Thu 3 Jul 2008
Image rotated- click for source image. Credit: Terra/MODIS true color
If you look close you can see Dans yacht stuck and surrounded by polar bears while he is trying to get the trigger lock unfrozen, teach him to try and prove me wrong! Now Dan will say posting a pic that updates in real time is unscientific when I could be running around like chicken little with some lame quote saying 50-50 all the ice above will be gone.
16 Responses to “Look the north pole melted, just kidding.”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Stumble it!
-----
![[Valid RSS]](http://marginalizedactiondinosaur.net/wordp/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:46 am
Flawless logic as usual Dino…
But explain how a picture of CURRENT conditions in the Northwest passage is proof that the North Pole wont be largely ice free at some point (probably towards the end) in the FUTURE this summer.
July 3rd, 2008 at 1:50 pm
It updates, check the link often. If NASA Pulls the graphic you know the snow isn’t melting because thats science.
Do you have current conditions? Last I looked you just a catchy “the sky is falling” headline.
Some of us have heard too many of them.
I’ll bet you .168 of a carbon credit is does not melt hows that.
Or worse I’ll make you my 7:01 post and leave at the top until 16:00 hrs and admit I’m wrong “if” it melts. Not just some surface water but actual melting. I think the pole has 2 more weeks of daylight.
Will you do the same on 1 OCT if it hasn’t by then Dan?
July 3rd, 2008 at 2:36 pm
You don’t get it do you?
I am not saying it will melt (the scientists give that 50/50 odds) I am saying that your post doesn’t speak to the probability of the north pole being ice free.
“If NASA Pulls the graphic you know the snow isn’t melting because thats science.”
Bullshit. There are plenty of legitimate reasons why a graphic might be pulled. Not everything is a conspiracy.
July 3rd, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Thats a good post, if you go to the comments section of the h/t link, GK has added some even better daily images that show 100% coverage of sea ice over the entire pole.
July 3rd, 2008 at 4:03 pm
I think this may be the original “50/50″ story.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=61847§ionid=3510208
Their calling him “the Strawman” now.
He was “scientists” now he’s “the strawman”!
Those lefties won’t be had.
July 3rd, 2008 at 4:10 pm
“daily images that show 100% coverage of sea ice over the entire pole.”
Congratulations Blanks on showing that you are completely don’t understand the difference between the PRESENT and the FUTURE.
Really you and dino are a barrel of laughs
July 3rd, 2008 at 5:00 pm
I admit to not being up on the subject nor a scientist, I see what you mean but the images are telling of what’s really going on at the N pole and there’s still ice in Hudson Bay.
Please scruffy and those of you who think “deniers” should be “killed” spare me the drool.
There’s some talk now that NASA may be fudging the numbers they use to give the appearance of warming when in fact for the last twenty years the Globe may have actually been cooling.
Ya,I guess that’s why NASA might pull their image if they don’t like the story.
NASA should be investigated.
July 3rd, 2008 at 5:45 pm
I like how Dan thinks he can come here prophesy doom and then go it’s only 50 / 50….
Is that what Einstein said about relativity, it’s 50 50? Or neiles Bohr or Newton’s laws of gravity, oh wait they were real scientists.
I expect 20 bucks at least on paypal Dan for your indignant attitude. Maybe 100.
It’s blatant fear mongering Just like when David Suzuki said we have ruined the earth and have 10 years left, he said it 20 + years ago.
You posted because the world will end and I should be filled with fear. If there’s no sea Ice I’ll pop 20 bucks towards your blog. I should have better odds because like you say again, and again, and again, the people you are talking about are way smarter than me.
Now feel the fear that you will owe me.
Blanks if Nasa pulls the image by god, I’ll find another.
text from your link
July 3rd, 2008 at 8:20 pm
“There’s some talk now that NASA may be fudging the numbers”
By who? by wankers who can’t get their work published in peer-review. On that note there is talk about who Darwinists have fudged the recent data showing remarkable mutations on E. Coli in a recent study. And there is talk about how the moon landing was fake. Yawn…
As I said both of you are a barrel of laughs. Keep up the good work
July 4th, 2008 at 6:20 am
I note you are so convinced of you opinion you refuse to put up 100 bucks for your “real” science if the north pole doesn’t melt.
I’m willing to put up 20 like you say I’m just a barrel of laughs so I shouldn’t be held to the same high expectations as someone as smart as you with all the acronymes you throw out.
blanks re fudging the numbers thats why surface stations.org exists to show how they are making it warmer by bad placement of weather stations. If that isn’t fudging the numbers but as far as I know that wasn’t NASA.
As for Peer reviewed I have posted peer reviewed work that disagrees with you. Why Mann reviewing his own work counts as peer review I want to know. In fact if memory serves Climate Audits was a peer reviewer for one round of IPCC reporting and they ignored the entire review.
July 4th, 2008 at 7:03 am
Right now I’m considering suing ScruffyDan, who I now refer to as PottyDan for the recent tale of lies at his site and that any elementary school graduate could see through.
Potty’s web site is a lawyers wet dream that could come true.
Diregard for any research other than the drivel of some other expert.
It’s criminal and not only that I read a blog comment that called for “the killing” of “global warming deniers”.
He also removed my comment pointing out some of the tale of lies.
July 4th, 2008 at 7:16 am
You’ll note he’s too chicken to take my 20:100 challenge.
And while here he talks about experts was his bold pronouncement that the north pole would melt peer reviewed? In fact most of what he puts up on his blog is from barely scientific sources. The BBC etc.
I like how the left thinks though anything I put up has to be gone over with a fine toothed comb. But they can post any drivel by some activist at the BBC as science. Is everything he posts peer reviewed nyet.
If he deletes you post as Ron or Matthew he posted as them here did you put 5-6 comments in a row on one thread.
July 4th, 2008 at 9:27 am
blanks, you are an idiot. Completely ignorant of both the science and the law. Perhaps I should sue you for slander, because I certainly have not once called for the “the killing†of “global warming deniersâ€. Pathetic.
I assume if Blanks sues me I can count on you, Dino, to stand up for my right of free speech, just like you have stood up to defend Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant.
July 4th, 2008 at 9:35 am
The difference between what I post over at my site, and the dribble you post here is that my posts are in general agreement with the convulsions arrived at by the scientific community in peer-reviewed papers, what you have here isn’t.
July 5th, 2008 at 7:29 am
Dan Libel and free speech are 2 separate things, it’s Kinsella’s right to sue me for calling him names if he thinks I went too far. It isn’t if I say I abhor our immigration policy like most Canadians and want immigration rates cut.
So it depends what he sues you for, then it would come down to do I think it’s a stupid reason to sue. Like Warman for the coverage that us bloggers have made of his rot. the Anne cools remark and stealing WIfi signals. Libel chill, eh.
I note you still aren’t willing to put 100 bucks to prove the dribble I post is wrong, I have pre times posts for the start of august sept and oct to remind me to look at the ice sheets.
Dribble, maybe I should sue, seems everyone else is. I feel left out, woe is me.
PS Tim Ball has peer reviewed work as does Steve McIntyre. Peer review is easy Mann even peer reviews himself, LOL eh.
July 5th, 2008 at 10:15 am
“I note you still aren’t willing to put 100 bucks to prove the dribble I post is wrong”
Are you dense? I explained to you why I won’t bet you. The odds are 50/50 which means that there is as much chance that the ice will melt as there is that it won’t. And I don’t trust you to live up to your end of the bargain. Hardly seems a bet worth taking.
“PS Tim Ball has peer reviewed work as does Steve McIntyre”
Tim Ball has a few publications from the late 80s and early 90s, and none of them conclude that climate change isn’t caused by humans. He only makes such a conclusion in non-peer-reviewed literature.
Steve McIntyre published an article in Energy and Environment (not really a journal, it is only carried at 26 libraries worldwide and isn’t even included by the ISI) which was rebuked by several papers published since then (most notably in Science and the Journal of climate change, two far more prestigious journals). But even the McIntyre paper didn’t state that climate change wasn’t caused by humans. Again he only makes such a conclusion in non-peer-reviewed literature.