BAR wrote:
Vic Smith wrote:
Ran across this after seeing an article in boattest about a guy with a
Nordhavn doing the trip Atlantic to Pacific.
http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/...y/1620336.html

Weird when you consider the travails of Franklin and Amundsen.
If the passage gets going good it could affect Panama Canal revenues.

You could see the Chinese jump on the Global Warming band wagon at that
point.

I wonder how the passage is getting "increasingly ice free" when the
republican politicians are forcing everyone in their party to be darned
near militant in telling everyone that global warming just isn't
happening despite all of the data proving otherwise?

NotNow wrote:
BAR wrote:
Vic Smith wrote:
Ran across this after seeing an article in boattest about a guy with a
Nordhavn doing the trip Atlantic to Pacific.
http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/...y/1620336.html

Weird when you consider the travails of Franklin and Amundsen.
If the passage gets going good it could affect Panama Canal revenues.

You could see the Chinese jump on the Global Warming band wagon at
that point.

I wonder how the passage is getting "increasingly ice free" when the
republican politicians are forcing everyone in their party to be darned
near militant in telling everyone that global warming just isn't
happening despite all of the data proving otherwise?

Where is the peer reviewed data.

BAR wrote:
NotNow wrote:
BAR wrote:
Vic Smith wrote:
Ran across this after seeing an article in boattest about a guy with a
Nordhavn doing the trip Atlantic to Pacific.
http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/...y/1620336.html

Weird when you consider the travails of Franklin and Amundsen.
If the passage gets going good it could affect Panama Canal revenues.

You could see the Chinese jump on the Global Warming band wagon at
that point.

I wonder how the passage is getting "increasingly ice free" when the
republican politicians are forcing everyone in their party to be
darned near militant in telling everyone that global warming just
isn't happening despite all of the data proving otherwise?

Where is the peer reviewed data.



Can you see Russia from there?

--
Whatever moral rules you have proposed, abide by them as they were laws,
and as if you would be guilty of impiety by violating any of them,
*unless* you are a conservative Republican office holder or minister. If
that is your position in life, then anything goes.

H the K wrote:
BAR wrote:
NotNow wrote:
BAR wrote:
Vic Smith wrote:
Ran across this after seeing an article in boattest about a guy with a
Nordhavn doing the trip Atlantic to Pacific.
http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/...y/1620336.html

Weird when you consider the travails of Franklin and Amundsen.
If the passage gets going good it could affect Panama Canal revenues.

You could see the Chinese jump on the Global Warming band wagon at
that point.

I wonder how the passage is getting "increasingly ice free" when the
republican politicians are forcing everyone in their party to be
darned near militant in telling everyone that global warming just
isn't happening despite all of the data proving otherwise?

Where is the peer reviewed data.



Can you see Russia from there?


Can you see Cuba?

BAR wrote:
H the K wrote:
BAR wrote:
NotNow wrote:
BAR wrote:
Vic Smith wrote:
Ran across this after seeing an article in boattest about a guy
with a
Nordhavn doing the trip Atlantic to Pacific.
http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/...y/1620336.html

Weird when you consider the travails of Franklin and Amundsen.
If the passage gets going good it could affect Panama Canal revenues.

You could see the Chinese jump on the Global Warming band wagon at
that point.

I wonder how the passage is getting "increasingly ice free" when the
republican politicians are forcing everyone in their party to be
darned near militant in telling everyone that global warming just
isn't happening despite all of the data proving otherwise?

Where is the peer reviewed data.



Can you see Russia from there?


Can you see Cuba?


Maybe Bermuda...

BAR wrote:
NotNow wrote:
BAR wrote:
Vic Smith wrote:
Ran across this after seeing an article in boattest about a guy with a
Nordhavn doing the trip Atlantic to Pacific.
http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/...y/1620336.html

Weird when you consider the travails of Franklin and Amundsen.
If the passage gets going good it could affect Panama Canal revenues.

You could see the Chinese jump on the Global Warming band wagon at
that point.

I wonder how the passage is getting "increasingly ice free" when the
republican politicians are forcing everyone in their party to be
darned near militant in telling everyone that global warming just
isn't happening despite all of the data proving otherwise?

Where is the peer reviewed data.


http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

http://wdc.cricyt.edu.ar/paleo/globalwarming/end.html
Which states in part:

When one reviews all the data, both from thermometers and
paleotemperature proxies, it becomes clear that the Earth has warmed
significantly over the last 140 years; Global Warming is a reality.
Multiple paleoclimatic studies indicate that recent years, the 1990s,
and the 20th century are all the warmest, on a global basis, of the last
600, and most likely 1200 years. It appears that the global warming of
the last century is unprecedented in the last 1,200 years.

NotNow wrote:
BAR wrote:
NotNow wrote:
BAR wrote:
Vic Smith wrote:
Ran across this after seeing an article in boattest about a guy with a
Nordhavn doing the trip Atlantic to Pacific.
http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/...y/1620336.html

Weird when you consider the travails of Franklin and Amundsen.
If the passage gets going good it could affect Panama Canal revenues.

You could see the Chinese jump on the Global Warming band wagon at
that point.

I wonder how the passage is getting "increasingly ice free" when the
republican politicians are forcing everyone in their party to be
darned near militant in telling everyone that global warming just
isn't happening despite all of the data proving otherwise?

Where is the peer reviewed data.


http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

NOAA's data is based upon faulty measurements and only goes back a
couple of decades.


http://wdc.cricyt.edu.ar/paleo/globalwarming/end.html
Which states in part:

When one reviews all the data, both from thermometers and
paleotemperature proxies, it becomes clear that the Earth has warmed
significantly over the last 140 years; Global Warming is a reality.
Multiple paleoclimatic studies indicate that recent years, the 1990s,
and the 20th century are all the warmest, on a global basis, of the last
600, and most likely 1200 years. It appears that the global warming of
the last century is unprecedented in the last 1,200 years.

Which means absolutely nothing. When you look at the Earth you have to
look using a time scale of geologic proportions. Six hundred and twelve
hundred years don't constitute data points.

What caused the glaciers to recede at the end of the last ice age?

BAR wrote:
NotNow wrote:
BAR wrote:
NotNow wrote:
BAR wrote:
Vic Smith wrote:
Ran across this after seeing an article in boattest about a guy
with a
Nordhavn doing the trip Atlantic to Pacific.
http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/...y/1620336.html

Weird when you consider the travails of Franklin and Amundsen.
If the passage gets going good it could affect Panama Canal revenues.

You could see the Chinese jump on the Global Warming band wagon at
that point.

I wonder how the passage is getting "increasingly ice free" when the
republican politicians are forcing everyone in their party to be
darned near militant in telling everyone that global warming just
isn't happening despite all of the data proving otherwise?

Where is the peer reviewed data.


http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

NOAA's data is based upon faulty measurements and only goes back a
couple of decades.


http://wdc.cricyt.edu.ar/paleo/globalwarming/end.html
Which states in part:

When one reviews all the data, both from thermometers and
paleotemperature proxies, it becomes clear that the Earth has warmed
significantly over the last 140 years; Global Warming is a reality.
Multiple paleoclimatic studies indicate that recent years, the 1990s,
and the 20th century are all the warmest, on a global basis, of the
last 600, and most likely 1200 years. It appears that the global
warming of the last century is unprecedented in the last 1,200 years.

Which means absolutely nothing. When you look at the Earth you have to
look using a time scale of geologic proportions. Six hundred and twelve
hundred years don't constitute data points.

Of course they do! If they didn't, then there would be no data points.
It may be your OPINION that they don't, but mathematically they do.

What caused the glaciers to recede at the end of the last ice age?

Temperatures above freezing.

NotNow wrote:
BAR wrote:
NotNow wrote:
BAR wrote:
NotNow wrote:
BAR wrote:
Vic Smith wrote:
Ran across this after seeing an article in boattest about a guy
with a
Nordhavn doing the trip Atlantic to Pacific.
http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/...y/1620336.html

Weird when you consider the travails of Franklin and Amundsen.
If the passage gets going good it could affect Panama Canal
revenues.

You could see the Chinese jump on the Global Warming band wagon at
that point.

I wonder how the passage is getting "increasingly ice free" when
the republican politicians are forcing everyone in their party to
be darned near militant in telling everyone that global warming
just isn't happening despite all of the data proving otherwise?

Where is the peer reviewed data.


http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

NOAA's data is based upon faulty measurements and only goes back a
couple of decades.


http://wdc.cricyt.edu.ar/paleo/globalwarming/end.html
Which states in part:

When one reviews all the data, both from thermometers and
paleotemperature proxies, it becomes clear that the Earth has warmed
significantly over the last 140 years; Global Warming is a reality.
Multiple paleoclimatic studies indicate that recent years, the 1990s,
and the 20th century are all the warmest, on a global basis, of the
last 600, and most likely 1200 years. It appears that the global
warming of the last century is unprecedented in the last 1,200 years.

Which means absolutely nothing. When you look at the Earth you have to
look using a time scale of geologic proportions. Six hundred and
twelve hundred years don't constitute data points.

Of course they do! If they didn't, then there would be no data points.
It may be your OPINION that they don't, but mathematically they do.

What caused the glaciers to recede at the end of the last ice age?

Temperatures above freezing.

Just as I thought. You don't want to discuss what caused the glaciers to
melt? Why? Because it doesn't fit into the script of humans are bad and
are killing the earth.

Cherry picking the most recent 200 years, 1000 years and using that as
the basis for a theory is laughable. The Earth has been covered in ice
before and the poles have seen tropical weather.

BAR wrote:
NotNow wrote:
BAR wrote:
NotNow wrote:
BAR wrote:
NotNow wrote:
BAR wrote:
Vic Smith wrote:
Ran across this after seeing an article in boattest about a guy
with a
Nordhavn doing the trip Atlantic to Pacific.
http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/...y/1620336.html

Weird when you consider the travails of Franklin and Amundsen.
If the passage gets going good it could affect Panama Canal
revenues.

You could see the Chinese jump on the Global Warming band wagon
at that point.

I wonder how the passage is getting "increasingly ice free" when
the republican politicians are forcing everyone in their party to
be darned near militant in telling everyone that global warming
just isn't happening despite all of the data proving otherwise?

Where is the peer reviewed data.


http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

NOAA's data is based upon faulty measurements and only goes back a
couple of decades.


http://wdc.cricyt.edu.ar/paleo/globalwarming/end.html
Which states in part:

When one reviews all the data, both from thermometers and
paleotemperature proxies, it becomes clear that the Earth has warmed
significantly over the last 140 years; Global Warming is a reality.
Multiple paleoclimatic studies indicate that recent years, the
1990s, and the 20th century are all the warmest, on a global basis,
of the last 600, and most likely 1200 years. It appears that the
global warming of the last century is unprecedented in the last
1,200 years.

Which means absolutely nothing. When you look at the Earth you have
to look using a time scale of geologic proportions. Six hundred and
twelve hundred years don't constitute data points.

Of course they do! If they didn't, then there would be no data points.
It may be your OPINION that they don't, but mathematically they do.

What caused the glaciers to recede at the end of the last ice age?

Temperatures above freezing.

Just as I thought. You don't want to discuss what caused the glaciers to
melt? Why? Because it doesn't fit into the script of humans are bad and
are killing the earth.


Because it's irrelevant to what is happening NOW.

Cherry picking the most recent 200 years, 1000 years and using that as
the basis for a theory is laughable. The Earth has been covered in ice
before and the poles have seen tropical weather.

What is laughable is that as the right's talking point on the subject,
they always bring up what has happened 50,000 or so years ago. It
doesn't take someone real brilliant to look at a chart that clearly
shows a rise in temperature coinciding with a gain in air pollutants
coinciding with the industrial revolution.