What Do We Think About Climate Change

Discussion in 'All Things Boats & Boating' started by Pericles, Feb 19, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. hoytedow
    Joined: Sep 2009
    Posts: 5,857
    Likes: 400, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 2489
    Location: Control Group

    hoytedow Carbon Based Life Form

    So you admire fraud and the scientists who commit it.
     
  2. Brent Swain
    Joined: Mar 2002
    Posts: 951
    Likes: 38, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: -12
    Location: British Columbia

    Brent Swain Member

    Living on my boat I used to use 1/10,000th the electrical energy of the average house. Now it's one millionth. The average house in Canada uses 350 gallons of water a day. I use 17 gallons every couple of weeks. There is no justification for such a huge gap, as I don't feel any need to increase my consumption of resources. Your personal environmental footprint is porportionate to how much money you spend. The freedom that conservation would give you would go a long way to resolving the small amount of free time super consumers ***** about not having. It would also make industrialized countries far less vulnerable to political upheavals in third world countries. It would take a combination of alternative energy and conservation to achieve worthwhile goals.
    To deny that ice free arctic waters to 80 degrees north doesn't represent a climate change or that the rapidly diminishing glaciers and river flows , or record climate events, winter coming a month late and spring coming a month early in the arctic, are not an indication of climate change , is self delusional. Ostriches don't bury their heads in the sand . If they did, lions would have bitten their asses off and made them extinct long ago. No, ostriches don't bury their heads in the sand , people do , and we are about to get our asses bit off.
    I can see a huge brown cloud of smog over Vancouver, or any big city on any clear summer day. I can't spend a day in one without coughing for several days after. To believe that billions of cars and their exhausts and the burning of mountains of coal and supertankers full of oil, daily, in an atmosphere as thin as ours, where carrying oxygen is a good idea over 15,000 feet, has no effect , is extremely self delusional, as is believing anything from the oil gas and coal industry, given the stakes they have in such delusion , and what their values have proven to be.
     
  3. hoytedow
    Joined: Sep 2009
    Posts: 5,857
    Likes: 400, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 2489
    Location: Control Group

    hoytedow Carbon Based Life Form

    Every bit of water I use is still water when I have finished with it. It just has more flavor.
     
  4. TollyWally
    Joined: Mar 2005
    Posts: 774
    Likes: 26, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 423
    Location: Fox Island

    TollyWally Senior Member

    LOL Boston,
    I'm going to retire from this thread for a bit. Civilized discourse revolves around understanding another's position and addressing it. Not neccessarily agreeing with but understanding what the position is. A test is the ability to give a summation of the opposing viewpoint.

    I will attempt this. Your position; the concensus and proof of man caused global warming is overwhelming. Global warming's central causation is CO2 released through the acts of man, primarily through the conversion of hydrocarbons to heat via the process of work in the physics sense. Money taints research, only research that is unsullied by any commercial association can be accepted as intellectually honest.

    I feel compelled to say that your particular style of debate is rather frustrating if one was to take it seriously which I do not. You may be unaware of this but you seldom address the actual points brought up by your opponents. Instead of actually addressing opposing views you mock them in a condescending fashion and go off on your own tangent, having never actually addressed the points made.

    From time to time I may reenter the fray, but at this point we are basically at a dead end, my points never actually addressed on their own merits or flaws. This sort of intellectual game can be fun, the thrust and parry of logic and reason. Since this isn't happening, better to celebrate the things we have in common then magnify our differences.
     
    1 person likes this.
  5. kmorin
    Joined: Apr 2005
    Posts: 185
    Likes: 18, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 231
    Location: Alaska

    kmorin Senior Member

    Tolly leave them to their religion

    Tolly,
    the idea that man's puny oxidation reduction schemes and some tiny scale guided reactions are causal to climate change- is easily disproved and has been shown to be false, in error and a fraud along with all warming's proponents' versions.

    But we're not holding a rational discussion with rational people, we're talking about their faith, for Heaven's sake, [pun optional]. You're trying to reason with those whose unreasoning by lack of capability or knowledge is the basis for their faith.

    The reason this group of true believers suspends the Laws of Thermodynamics in their faithfulness to AGW; is because they "don't need no damn physics"!

    IF anyone among them allows the laws of thermodynamics to continue- as before their 'imams' suspended them.... their argument evaporates along with perpetual motion and lead made into gold!

    Not one of them has ever addressed how the cooler atmosphere heated the warmer earth to get their 'warming' - that of course violates the 2nd law and blows the whole religion! For reasons unknown to me but clear to them the candle is heated by the room in which it burns?

    They continually mistake the earth's atmosphere for a glass house (!) and can't seem to see the lack of applicability of their own analogy? The countless problems and errors in the entire AGW silliness won't be addressed by physics or chemistry as neither is more than "opinion" -just ask the advocates/acolytes.

    Good heavens not one of their priests is standing after just a few short years, I think Carnot, Clausius, Gibbs and Lotka are all still accepted in their " skeptical doctrines" !!!! and they started 'preaching' in the 1800's.

    Lets talk boats, there's another foot of AGW caused white litter outside today and that's what this site is for.

    Cheers,
    Kevin Morin
     
  6. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    Tolly
    If you have some valid point to make concerning the science of Rapid GLobal Climate Change and have some actual data to back it up I am always willing to address it. If the focus of the deniers argument is based on disinformation and philosophy then its probably not going to get much play, which it isn't and its not just I that refuse to play that game. The scientific community as a whole has refused to pander to the games the industry PR arm would like to play.


    the consequences of climate change are far more dire than what most are willing to admit
     
  7. TollyWally
    Joined: Mar 2005
    Posts: 774
    Likes: 26, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 423
    Location: Fox Island

    TollyWally Senior Member

    I'm a fool for getting sucked in one more time but what the hell it's only the internet.

    Have I stated your position correctly?

    Can you state my position? If so will you address it?
     
  8. hoytedow
    Joined: Sep 2009
    Posts: 5,857
    Likes: 400, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 2489
    Location: Control Group

    hoytedow Carbon Based Life Form

    Tolly, trying to reason with fanatics is like trying to teach a pig to sing. You will be frustrated and the pig will become annoyed and may charge.

    Tusk, tusk.
     
  9. Brian@BNE
    Joined: Jan 2010
    Posts: 262
    Likes: 13, Points: 18, Legacy Rep: 151
    Location: Brisbane, Australia

    Brian@BNE Senior Member

    Tolly, post #5143 was good. What I have learned from this thread is who is capable of thinking and responding to others appropraitely without regurgitating dogma (that I suspect they don't even understand), something invaluable to know in this mostly fabulous forum. I hope your attempts to rescue the thread succeed.
     
  10. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    well the wording is off enough to have to say no you missed it

    proof is not really a valid scientific concept but instead something laymen refer to who do not understand the scientific process

    science works by finding data and then forms a hypothesis based on that data, eventually once predictions can be accurately made, a theory is developed, at which point a consensus is considered

    there is no real avenue for something to be considered proven

    Global warming is not the name of any theory Ive been discussing
    not sure its the name of any theory at all actually
    I have been discussing Rapid Global Climate Change sometimes also referred to as Abrupt Global Climate Change
    there is a big difference

    yes
    there is a consensus and overwhelming data in support of the theory that mans interaction with the environment is placing us in danger of a catastrophic Rapid Global Climate Change

    essentially yes
    but numerous chemicals are responsible for the alterations in the atmospheric and oceanic chemistry
    and yes co2 is a big player as is methane and plastics as well as there associated binders

    Funding through companies who have a vested interest in the outcome of the research is not generally considered valid in scientific research or at least its taken with a grain of salt

    on any paper submitted for review there is a heading for competing interests
    many a paper has been rejected on the basis that this criteria was not able to be met adequately

    there are actually several headings designed to root out conflict of interest in research

    science is generally and best funded by blind grants

    phony science is generally funded by open grants, directly hiring, clandestinely hiring or by directly paying for favorable papers
    Fred Singers work comes to mind

    so no
    money does not sully science
    but it can influence it inappropriately if administered incorectly

    thats one reason why the IPCC does not fund any research
    the organization seeks to maintain an unbiased view of the work it is reviewing

    concerning the general denialist position
    it seems to be based mostly in the denial of some basic science
    the denialist position does not really present a hypothesis for review but instead simple attacks another without offering any alternative
    rather than be for something it seems to be against something
    deniers seem to believe that physics do not apply to atmospheric chemistry
    that alterations in chemistry make no difference in physical properties and interactions with other parameters
    deneirs seem to refuse to be willing to address the rate of change in the climate history
    refuse to address the volumes of data in support of the theory or Rapid Global Climate Change but instead focus on what few bits of anomalous data may exist
    and deniers seem to insist on using the work of biased sources in what little consideration of the science is being made
    deniers seem to be more willing to consider the work of several thieves rather than the work of tens of thousands of scientists
    and deniers seem to believe that is some kind of massive conspiracy involved that must incorporate these tens of thousands of mostly poor scientists over a several hundred year period
    deniers also seem to rally around the industry diatribe regularly trying to interject the obvious pr as often as possible

    frankly the position of the individual denier gets muddled with all the varied positions of all the other deniers, Each seems to have his own view of things and its really hard to keep each individual belief system straight

    its a mosh most notably failing to form a coherent or comprehensive counter theory and therefor failing in its efforts to engage in any serious scientific debate

    hope that answers your question
     
  11. TollyWally
    Joined: Mar 2005
    Posts: 774
    Likes: 26, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 423
    Location: Fox Island

    TollyWally Senior Member

    Much better Boston,
    And my position?
     
  12. Jimbo1490
    Joined: Jun 2005
    Posts: 785
    Likes: 41, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 527
    Location: Orlando, FL

    Jimbo1490 Senior Member

    WONDER B:

    Maybe you should send Dr Phil Jones over at the East Anglia CRU an email explaining why you are so certain of this alleged 'consensus'. It's odd, he being a top tier climate research scientist and all, that he should be laboring under the misapprehension that the debate is still ongoing, as he seemed to indicate in a recent BBC interview:

    When scientists say "the debate on climate change is over", what exactly do they mean - and what don't they mean?

    "It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don’t believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well."

    Also note his answer to the following question:

    How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?



    I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.



    So the next time you start to try to blame the CO2 increase from ~1800 onwards on the advent of the industrial revolution, as you have done so often, be aware that even your own camp is not comfortable with that assertion, lacking as it does, any shred of scientific credibility, due to the whole 'threshold of significance' problem, which in two + f'n years of debate, you still won't address. They are only confident that 'climatologically significant' anthropogenic CO2 emissions began after WWII, just as I keep trying to tell you. Maybe it will stick this time(I doubt it:rolleyes: ) No wonder the AGW gang tried to hide the rapid increase in temperature before that :p Odd, too that for the ~40 years afterward temps fell. Shall we have a go at the volcanic aerosols red herring again?

    Jimbo
     
  13. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    seems like you are pretty clearly on the deniers side
     
  14. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    nice try Jim
    One man opinion does not a consensus make

    there have been several poles and consensus's taken and all land in the 90 to 97% range
    there is no counter theory so what is it you are thinking the debate is about anyway

    your assesment of the time frame of co2's influence in the atmosphere continues to be quite entertaining

    so whats the charges for illegal entering anyway and have the thieves been caught yet or are they still on the run
     

  15. Jimbo1490
    Joined: Jun 2005
    Posts: 785
    Likes: 41, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 527
    Location: Orlando, FL

    Jimbo1490 Senior Member


    True enough, if it was just one random man.

    But this is Dr Phil Jones of East Anglia CRU!!!

    Jimbo
     
Loading...
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.