Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Lifestyle

Home loans made clear

Antarctic trip – Part one – Chile

By John Hargreaves 21 December 2015 58

IMGP5281

It’s a bit Chile on the way to Antarctica so a stopover afterwards in sunny Argentina was just the job. I had a couple of bucket list items which needed ticking off.

They were to set foot on all continents on the planet and to step foot on the soil of Antarctica. This trip was to achieve both items in one hit.

Most intrepid travellers do the Europe thing and the North American thing. Everyone goes to Asia at some stage, whether it is to Bali, Singapore, Beijing or the Indo-Chinese countries of Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, and Myanmar.

But there are seven continents on Earth and people I spoke to on my trip said that racking up six was a breeze. Doing the seventh was something else again.  I had already done the Asian bit by the time I was 19.  Lived in Malaysia for a while.  So Australia and Asia – tick!

I didn’t count Europe just because I was born there (England to be precise) because I left when I was three. My bride and I did Italy and Paris, after England for our 6th anniversary in 1988 – tick the third continent.

Then a couple of years later, we went to New Mexico for our friend’s wedding via LA. Tick number four!

Our trip to Kenya and a visit to the Masai Mara, counted as the fifth – Africa!

Only South America and Antarctica remained…. And they remained for decades.

I am just back from the trip of a lifetime and want to share some of it with you to whet your appetite for a visit yourselves.

This bucket list trip included Chile with a visit to Santiago and Valparaiso, a boat trip to Antarctica and a visit to Buenos Aires on the way home. Knocked over the last two in the one three week trip! Yay!

So we arrive in Chile at 11.30 in the morning – a half an hour before we left Sydney. Flight time 12 and a half hours.  Prepare yourselves for this, people.  A trick is to have some $US on you because you have to pay what they call a “reciprocity fee” for entry into Chile.  Essentially it’s an entry tax and they only take $US for the charge. (Incidentally, they do the same in Argentina but you can get this online before you go)

We got to our hotel in Santiago in about an hour or so and the bride had organised a tour of the city for us to while away the afternoon. Santiago is a large place and full of interesting history and architecture. We took a half day bus and walking tour of the city and were entertained by the guide on the ancient Inca and the not so ancient Spanish and the even more recent dictatorship elements which together make up the capital of Chile. Fascinating. The eclectic nature of Santiago is charming.  It is mostly clean, with smog hanging about and a slight feeling of dustiness in the air.

The affluent areas are obvious and the working class and lower class areas are colourful. It has a river fed from the Andes running right through the middle of the city. The Chilean peso is easy to use and accepted everywhere without hassle although I got an impression the $US was a bit popular.

The breathtaking bit though was how close the Andes Mountains were. Chile is a long thin country not unlike Vietnam only longer. The Andes form the border with Argentina and are reputed to be the youngest, geologically, mountain range in the world and Santiago is at the base of them and squeezed between the mountains and the sea.

The view from San Cristobal hill, at the base of the massive statue of the Virgin, is breathtaking. You see the city spread out before you with the rural lands beyond and then rearing up majestically are the most beautiful mountain range I have ever witnessed. I reckon the Andes put the Rockies into their place.

The next day we had all day to ourselves so we booked a tour of the Santa Rita winery in the Maipo Valley. This was fascinating, because we went bike riding round the vineyard and had the methodology of Chilean winemaking described to us along the way.  As a side issue, the vineyard also reared Llamas for their wool and these have to be the cutest critters on earth!

Our guide picked us up early the next day for a trip to Valparaiso, a largish city to the north and on the coast. A pirates’ den if there ever was one.

This most interesting and colourful city is built on the side of a series of very steep hills. And I really mean steep! Think the slopes of Black Mountain.

It has a very interesting past and is the major shipping port for Chile. We walked the streets, or should I say climbed, and the views were just unreal. Interestingly, many of the houses were built of corrugated iron sheeting, painted bright colours. Apparently, this method is the best insulation you can get in Chile and is use widely.

We went on a short boat cruise on the harbour after lunch (a forgettable event in a not so salubrious underground café) and spotted a number of Chilean naval ships idly parked, a massive dry dock with a ship the size of Manuka inside, and a buoy carrying about four fur seals basking in the sunshine. Smelly little devils!

Back to Santiago for some well earnt rest before our flight to Ushuaia in Argentina (via Buenos Aires) and embarkation heading for Antarctica.

More next week. I have posted some photos on Facebook for those of you interested and will be doing some more soon (after the inevitable culling process).


What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
58 Responses to
Antarctic trip – Part one – Chile
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
rubaiyat 8:59 am 13 Jan 16

dungfungus said :

Charlotte Harper said :

I watched that whole video, dungfungus, and then did some research into Prager University (which is not a university at all but a web platform for video lectures set up by neoconservative US radio host and climate change skeptic Dennis Prager) and Patrick Moore. The below sums Moore up quite nicely (from a Guardian article about how he is working with the Indonesian logging industry):

So what do you do if your brand is turning toxic? You hire the Canadian public relations consultant Patrick Moore. Moore runs a company based in Vancouver called Greenspirit Strategies, which has developed “sustainability messaging” for logging, mining, lead-smelting, nuclear, biotech, fish-farming and plastics companies. He is a clever rhetorician, skilled at turning an argument round. He is seen by some environmentalists as the most brazen of the spin doctors they face.

He has described clear-cut logging as “making clearings where new trees can grow in the sun”. He has suggested that sea lice (which spread from farmed salmon to wild fish, often with devastating effects) are “good for wild salmon”, as the fish can eat the larvae. He has justified gold-mining operations that have caused devastating spills of sodium cyanide by arguing that “cyanide is present in the environment and naturally available in many plant species”. But his greatest asset to the companies he represents is this: Patrick Moore was one of the founders and leaders of Greenpeace.

I think it’s important to view the words of (and platforms promoting) such advocates in context, whatever you think of their message.

That that apply to Tim Flannery and his wild predictions?

Tim Flannery has not made wild predictions.

But typically the paid liars on the “sceptics” payrolls have misquoted him as they have all the science so the ignorant can continue with their heads in the sand.

The PR companies that are paid to pour out the vast quantities of utter drivel do so in the safe knowledge that their target market struggled with Classic Comics and will not look for the obvious false quotes, total lies and arch rhetoric because all they are looking for is any, ANY, no matter how stupid, confirmation of their own prejudices.

The whole cynical manipulation is based on the tried and proved techniques, founded by Edward Bernays (Freud’s nephew) of the Cigarette, Automobile, Chemical, Drug and Gun companies, mostly based in the USA.

Walker 9:28 pm 12 Jan 16

For those that missed it, here’s an epic climate smack-down from a couple of years ago.

http://the-riotact.com/bom-climate-report-sheesh-its-hot-in-here

dungfungus 8:37 pm 12 Jan 16

HenryBG said :

dungfungus said :

I suppose if you are going to insist that because Patrick Moore is a paid advocate for the evil logging and mining industries his views are skewed against man made climate change then I will have to insist that Tim Flannery’s involvement with a government funded geothermal power generation project keeps him on the side of the warmists.

As an aside, anybody interested in Patrick Moore’s credibility will be greatly amused by this very thorough pwning he suffered at the hands of a French journalist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw6YjqSfM

The day Tim Flannery tells me that drinking Glysophate is perfectly safe is the day I will be prepared to lump him in the same boat with Patrick Moore.

I am not interested in the credibility of climate change supporters or detractors – I am interested in what they say however.
Usually, all sorts of incomprehensible mumbo jumbo comes from the alarmists while the realists put forward common-sense.
Only the vainglory would choose the alarmist view.
I use Glysophate around my garden – it kills most things green and noxious.

dungfungus 8:21 pm 12 Jan 16

HenryBG said :

dungfungus said :

HenryBG said :

dungfungus said :

That that apply to Tim Flannery and his wild predictions?

Be specific: quote any one of these “wild predictions” you allege have been made.

Most are here: http://ipa.org.au/publications/1888/tim-flannery-climate-prophet
But you know what is on the internet anyhow.

Yes, I know there is a lot of rubbish on the internet, and not a few lies.

I notice you don’t give us any example of Tim Flannery’s “wild predictions”, only a link to an right-wing political-lobbying site’s mis-characterisation as “predictions” of sensible statements made by Tim Flannery. It also takes great care to very partially quote him so as to exclude the relevant context in whatever it was Flannery was actually saying.
The snippet that appears to be the most meaningfully-quoted is this:
“the water problem for Adelaide is so severe that it may run out of water by early 2009”
So, (a) not a prediction, and (b) an accurate summation of Adelaide’s water issues caused by the trend for dwindling rainfall.

Here’s a clue: don’t accept interpretations by political lobbyists. Seek out that facts and make your own assessment.
Here is how BoM presents the data in relation to rainfall:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=trend-maps&tQ%5Bmap%5D=rain&tQ%5Barea%5D=aus&tQ%5Bseason%5D=0112&tQ%5Bperiod%5D=1970
Notice how the long-term trend for areas such as Brisbane, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth is showing drastically-reduced rainfall?
Hence Flannery points out that as rainfall dwindles, and these cities continue to increase in size, their ability to draw their water needs from their catchment areas becomes less and less secure.
All Flannery was doing was putting into words what the BoM data shows.

You’re also confusing me – you have previously claimed to get all your knowledge about climate change from 100-years old books, but now you seem to be using youtube videos as well, albeit not videos that provide any insight into the actual science involved.

You might want to learn how to be more critical of your “sources”, and maybe on rely on something a bit more reliable:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ivar-giaever-nobel-physicist-climate-pseudoscientist.html

I have started using youtube videos (like most alarmists do) because few people believe anything that old books say.
I believe in the “old” science (gathering of field data over many years) more than the “new” science which is really predictions made from inconclusive data.
I find is sad that you are an apologist for Flannery. This is the same bloke who lived in a coastal waterside residence despite his claims that sea levels would be inundating Australia’s coastlines.

HenryBG 12:24 pm 12 Jan 16

dungfungus said :

I suppose if you are going to insist that because Patrick Moore is a paid advocate for the evil logging and mining industries his views are skewed against man made climate change then I will have to insist that Tim Flannery’s involvement with a government funded geothermal power generation project keeps him on the side of the warmists.

As an aside, anybody interested in Patrick Moore’s credibility will be greatly amused by this very thorough pwning he suffered at the hands of a French journalist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw6YjqSfM

The day Tim Flannery tells me that drinking Glysophate is perfectly safe is the day I will be prepared to lump him in the same boat with Patrick Moore.

HenryBG 12:22 pm 12 Jan 16

dungfungus said :

HenryBG said :

dungfungus said :

That that apply to Tim Flannery and his wild predictions?

Be specific: quote any one of these “wild predictions” you allege have been made.

Most are here: http://ipa.org.au/publications/1888/tim-flannery-climate-prophet
But you know what is on the internet anyhow.

Yes, I know there is a lot of rubbish on the internet, and not a few lies.

I notice you don’t give us any example of Tim Flannery’s “wild predictions”, only a link to an right-wing political-lobbying site’s mis-characterisation as “predictions” of sensible statements made by Tim Flannery. It also takes great care to very partially quote him so as to exclude the relevant context in whatever it was Flannery was actually saying.
The snippet that appears to be the most meaningfully-quoted is this:
“the water problem for Adelaide is so severe that it may run out of water by early 2009”
So, (a) not a prediction, and (b) an accurate summation of Adelaide’s water issues caused by the trend for dwindling rainfall.

Here’s a clue: don’t accept interpretations by political lobbyists. Seek out that facts and make your own assessment.
Here is how BoM presents the data in relation to rainfall:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=trend-maps&tQ%5Bmap%5D=rain&tQ%5Barea%5D=aus&tQ%5Bseason%5D=0112&tQ%5Bperiod%5D=1970
Notice how the long-term trend for areas such as Brisbane, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth is showing drastically-reduced rainfall?
Hence Flannery points out that as rainfall dwindles, and these cities continue to increase in size, their ability to draw their water needs from their catchment areas becomes less and less secure.
All Flannery was doing was putting into words what the BoM data shows.

You’re also confusing me – you have previously claimed to get all your knowledge about climate change from 100-years old books, but now you seem to be using youtube videos as well, albeit not videos that provide any insight into the actual science involved.

You might want to learn how to be more critical of your “sources”, and maybe on rely on something a bit more reliable:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ivar-giaever-nobel-physicist-climate-pseudoscientist.html

dungfungus 11:43 am 12 Jan 16

Charlotte Harper said :

I watched that whole video, dungfungus, and then did some research into Prager University (which is not a university at all but a web platform for video lectures set up by neoconservative US radio host and climate change skeptic Dennis Prager) and Patrick Moore. The below sums Moore up quite nicely (from a Guardian article about how he is working with the Indonesian logging industry):

So what do you do if your brand is turning toxic? You hire the Canadian public relations consultant Patrick Moore. Moore runs a company based in Vancouver called Greenspirit Strategies, which has developed “sustainability messaging” for logging, mining, lead-smelting, nuclear, biotech, fish-farming and plastics companies. He is a clever rhetorician, skilled at turning an argument round. He is seen by some environmentalists as the most brazen of the spin doctors they face.

He has described clear-cut logging as “making clearings where new trees can grow in the sun”. He has suggested that sea lice (which spread from farmed salmon to wild fish, often with devastating effects) are “good for wild salmon”, as the fish can eat the larvae. He has justified gold-mining operations that have caused devastating spills of sodium cyanide by arguing that “cyanide is present in the environment and naturally available in many plant species”. But his greatest asset to the companies he represents is this: Patrick Moore was one of the founders and leaders of Greenpeace.

I think it’s important to view the words of (and platforms promoting) such advocates in context, whatever you think of their message.

Why is it that every-time someone makes a common sense response to climate alarmists, fellow alarmists have to look for a “fifth leg on the cat” conspiracy?
I suppose if you are going to insist that because Patrick Moore is a paid advocate for the evil logging and mining industries his views are skewed against man made climate change then I will have to insist that Tim Flannery’s involvement with a government funded geothermal power generation project keeps him on the side of the warmists.

dungfungus 9:46 am 12 Jan 16

HenryBG said :

dungfungus said :

That that apply to Tim Flannery and his wild predictions?

Be specific: quote any one of these “wild predictions” you allege have been made.

Most are here: http://ipa.org.au/publications/1888/tim-flannery-climate-prophet
But you know what is on the internet anyhow.

dungfungus 1:51 pm 11 Jan 16

Charlotte Harper said :

Context is important no matter what the message nor who the messenger is.

This presenter is a Nobel Laureate which may not be important to you and I but the message to others who can’t see past the science is important, given the context.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0

HenryBG 1:36 pm 11 Jan 16

dungfungus said :

That that apply to Tim Flannery and his wild predictions?

Be specific: quote any one of these “wild predictions” you allege have been made.

dungfungus 12:10 pm 11 Jan 16

Charlotte Harper said :

I watched that whole video, dungfungus, and then did some research into Prager University (which is not a university at all but a web platform for video lectures set up by neoconservative US radio host and climate change skeptic Dennis Prager) and Patrick Moore. The below sums Moore up quite nicely (from a Guardian article about how he is working with the Indonesian logging industry):

So what do you do if your brand is turning toxic? You hire the Canadian public relations consultant Patrick Moore. Moore runs a company based in Vancouver called Greenspirit Strategies, which has developed “sustainability messaging” for logging, mining, lead-smelting, nuclear, biotech, fish-farming and plastics companies. He is a clever rhetorician, skilled at turning an argument round. He is seen by some environmentalists as the most brazen of the spin doctors they face.

He has described clear-cut logging as “making clearings where new trees can grow in the sun”. He has suggested that sea lice (which spread from farmed salmon to wild fish, often with devastating effects) are “good for wild salmon”, as the fish can eat the larvae. He has justified gold-mining operations that have caused devastating spills of sodium cyanide by arguing that “cyanide is present in the environment and naturally available in many plant species”. But his greatest asset to the companies he represents is this: Patrick Moore was one of the founders and leaders of Greenpeace.

I think it’s important to view the words of (and platforms promoting) such advocates in context, whatever you think of their message.

That that apply to Tim Flannery and his wild predictions?

dungfungus 5:15 pm 10 Jan 16

wildturkeycanoe said :

HenryBG said :

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

And this link proves what exactly? A graph of CO2 levels from the last 50 years in isolation to the rest of thousands of years of history means absolutely nothing. It is like showing me a canine tooth and expecting me to believe it is from a dog without having seen the rest of the animal. Yes, CO2 levels are rising but they have been just as high many times in the history of the Earth. I still do not understand why this recurring event is such a tragedy when it is a part of the Earth’s cycle, has happened before and may well be happening again but we are just un/fortunate enough to be around to witness it. Bleating about how we need to change our ways to save the planet is ridiculous when other issues are going to have more severe consequences such as over-population, religious wars, starvation and disease. What are we doing to prevent these? How little in comparison are we spending as a species to prevent self destruction from more immediate threats? If the same money that is raised in preventing global warming was spent instead on eliminating genocide, on the abolition of nuclear weapons, on producing larger food supplies and curing terminal diseases, we may live long enough to see the results of this supposed global atmospheric phenomenon.

It can’t be a very accurate science when, as mentioned by dungfungus, it has been renamed quite a few times because it hasn’t done what their theory said it would.

I forgot to include “extreme weather events” all of which are natural occurrences that have happened before.

dungfungus 10:00 am 10 Jan 16

dungfungus said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

HenryBG said :

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

And this link proves what exactly? A graph of CO2 levels from the last 50 years in isolation to the rest of thousands of years of history means absolutely nothing. It is like showing me a canine tooth and expecting me to believe it is from a dog without having seen the rest of the animal. Yes, CO2 levels are rising but they have been just as high many times in the history of the Earth. I still do not understand why this recurring event is such a tragedy when it is a part of the Earth’s cycle, has happened before and may well be happening again but we are just un/fortunate enough to be around to witness it. Bleating about how we need to change our ways to save the planet is ridiculous when other issues are going to have more severe consequences such as over-population, religious wars, starvation and disease. What are we doing to prevent these? How little in comparison are we spending as a species to prevent self destruction from more immediate threats? If the same money that is raised in preventing global warming was spent instead on eliminating genocide, on the abolition of nuclear weapons, on producing larger food supplies and curing terminal diseases, we may live long enough to see the results of this supposed global atmospheric phenomenon.

It can’t be a very accurate science when, as mentioned by dungfungus, it has been renamed quite a few times because it hasn’t done what their theory said it would.

If I was commissioned to express my common sense views about “climate change” this is what I would say:
http://prageruniversity.com/Environmental-Science/What-They-Havent-Told-You-about-Climate-Change.html#.Vc4sj_lViko
(Note the absence of sinister music)

    Charlotte Harper 12:00 pm 11 Jan 16

    I watched that whole video, dungfungus, and then did some research into Prager University (which is not a university at all but a web platform for video lectures set up by neoconservative US radio host and climate change skeptic Dennis Prager) and Patrick Moore. The below sums Moore up quite nicely (from a Guardian article about how he is working with the Indonesian logging industry):

    So what do you do if your brand is turning toxic? You hire the Canadian public relations consultant Patrick Moore. Moore runs a company based in Vancouver called Greenspirit Strategies, which has developed “sustainability messaging” for logging, mining, lead-smelting, nuclear, biotech, fish-farming and plastics companies. He is a clever rhetorician, skilled at turning an argument round. He is seen by some environmentalists as the most brazen of the spin doctors they face.

    He has described clear-cut logging as “making clearings where new trees can grow in the sun”. He has suggested that sea lice (which spread from farmed salmon to wild fish, often with devastating effects) are “good for wild salmon”, as the fish can eat the larvae. He has justified gold-mining operations that have caused devastating spills of sodium cyanide by arguing that “cyanide is present in the environment and naturally available in many plant species”. But his greatest asset to the companies he represents is this: Patrick Moore was one of the founders and leaders of Greenpeace.

    I think it’s important to view the words of (and platforms promoting) such advocates in context, whatever you think of their message.

HenryBG 3:27 pm 08 Jan 16

wildturkeycanoe said :

HenryBG said :

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

And this link proves what exactly? A graph of CO2 levels from the last 50 years in isolation to the rest of thousands of years of history means absolutely nothing. It is like showing me a canine tooth and expecting me to believe it is from a dog without having seen the rest of the animal. Yes, CO2 levels are rising but they have been just as high many times in the history of the Earth.

Many times, yes, but not once since London, Sydney or New York were built by the sea.

Check this out:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/history.html

CO2 levels have not been this high for at least 800,000 years, which is 794,000 years further back than human civilisation has existed.

wildturkeycanoe said :

I still do not understand why this recurring event is such a tragedy when it is a part of the Earth’s cycle, has happened before and may well be happening again but we are just un/fortunate enough to be around to witness it.

Scientific research shows as that changes of about 100ppm CO2 in the atmosphere (which is what we have done over the past 150 years) are usually accompanied by changes of about 30 metres in sea level.

Please explain to us how the 47% of Bangladeshis that live within 10m of current sea level are going to just shrug their shoulders and say, “it’s no tragedy”.
Where will they go?
Will Exxon, Peabody, BP and Shell pay to relocate them? or will they hop on boats and risk their lives creating a human tsunami of refugees that will descend on us to deal with?

You are just plain wrong – rising sea levels similar to rises that have happened prior to human occupation of this planet will have devastating consequences for many millions of people.
This is not an acceptable side-effect of our subsidising the fossil-fuel industry for the benefit of a tiny minority of extremely rich people.

dungfungus 2:32 pm 08 Jan 16

wildturkeycanoe said :

HenryBG said :

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

And this link proves what exactly? A graph of CO2 levels from the last 50 years in isolation to the rest of thousands of years of history means absolutely nothing. It is like showing me a canine tooth and expecting me to believe it is from a dog without having seen the rest of the animal. Yes, CO2 levels are rising but they have been just as high many times in the history of the Earth. I still do not understand why this recurring event is such a tragedy when it is a part of the Earth’s cycle, has happened before and may well be happening again but we are just un/fortunate enough to be around to witness it. Bleating about how we need to change our ways to save the planet is ridiculous when other issues are going to have more severe consequences such as over-population, religious wars, starvation and disease. What are we doing to prevent these? How little in comparison are we spending as a species to prevent self destruction from more immediate threats? If the same money that is raised in preventing global warming was spent instead on eliminating genocide, on the abolition of nuclear weapons, on producing larger food supplies and curing terminal diseases, we may live long enough to see the results of this supposed global atmospheric phenomenon.

It can’t be a very accurate science when, as mentioned by dungfungus, it has been renamed quite a few times because it hasn’t done what their theory said it would.

If I was commissioned to express my common sense views about “climate change” this is what I would say:
http://prageruniversity.com/Environmental-Science/What-They-Havent-Told-You-about-Climate-Change.html#.Vc4sj_lViko
(Note the absence of sinister music)

wildturkeycanoe 6:46 am 08 Jan 16

HenryBG said :

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

And this link proves what exactly? A graph of CO2 levels from the last 50 years in isolation to the rest of thousands of years of history means absolutely nothing. It is like showing me a canine tooth and expecting me to believe it is from a dog without having seen the rest of the animal. Yes, CO2 levels are rising but they have been just as high many times in the history of the Earth. I still do not understand why this recurring event is such a tragedy when it is a part of the Earth’s cycle, has happened before and may well be happening again but we are just un/fortunate enough to be around to witness it. Bleating about how we need to change our ways to save the planet is ridiculous when other issues are going to have more severe consequences such as over-population, religious wars, starvation and disease. What are we doing to prevent these? How little in comparison are we spending as a species to prevent self destruction from more immediate threats? If the same money that is raised in preventing global warming was spent instead on eliminating genocide, on the abolition of nuclear weapons, on producing larger food supplies and curing terminal diseases, we may live long enough to see the results of this supposed global atmospheric phenomenon.

It can’t be a very accurate science when, as mentioned by dungfungus, it has been renamed quite a few times because it hasn’t done what their theory said it would.

HenryBG 1:24 pm 07 Jan 16

wildturkeycanoe said :

So, scientists are claiming that sea levels are rising at accelerated rates thanks to man. Looking into this and not knowing how they measure such data, I discovered something contrary.
http://earthsky.org/earth/how-do-you-measure-a-seas-level-anyway

Don’t rely on a pair of data points from a random blog on the internet. There are scientists (not bloggers) who actually study this stuff in depth and publish their results.
These people are *well* aware of isostatic rebound.
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html

wildturkeycanoe said :

Also, scientists are comparing data of sea levels and Co2 levels, extrapolating that rising Co2 levels are causing the oceans to rise.

No they aren’t. The rise in atmospheric CO2 is an irrefutable fact, and isotopic analysis gives us the similarly irrefutable evidence as to where the CO2 is being emitted from.

wildturkeycanoe said :

Historically there has been warming and cooling of the globe. Did man cause this every time?

That’s like saying, “historically, I’ve been late to work many times. Did a broken down bus cause it every time? No? therefore it is impossible that this broken down bus caused it this time”.

wildturkeycanoe said :

Why is man to blame for the current trend? .

I suggest you get reading so that you can successfully answer that one for yourself.
Hint: the answer involves fossil fuels, CO2, and basic radiative physics.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

John Hargreaves 11:25 am 06 Jan 16

JessP said :

Can we just enjoy the trip and forget about the science discussion?

YES PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

dungfungus 10:15 am 06 Jan 16

wildturkeycanoe said :

JC said :

Alleged acceleration? bzzt the scientists can and have quite easily proven this you don’t need to see before and after to prove it b

So, scientists are claiming that sea levels are rising at accelerated rates thanks to man. Looking inot his and not knowing how they measure such data, I discovered something contrary.
http://earthsky.org/earth/how-do-you-measure-a-seas-level-anyway

This page shows sea levels from two different countries, one where it is rising and one where it is actually falling thanks to the uplifting of the land due to tectonic reasons. In both graphs, there is no sharp or sudden increase in levels, just a straight line as the ocean does it’s thing. Reason to panic? I don’t think so.
Also, scientists are comparing data of sea levels and Co2 levels, extrapolating that rising Co2 levels are causing the oceans to rise. Could it not be said also that rising sea levels are causing the
Co2 levels to increase? It’s the chicken or the egg theory. Perhaps the increase of water into our oceans is decreasing the volume of air in the atmosphere and causing the existing Co2 to be compressed into a higher concentration as the rest of the gases are absorbed into the outer atmosphere or back into the ocean? Release of all that Co2 from the ice back into the air can be another factor. There could be so many other reasons that may or may not be satisfactorily proven.
Historically there has been warming and cooling of the globe. Did man cause this every time? Why is man to blame for the current trend? There are many theories about how global warming happens, but nothing proven by the scientific community. If external influences such as solar output have anything to do with it, there is no way to predict the future of the Earth’s temperature let alone what kind of influence our carbon footprint has on it all.
To sensationalize it all with graphs and “predictions” when there is evidence contrary, tells me that it is purely a stunt by some controlling body in the world to try and get control over the entire population for whatever end they are pursuing. Just look at how much revenue is being made from carbon dollars around the world. Who is profiting from it all? Simply a tax in disguise, that we are being told MUST be paid in order for us to survive.
If you think I’m a crazy conspiracy theorist to believe this, I’d tell you that it is just as crazy to believe what the government funded scientists are telling you too.

It’s all part of the plan.
http://www.un.org/esa/agenda21/natlinfo/countr/austral/inst.htm

dungfungus 9:38 am 06 Jan 16

JC said :

dungfungus said :

John Hargreaves said :

dungfungus said :

John Hargreaves said :

dungfungus said :

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

John Hargreaves said :

dungfungus said :

To set foot on the soil of Antarctica is a rarity indeed.
The total ice-free area of Antarctica comprises less than 0.4% of the continent.
The ice-free regions, of which about 90% are soil forming, are located mainly on the continental coastline, particularly on the Antarctic Peninsula and in the McMurdo Dry Valleys in the Ross Sea Region.
Keep an eye out for orphaned polar bears on melting ice sheets, John.

I was told there are only polar bears in the Arctic. my next post will be about what I saw in those 10 days.

Polar bears have always been and always will be in the Arctic.
But climate change alarmists would like us to believe they are drifting much further south so keep your eyes peeled.

seriously. You take a very detailed scientifically analysed issue and simplify it to the point you are wrong and being the alarmist. Its very well documented that the loss of sea ice in the arctic is affecting the numbers of polar bears, especially when its been show via satellite imagery that the Artic polar ice caps are much smaller and also been shown that polar bears mostly hunt for food on the artic ice.

If you want to take an opposing view on global warming, at least be serious about it and stick to something closely resembling a fact and not a passing flippant remark!

Back to the OP. Looking forward to reading more John. Antarctica is the only continent I have not been to and will visit there one day. I’ll pay the pesky mortgage off first! Although I’m heading to Cuba next year before the American tourism invasion!

As long as there are people being paid to generate “very detailed scientifically analysed” information that doesn’t stack up in reality I can’t take it seriously.
If global warming does indeed happen (as it has many times before) it won’t be because of the reasons that are part of the current narrative.
That screams for flippancy.

I am now starting my next article on Antarctica but need to share with you the comment from one of the scientists (eminently qualified researchers who were part of the expedition team studying whales, penguins and seals) that climate change is a natural phenomenon but the rate of that change has been accelerated by man and it is this which we can do something about.

The rate is accelerating unsustainably and I saw evidence of it in the number of icebergs which have “calved” off the main ice sheet. Greater numbers than ever before.

the sea ice does not increase the sea levels and it is merely existing sea water which freezes. the glaciers put snow into the sea which is essentially fresh water at an alarming rate because of the increased size of the hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic and because of the overall global warming.

This is a reality clearly visible even to the intellectually challenged who deny the acceleration rate of climate change.

John, you state that this is your first trip to the Antarctic region and then you say “I saw evidence of it in the number of icebergs which have “calved” off the main ice sheet. Greater numbers than ever before.”
When was “before”?
Also, are you trying to reach a new low in referring to people like myself who oppose the alarmist narrative by grouping us as “intellectually challenged”?
If this is the case then I think we are the majority and most of us don’t really care about what you are relating to us from your eminent mates. I don’t recall climate change as one of your election issues either but that was of course before you saw an iceberg.

A quick response. I do think that anyone who denies the existence of mankind’s acceleration of climate change needs counselling.

Referral to my ” election issues” of 2008 is drawing a really long bow. I have held my views before I entered parliament, when I was there, and after I left. I haven’t changed a thing. I have however, seen first hand, the effect of the acceleration of climate change in glaciers in Europe and elsewhere.

My aim in the post was to put the challenge out there and see what came out. Welcome back!

You actually saw the glaciers before and after the alleged acceleration of climate change?
Please supply a précis of your observations and studies with sketches before and photographs after.

Alleged acceleration? bzzt the scientists can and have quite easily proven this you don’t need to see before and after to prove it b

I do.
And John claims he has – that is why I asked for his photographs.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2019 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site