BlueHen86 wrote:travelinman67 wrote:
If I hypothesize that lava is not hot, then burn up rappelling into an active volcano, what does that say about my scientific acumen?
Would you mourn for me, or post a thread mocking the irony of my death?
Be careful whom you entrust the scientific responsibilities governments use to effect every human on this planet for the next millenium.
I didn't know what the guy hypothesized, so I'm not sure how applicable your analogy is. Do we know exactly why he went to the South Pole?
I do find his death ironic, but I find it sad that several people on this site (you included) seem happy that the guy is dead just because he was interested in Global Warming.
Ah, yes, the inevitable "shame" post.
This man is not being belittled BECAUSE HE WAS A GW ADVOCATE, as much as for his lack of acumen. Akin to the "stupid criminal" whose folly causes his demise, I liken Schnieder's demise to his failure to RECOGNIZE the enormity of the Gaia homestatic (natural) mechanisms which regulate our planet. Whether a GW advocate, tree hugger, or other "protector" of the environment, the one common trait of all is that they perceive man as having domain over natural selection and homeostatic balance. As I've pointed out numerous times in discussions with The Hippie, the inarticulable magnitude of our planet's natural mechanisms have been dismissed by every fool seeking to purport an alarmist and/or self-hating environmental doctrine.
The fact this so-called researcher/filmmaker felt he knew enough about climate he could make a movie about an alleged anthropogenically induced anomalie, yet demonstrated his lack of knowledge by fatally entering a region that any read researcher would have know was potentially lethal, makes him a fool: Not someone to be heralded.