Top physicist on climate change....
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
gcthomas
New member
As the Royal Museum at Greenwich, the National Maritime Museum, says - the ship could be dragged through water only 1 m deep.
Are you suggesting that the Museum is part of the global conspiracy, and that your inexpert interpretation of Naval Engineering dimensions and Wikipedia are somehow superior to theirs?
Once again, you are making yourself look foolish.
The ship is 70 feet in length, which if we use the 11' ladder for a baseline, works out perfectly.
If we stand the 11' ladder up, it wouldn't come close to reaching the top of the ship.
As Knight said, you just keep embarrassing yourself more and more.
Also, notice the size of the two people in the bottom far right of the photo.
gcthomas
New member
You didn't measure it! The ladder, measured without even allowing for the perspective, is the same height as from keel to deck in the middle of the ship.
Go on - don't just assert. Find a ruler and measure it for yourself. You believe so much that what ought to be true must be true that you forgot to check your claim.
The Fram Museum expanded in 2011, and the Gjoa is now undercover.
The following picture proves you wrong once again:
Compare the size of the polar bear with the ship
According to Wikipedia, polar bears reach a height of about 10 feet on their hind legs.
Oh come on.... I could easily drag that ship through 3 feet of water.
Dude... you were done here a long time ago. :chuckle:
Let's be fair: He has knocked the measure-the-ship challenge out of the park. :chuckle:
Tyrathca
New member
Yeah, no matter who is right about global warming it is clear who is right about this ship. It's getting hilarious.
genuineoriginal
New member
Tyrathca
New member
Who do you assume is right about this ship?
Spoiler
I'll give you a hint. It's the person who has trustworthy sources and has done the calculations to back up their arguments. Not the person with secondary sources and who just assumes their numbers rather than doing the calculations necessary.
ClimateSanity
New member
What makes one of the persons sources trustworthy and the other persons not? Whether they are secondary or not? My guess is that primary sources are generally written by people who agree with you? My guess is that the establishments who decide who gets published and who doesn't are run by people of your mindset? They throw all papers in the trash written by people you don't like? What a little game you guys have going. Hold the keys to what is considered trustworthy and define it to your liking. That way, anything that is not from those sources is untrustworthy by definition. It is just a very sneaky and underhanded way to censor those you don't like. Hitler with a smile.
genuineoriginal
New member
I still don't know which one you are talking about.
Is it the one that thinks the men walking in front of the ship are around 6' tall or the one that thinks the men walking in front of the ship are around 3' tall?
Spoiler
Alate_One
Well-known member
I'm still trying to figure out why everyone started arguing about the size of a ship.
In any case the OP is basically argument to authority, and a single authority. I can cite thousands of scientists that do not agree. There's also the dozens of scientific organizations that support climate science.
If you don't believe the data or the authorities . . .
In any case the OP is basically argument to authority, and a single authority. I can cite thousands of scientists that do not agree. There's also the dozens of scientific organizations that support climate science.
If you don't believe the data or the authorities . . .
| Believe your eyes | |
I think it started with this post:
Tetelestai homed in on that last prediction about the "opening of the fabled Northwest Passage", and it just took off from there.
gcthomas thinks a 45 ton ship with a crew of seven men and enough supplies for five years navigated through 3 feet of water.
The point is that wooden ships navigated the Northwest Passage from 1853 to the early 1900's with no problem.
Same thing with the Northern Sea Route. The German U-435 reported ice-free waters north of the Norwegian archipelago Svalbard. The sub went above the 81st Parallel in August of 1942 in route to the Kara Sea. The Germans were worried that the USA was sending supplies to the Russians via the Northern Sea Route because of how little ice there was that year, that is why the German U-435 was in the Kara Sea.
Here are the two passages:
Last edited:
A short while later in 1942, because of the lack of sea-ice, the German command ordered the battleship Admiral Scheer into the Kara Sea to search for convoys from the USA and/or Canada that may have been sending supplies to Russia.
Because of the open waters and lack of sea-ice, the Germans were concerned the USA would be using the Northern Sea Route.
Because of the open waters and lack of sea-ice, the Germans were concerned the USA would be using the Northern Sea Route.
Yep, that's pretty much what started this.
The question is how did wooden ships navigate the Northwest Passage from 1853-1906?
Beats arguing about tigers.
Evolutionists love it when the argument is about how many people believe something.
How about you address what OP was actually about. :up:
gcthomas
New member
The OP provided no evidence beyond the inexpert, unsupported opinion of one elderly physicist commenting outside of his area of expertise.
If he was still a member of the UK's learned body, the Institute of Physics, he would be acting against the code of ethics in claiming expertise outside of his experience.
How should we are arguments from authority apart from appeals to the scientific consensus? Science doesn't operate with 'authorities', although creationists and conspiracy theorists alike love to tout the credentials of their cherry picked 'authorities'.