The Climate Change Hoax

Import Duties ?

How can that be ? how much are the dealers making here then ?

 

A killing I say you. Take a gearbox for example a TMC60 costs on the Lancing Marine website 638 punds, shipping 120, duty, since made in Italy not sure must check but if antying say 5%.
Price here $2470 plus GST the cheapest I could find. I'll be paying $6500 all up and localy two suppliers of the same engine want $14k and 13.5k
But before you think in starting an import business, beware that the local market is almost non existing. Same with boats. You can buy a classic wooden 40 foot yatch with all the bells and wistles in Canada for 20k or 30k canadian dollars, the same if you can find anythying close to it here costs 100k 200k whatever.
Cost however to bring big wooden boats is astronomical and risky.

 

The term wasn't intended to be dismissive of anyone. It was a description of the argument on the side of the alarmists (that term isn't intended to be dismissive either, just descriptive; it describes the side of the debate who think that not only is the earth warming, it is something that demands drastic action).

Most of the alarmists on this forum base their alarmist belief on the authority of the scientific consensus. Sure, there are other alarmists who have great scientific knowledge of the issues and base their beliefs on their own knowledge, but I wasn't referring to those people, dismissively or otherwise.

Having faith in the scientific consensus is a fine heuristic for knowing what to believe. The heuristic works far more often than not. However in this case it leads you astray. And that is what I meant when I said that I want to shake your faith in the scientific consensus. The phrase was not meant to be dismissive or derogatory.

I don't, by the way, claim that you should doubt the scientific consensus on my say-so alone. But I think the existence of obvious and strong biases in climatology and the revelation of actual conspiracies to hide data and suppress dissent should give you some pause.

But there's more than that, there is the fact that climatology just does not yet deserve the kind of respect that is given to more mature sciences. When chemistry was young they believed that heat was a fluid that entered into burning wood and turned it black. When physics was young (actually until about 1900 or so) they believed that light was a wave in a subtle fluid. When biology was young they believed that acquired traits could be passed on to younger generations.

Climatology is a young science. It has no track record to speak of. It has never shown that it can predict climate. It is just logically wrong to give great credibility to the immature science of climatology on the grounds that the very old and mature sciences of physics, chemistry and biology have proven successful at making predictions. The credibility of each individual science is independent. It is a logical mistake to think that science as a whole has the same credibility. Each individual science must prove itself. And climatology has not yet done so.

 

Sounds like our Shanghai office who always justify their loses behind the expression they´re a 'start up operation'. They´ve been starting up for the last 6 years.

 

Getting back to the "residence time," I still fail to see the significance of how long or how short it is. What does it prove or disprove? The simple fact is that according to the best available evidence, CO2 is getting into the atmosphere faster than it's leaving, after 10,000 years of being relatively stable. That happens to fit my definition of "accumulating," regardless of how long any particular molecule hangs around in the air. And the only important variable that's changed in that ten thousand years is human activity, as far as anyone has shown me.

I'm also still waiting to see the names of some legitimate scientists whose careers have been "ruined," because they spoke up against the prevailing ideas about climate change and global warming.

 

is it a controversy when the great majority of scientist that have seriously studied climate believe there's a problem and one or two don't?

is there a controversy between learned surgeons and faith healers?

 

If you're classifying Hitler's supporters as "normal," you can leave me out too. I won't be lumped in with a bunch of bitter, paranoid Germans who had just lost a war and decided to blame it on the Jews, instead of on the fact that Germany's leaders had bitten off more than they could chew.

Climate change theory is not a Fascist conspiracy, and I am not a Nazi sympathizer. And I repeat: show me the names of the scientists who've lost their jobs, been denied promotions and had their careers ruined for doubting it.

 

Let me say I dont agree with Troy's opinion about climate change. But there is NO WAY that climate change, or the scientists studing climate change are in a conspiracy against any person or government. And compareing them to Hitler is very wrong and shows a complete lack of understanding of history, science, and government.

I think if asked you would find most scientists, wile agreeing that something is indeed happening, are hard pressed to resoundly claim one way or the other exactly what is going on.

What bothers me about this is the fact that we now have government involved.

Whats that old saying? http://www.despair.com/government.html

K9

 

It is a controversy when observed data is interpreted to lead to conclusions that are not proved.

No one disputes that the climate on earth changes, just as no one disputes that evolution exists.

There are competing theories on how and why they work.

The great majority of scientists have been wrong more than once. What is "fact" is based on what we know at the time. How long ago did the majority of scientists think the world was flat?

Is the number of planets in our solar system a constant number?

As we learn more and observe more we gain knowledge and understanding. Does it strike you as odd that there are a growing number of scientists that are questioning the early conclusions about climate change? If the data can only lead to one conclusion, the number of scientists that doubt the results would be declining. That does not seem to be the case.

 

The number of planets in our solar system is a matter of semantics and definition, not science. It has nothing to do with proof, disproof or theory. No one is seriously disputing the existence of Pluto....

But if you think no one disputes that evolution exists, you obviously haven't talked to my youngest brother. Years ago some girlfriend of his managed to stick in his head the claim that no transitional forms have ever been found, and no one has managed to pry it out again.

 

I have never understood why certain groups find evolution so very hard on thier beliefs.

Evolution in my mind dose more to prove the existance of a higher power then anything else I have ever seen. For once we have some proof that a creator has an actuall plan, and isnt just making this up as they go.

K9

Edit: Sorry WAY off topic....Ill do better I promise.

 

scientists don't agree with other scientists

a scientist will agree with the science

the 2 are separate entities

so to say reputable scientists are in a conspiracy is to go against what a scientist is or ought to be

what id like to know, where the science is on the deniers side

to just say someone is wrong is not an explanation for what you believe

im not a scientist but i do follow the best science available

real science is falsifiable, even hawking had to admit he was wrong when the best science said he was

show me your science and not just denials and ill consider changing my mind if the science warrants it

 

My friend has a theory that the warming we experienced is as a result of us emerging from the nuclear winter that came upon us after the AGL nuke testing of the 1940's and 1950's, so we are just now back into "normal" climate.

 

Well Wardd its hard to prove something dosnt exist. Its like the UFOs, prove one didnt crash in Rosewell NM. See any tracks in the desert can be some possible evidence that it did crash. However no tracks dose not prove it didnt crash.

Its the same with Global Warming. Some evidence that suggests is one thing but No evidence dose not suggest no Global Warming....See the prob.

Allthough with this said there is evidence that what we are seeing is part of a normal cycle.

We get this evidence from Ice cores

K9

 

Doesn't stand up statistically; look at the numbers. But it's a fun theory.....