups of authors, could 'bully editors' into accepting their viewpoints, is a bit silly. While editors generally accept the recommendations of the reviewers, only an author intent on professional suicide would deliberately alienate an editor. To a scientist, or to a scholar in almost any academic field, not being published can mean losing your job. If there were no global temperature changes to measure, there would still be other phenomena to study, so to suggest that self-interest underlies the work is likewise silly.

    The most obvious drawback of peer-review is that it can act as a hand brake, slowing down the acceptance of fresh new theories or approaches. In this case, a search of a database (such as Academic OneFile or Web of Science), which can limit searches _only_ to scientific articles, excluding articles in the popular press, will demonstrate conclusively that this idea has gained widespread acceptance among credentialed experts.

    The only _valid_ argument against GW would be one based upon observation, generalization, theory-formulation, and testing – not just upon rhetoric or belief.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Whaleoil Whaleoil

      So how's that global warming going now about now huh?

      Or do you live in the one percent of the country that hasn't been blanketed in record snow falls?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Whaleoil Whaleoil

      877 new snowfall records set or tied in the USA in the last week, sounds like Global Warming is really kicking in now.

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/27/877-new-sno…

    • Paul

      As an editor of a scholarly journal, I would have thought that you would have informed yourself of the scope of the climate debate before entering it.

      You say "Dispute about _the interpretation_ of observational data is not debate about _the existence_ of the data. "
      Unfortunately there are disputes about the climate observational data – the data that has been released has already been interpreted and changed in ways that the climatologists have refused to detail. This is a major source of much dispute – the climatologists have been asked repeatedly for their source data, but they have been reluctant to release anything, and what they have released has been manipulated in unspecifed ways.

      Even the source data is unreliable – the vast majority of weather stations are of very poor standard. Climatology is more a pseudo-science than a real science at present.

      Please read the commentary on the climategate emails, and the emails themselves – you will see exactly how the 'climate scientists' did indeed bully editors and manouvered publication dates so as to destroy opposing views.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/billhicks billhicks
  • http://intensedebate.com/people/billhicks billhicks
  • Ben

    Maybe you should check your facts before doing the maths. Seawater freezes at about -1.9 degrees. What else did you get wrong?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Whaleoil Whaleoil

      Maybe you should check yours idiot. The South Pole is freshwater.

      Anyway at -1.9C we still have 13 degrees to play with at the worst, that ice is still going to be there fool.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/The_Grizz The_Grizz

    I am not a global warming alarmist. Nor an I thinking of this from a purely scientific analytical way. However, the South Pole has an elevation of 2800m. It likely sits upon at least 2000metres of ice. Furthermore it is a very windy place. Elevation and wind chill factor help to bring the temperatures on the South pole down to -30 degrees in current day.

    If the earth was to warm 2 degrees, as pointed out the water/ice margin would receeded towards the south pole. The snow cover over the south pole would decrease and the altitude thus decrease. Consequently the South Pole temperature would rise by more than 2 degrees. While a 2 degrees rise in temperature would not remove all polar ice, there would be a considerable decline.

    However as Chris Monckton points out, the total Polar Ice Caps have been stable over the last 20 or so years. As stated before, I am not expecting the worlds temperatures to rise anytime soon, but Whale, the argument you use is a little weak.

  • Harpoon

    Michaels and Cam … weather is not the same as climate. Just because it snows heavily, does not mean climate change is not happening. I've told you this fact before. Think about it.

    Guest (1pm 27 Dec): "Since top climate "scientists" boast about manipulating data and bullying editors to suppress other viewpoints" … does that mean you would regard as invalid the arguments of ANYONE who can shown to have possibly tended in that direction? Be careful with your answer.

    Mediatart … just because sea encroachment has happened in the past, doesnot mean that the current rate is normal. It's like saying, "my tap dripped last year; therefore my tap dripping at the rate of once a sixty times a minute is normal". Do you see the logical mistake? Same goes for temperature change.

    Ciaron … what scientists say all the ice in antarctica will be gone? Lesson: if you don't know your fact, don't bullshit.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Ciaron Ciaron

      I said: "Alarmists", not "Scientists".

      Lesson: learn to read, fuckwit.

      • Harpoon

        edit mistake. I meant to type ""my tap dripped last year; therefore my tap dripping at the rate of sixty times a minute is normal". Do you see the logical mistake? "

        … but you know that, don't you?

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Whaleoil Whaleoil

          specious example Harpoon and you know it.

          How come a hot day that is the \”hottest ever\” is the result of Climate Change and a cold day that is the \”coldest ever\” is just weather stoopid?

          Can you see the logical mistake?

          ….but you know that, don't you?

          • Harpoon

            Before I reply, may I ask what are your sources for the 'hottest ever' and 'coldest ever' quotes?

            Also, there's no need for you or other participants to call people 'stoopid' or indulge in other forms of linguistic abuse if your contrapositor has not done likewise to you.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Ciaron Ciaron

          Only if the recommended course of action is to tax everyone in the household in the hopes that they will abuse the tap less and slow the wear of the tap's internals.

          Do you see the logical mistake?:p

    • Paul

      Harpoon said "weather is not the same as climate. Just because it snows heavily, does not mean climate change is not happening. "

      Tell that to Jim Salinger – N.Z.'s own activist climatologist – he jumped the gun on NIWA when reporting NZ's hottest August in 155 years, but was subdued and tried to lessen how cold October was by claiming that it was the coldest since 1982, whereas NIWA claimed it was the coldest since 1945. Salinger said the August anomaly was just the weather, so if it was just the weather why on earth did he go to the effort of beating NIWA to report August figures, then attempt to lessen the October anomaly ?

      I detect duplicity afoot – if the AGW crowd want to push hot weather reports, then expect cold weather to be reported by the anti-AGW crowd.

      • Harpoon

        Hmmmm … hottest August in 155 years, coldest October in 65 years. That would seem to indicate that the hot stat trumps the cold one.

        But you're talking about extremes, when it's wisest to consider the trend.

        Also, since you're prepared to put so much credence in NIWA's official view, see their media statement about 2008: http://www.infonews.co.nz/news.cfm?l=1&t=101&… I'm sure you'll also agree with this statement which shows the greenhouse gas methane is increasing:
        http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications/news/…

        … and this on, which reports that "The nine-year period 2000–2008 is 0.05 ºC warmer for New Zealand than the decade of the 1980s, which was the previous warmest decade."
        http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications/news/…

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Whaleoil Whaleoil

          I put no credence in NIWA's figures, they are a bunch of Hooey. When their stats rely on just 8 stations and two of them are small remote islands hundreds in one case and over thousand kilometres in the other then they are complete crap.

          You may as well stick a thermometer in a half cook turkey it'll be as accurate as NIWA.

          • Harpoon

            I was responding to Paul's comment.

            Whale, since you "put no credence in NIWA's figures", what figures for NZ do you trust? There must be some figures you do trust, since you appear to be so certain about your position. So spill. Please.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Whaleoil Whaleoil

            Right there is the problem. NIWA are so utterly captured by the warmists and the data so horribly corrupted that it is useless.

            Until raw data is provided, un-homogenised for ALL NZ weather stations not just the hand picked 8 then the figures are going to be suspect.

        • Paul

          Lol Harpoon – you've harpooned yourself. The subject you brought up which we are discussing was 'weather is not the same as climate' – your quote. You imply that extreme hot or cold weather does not indicate climate. Yet here we have you indulging in exactly that practice – talking about extreme weather as if it were a climate indicator : 'That would seem to indicate that the hot stat trumps the cold one.'

          This is exactly what Salinger was doing – claiming that it he is just mentioning the hotest August in 155 years – 'but it's just weather'. Lol – he's tried to pull off a trick – same as you are attempting – holding forth a high temperature, but saying that it is just weather, when he, and you, know that you're trying to add credence to the AGW hypothesis. Yet it was you who complained about the talk about extreme cold weather.

          You go on to comment about trends – and yes it is right to talk about trends, but that is not salient to the point I was making about confusing extreme weather with climate.

  • zork

    If sea levels were to rise due to climate change why did the previous Govt want to build a Rugby Stadium on the water front? Think about it, be careful with answer and don't bullshit.

    • Harpoon

      Dunno … I suggest you write to Trevor Mallard to find out!

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention So the poles are going to melt huh? | Whale Oil Beef Hooked | Gotcha! -- Topsy.com

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/billhicks billhicks

    july 13 2009 rolling stone magazine…http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/291273…

  • aybesea

    Didn't "Top Scientists" talk about "limiting global warming to [whogivesafuck]degrees Celsius? Did they all stand outside in the freezing weather in their best cardies shaking their puny fists at the heavens going "Grrrrrrr!" What a bunch of wankers. "Top" ahem "Scientists", my hairy arse. Don't lets get started on earnest unwashed dreadlocked white people "Marching against climate change". MARCHING! Fuck, that'll do it. The whole world has turned into comedy gold!

  • http://mickysmuses.blogspot.com Ayrdale

    After the tipping point of Climategate, and the fiasco at Nohopenhagen, does anyone REALLY believe Al Gore's version of climatastrophe any more ? Or that AGW is REALLY about saving the planet, or that "the science is settled" ?

    Redistribution of dosh, is what it's about…and always has been.

    " H.L.Mencken wrote "The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it."

    Greens Tell Lies.

  • http://blog.naturespic.com Rob

    People like you used to think the world was flat, and they don't have jobs anymore.

    I've just been in the Arctic and our ship got to within 1000km of the North Pole before we saw ice! How does that work?: http://blog.naturespic.com/2009/07/11/robs-arctic…

    Not to mention all the Glaciers in Greenland that have disappeared. Take you head out of the sand (sorry, snow).

    Rob

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Whaleoil Whaleoil

      So it wasn't icefree then.