Idling?? I see it moving against another ship, and a big one. Not that I know much about ships, but if I was the one on the small high-tech touch-me-and-i-will-break-down ship, I would have steered away from the big i-eat-whales-for-breakfast ship instead of "idling" against it.
>> ^Sagemind:
Captain Watson said the Ady Gil was idling in Antarctic waters (...)

>> ^Sagemind:
Captain Watson said the Ady Gil was idling in Antarctic waters when it was suddenly rammed by the Japanese ship Shonan Maru, which was providing security to Japan's whaling fleet.


Seriously, could a ship that size sneak up on you and "suddenly ram" anybody with half a brain? And if getting hit by the firehose (prior to being "suddenly rammed") wasn't incentive enough to get out of the way, fuck 'em, i say.

The $1.5m, 79 foot long 'stealth' boat Ady Gil sank after the collision in Southern Ocean but its six man crew was rescued uninjured, said Captain Paul Watson, founder of the radical environmental group Sea Shepherd.

Captain Watson said the Ady Gil was idling in Antarctic waters when it was suddenly rammed by the Japanese ship Shonan Maru, which was providing security to Japan's whaling fleet.

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/asia-pacific/video-stealth-boats-bow-sliced-off-in-whaling-clash-2001210.html

-taken from Demon_ix's accidental dupe of this video - I didn't want this info to be lost.

I'm guessing the affect has been zero. This is not about saving whales. It's a big power trip for Captain Fatass and a thrill ride for his cabal of hippies.

I'm not taking sides on the whole 'whaling' issue. I can see both perspectives on this. I do believe that if you're serious about stopping whaling you're not going to waste your time acting out pirate fantasies in the antarctic.

BTW, isn't that a multi-million dollar boat? What could possibly be the advantage of that thing over a semi-rigid speedboat? Apparently being on the Discovery channel is allowing these guys to fully realize all their teenage fantasys.

Incredible... One of my friends worked for the British Antarctic Survey for a number of years and he was telling me about how he was once broadsided by a Leopard Seal while he was wading in the water at the shoreline holding a zodiac steady. He said the sheer power of these creatures is unbelievable. I've seen a couple myself and they are pretty intimidating animals. I would be scared out of my mind being in the water with one. They grow up to 12 feet long, weigh up to 1300 lbs and can swim as fast at 65 km/hr. They're very efficient predators!

Congrats, Arvana, most deserving indeed. And am I the only one who thinks arvana looks like Adrian Veidt (Ozymandias)? Your Antarctic resort kicks ass, my liege!

*sigh* ok, faith partially restored. Sorry for threatening everyone. It's just that I really like this 'world' we live in, and I think that this video reminds us of why it's worthy of so much curiosity and wonder. I mean, the fluid in this video isn't even part of that fantastic self-perpetuating, self-refining chain of reactions that we call "life", yet it shows amazingly complexity. Cold and ambivalent, like the Milky Way or the Antarctic Glaciers, but still beautiful -- the kinda thing that could make a person feel lucky to be alive.

Why don't you go record a video of a plastic bag blowing in the wind.

Really people. If this isn't sifted, I'm going to loose my faith in VideoSift, and after Obama's decision to reinstate military tribunals for the prisoners in Guantanamo, I don't have much faith left.

EDIT - *sigh* ok, faith partially restored. Sorry for threatening everyone. It's just that I really like this 'world' we live in, and I think that this video reminds us of why it's worthy of so much curiosity and wonder. I mean, the fluid in this video isn't even part of that fantastic self-perpetuating, self-refining chain of reactions that we call "life", yet it shows amazingly complexity. Cold and ambivalent, like the Milky Way or the Antarctic Glaciers, but still beautiful -- the kinda thing that could make a person feel lucky to be alive.

Jesus told him to go to the mountains because the great flood was coming.. and the fish would come TO HIM. There he would see a flaming bush (nevermind there are no such bushes in the antarctic... but who ever let facts get in the way of faith).

>> ^DrPawn:
Global warming is about as real as Y2K was. Is there 390 ppm CO2 now in the atmosphere, instead of 385 ppm CO2 in 1940 ? Yes. Is it warming the planet somewhat, yes a couple fractions of a degree overall. Has warming happened in the past yes. Will cooling happen in the future yes.
Are zombies like the one above overreacting yes. Any science that claims that global warming could have positive impacts on the planet is scorned. Do scientists gain from doom saying and predicting the worst possible consequences for the planet ... you bet they do. If they predicted negligible effects they would immediately lose their grants and be fired from whatever school they are in. Its not politically correct to challenge global warming.
And you cant get a grant to study how global warming might be not so bad after all.
Science is being hijacked by radical environmentalists on a political mission. Anyone that lives in the great white north knows that its so cold up there that life can barely hang on. Yet all you hear is how its killing polar bears.
Bullshit. A little warming will do the artic much more good then harm. Human beings are here to stay and yes 6 billion of us will change the world. Some species will have to deal with the sudden changes and some will not survive. Some will flourish.
I will never agree with Bill Orielly on principle, because he is a nutjob. However on this one he is less wrong then normal.


1) Don't know where you got your numbers but they are wrong. In 1940, the CO2 ppm was around 310 as reported by the CDIAC in this table here.

2) You apparently don't understand how science works. If someone were, as you seem to be suggesting, to put out an erroneous hypothesis for their own personal gain (i.e. to keep their job or get grant money), it would quickly be discovered since other scientists with no vested interest in the topic will examine the data and conduct experiments themselves and eventually show that the original results were falsified. Remember Hwang Woo-Suk? He tried to do exactly what you are describing and got called out on it.

3) The effects of global warming will do more good than harm? Really. Care to back that up with scientific evidence? Because the evidence that does exist points to catastrophic effects for most of the world. Rising sea levels are already flooding parts of the world like Tuvalu. Weather patterns are changing and wreaking havoc with current ecosystems. Forests in the U.S. are dying out an alarming rate due to the warming. Coral bleaching, species migration pattern disruption, increased death rates in Arctic and Antarctic species like penguins--all of these have been linked to temperature increases. You're saying these are good things?

>> ^quantumushroom:
Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a theory (hypothesis). It is an unproven theory. What you do with theories is put them to the test with scientific observations.

Rambling nonsense, in science there is no such term as "unproven theory" A theory is a construct and means to explain the available facts

Let’s see what data points we now have:
1) Average annual temperatures have not surpassed 1998 (NOAA) (University of Alabama)
2) Average annual temperatures are now trending downward since 1998 (NOAA) (University of Alabama)

This is more nonsense. while it is true that the highest peak on the scale so far is 1998,( or 2005, depending on how you measure) the point is that that the TREND is what counts, every year temperatures vary, some years are hot, relative to their time, some are cold, relative to their time. However, the upwards trend is not in question if we look at 128 years of recorded weather history, this is the image this report provides See image That image is scary enough, but it gets worse as we compare it to millions of years
Full report here

3) Ocean temperatures have not risen since 2000 when the 3000 Argo buoys were launched. The buoys even show a slight decrease in ocean temperatures


Again, not quite right, the actual data shows a complex pattern of both increases and decreases, overall, it is correct that there hasnt been any dramatic changes over the 4-5 years these buoys have actually been in operation, however, this is consistent with known patterns that includes "quiet years" in 5-10 year periods. The 50-year perspective is whats important

Argo Blog:
The results of Domingues et al (2008) do not show a constant rate of warming. Instead there are periods of warming interspersed with multi-year cooling periods. There is also regional variability in the multi-decadal trends. Moreover, there is uncertainty in the results because of sparse sampling of the oceans and instrumental errors during the pre-Argo era. In spite of the variability and the uncertainty, the evidence for a 50-year warming trend in the oceans is compelling.

The Argo site and the Argo blog




4) The Arctic ice froze to February levels by December 07, there are 1mm more sq km than before (previous was 13mm sq km)
5) The Arctic ice is 20cm thicker than “normal” (whatever that is)


Since you give no source of this information, I can only take your word for it, but the term "arctic ice" on google, comes up with report after report confirming that the ice is thinning, melting, receding and dissappearing. Every climate report I've seen lately seems to say the same thing

"December 3 , 2008
Ice growth slows; Arctic still warmer than usual"


6) All polar bear pods are stable or growing (NOAA/PBS)


No, infact any data I can find shows polar bears are negatively affected by the climate change. again, this is either an extreme oversimplification of bits of data from an unnamed report, or simply a lie. Here is an actual article by a real scientist, showing a complex but worrying future for polar bears


7) Mount Kilimanjaro is not melting because of global warming, rather “sublimation”


http://www.livescience.com/environment/070611_gw_kilimanjaro.html

This is the first point that actually holds, its still melting tho, and snowfall is decreasing, I'm no glacier expert, so I'll leave this one alone.


The Antarctic is not “melting”, it is growing in most places, the sloughing off at the edges is normal as the ice mass grows

Yes it is, as all sources indicates. You can say different, doesnt make it so.

9) The majority of the Antarctic is 8 degrees below “normal” (again, whatever that is)

no sources here either


10) The coveted .7 degree rise in temperatures over the last 100 years has been wiped out with last years below “normal” temperatures (NOAA coolest winter since 2001)

It is correct that 07/08 was the coolest winter since 2001, but it was still warmer than the average 20th century, and more importantly and the fundamental flaw in most of these points, seemingly contradicting data from 1 year does not "wipe out" the last 100 years of temperature increase. If the trend continues on a steady reversal for 10-15 years, THEN we are talking.




11) Al Gore's film was deemed “propaganda” in a court of law in the UK as many points could not be substantiated by scientists
12) It was also just revealed that some of the footage in Al's film was CGI. The ice shelf collapse was from the movie The Day After Tomorrow (ABC)



13) One of the scientists that originally thought that CO2 preceded the warming has now found with new data that the CO2 rise follows the warming (Dr David Evans)
This seems to be based on this article...which has been refuted here and here


14) August 2008 was the first time since 1913 there were no sun spots.


Irrelevant, see my earlier post.


15) The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the 20th century (no SUVs)

No.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) states that the "idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect" and that what those "records that do exist show is that there was no multi-century periods when global or hemispheric temperatures were the same or warmer than in the 20th century".[2] Indeed, global temperature records taken from ice cores, tree rings, and lake deposits, have shown that the Earth was actually slightly cooler (by 0.03 degrees Celsius) during the 'Medieval Warm Period' than in the early- and mid-20th century.


16) Many scientists are now predicting 30 years of cooling.


By "Many scientists" you mean of course this guy his prediction is based on 30 years cycles.

17) The greenhouse effect is real, our small contribution to it cannot even be measured



Again, wrong. it is true that we humans didnt create the greenhouse effect, and compared to the total effect it actually has, our contribution is miniscule. However, since the earth, or more precicely, the creatures living on it, are evolved to fit the environment as it is, even relatively small adjustments in the system can potentionally have catastrophic consequences. Or perhaps not, and thats one of the things about GW, we do not know for sure what happens, which could prove costly


I hope to have shown, with no other preparation than google at my disposal, that nearly all of the above points are based on shallow, irrellevant cherry-picking of data, unreliable sources. One to take a closer look at the sources of these claims, it turns out that either these points are willfull misrepresentations of the full source, or that the source itself turns out to be single individuals with no actual evidence to back it up.


I also found QM's entire post on a facebook post which ofcourse doesnt mean its not true, but it indicates that this is some kind of "fact-sheet" spread around the net with little or no actual source-checking like I've just done. Its one of those things that , just because someone's written it down and cited a few reports (dishonestly represented) people will believe it and think they've become "climate Skeptics".

A proper skeptic would check the sources.

>> ^quantumushroom:
9) The majority of the Antarctic is 8 degrees below “normal” (again, whatever that is)


"Satellite imagery from the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder reveals that a 13,680 square kilometer (5,282 square mile) ice shelf has begun to collapse because of rapid climate change in a fast-warming region of Antarctica.

National Snow and Ice Data Center, March 25, 2008

And....

"Ice growth slows; Arctic still warmer than usual"

National Snow and Ice Data Center, December 8, 2008

>> ^quantumushroom:
The Antarctic is not “melting”, it is growing in most places, the sloughing off at the edges is normal as the ice mass grows


"The rate of ice loss in the Arctic is accelerating rapidly, scientists say.

According to data from NASA's QuikSCAT satellite, between 2004 and 2005 the Arctic lost an unprecedented 14 percent of its perennial sea ice (shown in white)—some 280,000 square miles (725,000 square kilometers), or an area the size of Texas."

National Geographic

Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a theory (hypothesis). It is an unproven theory. What you do with theories is put them to the test with scientific observations. Let’s see what data points we now have:

1) Average annual temperatures have not surpassed 1998 (NOAA) (University of Alabama)

2) Average annual temperatures are now trending downward since 1998 (NOAA) (University of Alabama)

3) Ocean temperatures have not risen since 2000 when the 3000 Argo buoys were launched. The buoys even show a slight decrease in ocean temperatures

4) The Arctic ice froze to February levels by December 07, there are 1mm more sq km than before (previous was 13mm sq km)

5) The Arctic ice is 20cm thicker than “normal” (whatever that is)

6) All polar bear pods are stable or growing (NOAA/PBS)

7) Mount Kilimanjaro is not melting because of global warming, rather “sublimation”

The Antarctic is not “melting”, it is growing in most places, the sloughing off at the edges is normal as the ice mass grows

9) The majority of the Antarctic is 8 degrees below “normal” (again, whatever that is)

10) The coveted .7 degree rise in temperatures over the last 100 years has been wiped out with last years below “normal” temperatures (NOAA coolest winter since 2001)

11) Al Gore's film was deemed “propaganda” in a court of law in the UK as many points could not be substantiated by scientists

12) It was also just revealed that some of the footage in Al's film was CGI. The ice shelf collapse was from the movie The Day After Tomorrow (ABC)

13) One of the scientists that originally thought that CO2 preceded the warming has now found with new data that the CO2 rise follows the warming (Dr David Evans)

14) August 2008 was the first time since 1913 there were no sun spots.

15) The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the 20th century (no SUVs)

16) Many scientists are now predicting 30 years of cooling.

17) The greenhouse effect is real, our small contribution to it cannot even be measured

18) Several publications, including those that are warmist have recently written that the natural cycles of the earth may mask AGW. Give me a break.

19) 31,000 scientist have signed a petition against AGW!

---------------------------

More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims


“I am a skeptic...Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly. As a scientist I remain skeptical.” -

Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history...When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'bird, water, antarctic, antarctica, south pole, freezing, ice, escape, hunt, prey' to 'bird, water, antarctic, antarctica, gentoo, orca, ice, escape, hunt, prey' - edited by xxovercastxx