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. alanrockwood
    Joined: Jun 2009
    Posts: 130
    Likes: 16, Points: 18, Legacy Rep: 116
    Location: USA

    alanrockwood Senior Member

    Bed wetters?

    No, you are the bed wetter Jimbo.
     
  2. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    definition according to school of hard knocks

    term used when no rational rebuttal can be made, no scientific evidence refuting same exists, and one is unwilling or to old to learn whats new in the world. Its simple really some folks would rather stoop to abusive unimaginative one liners than concede there ill conceived preconceptions were wrong.

    some folks just cant admit when they are wrong no mater how ridiculous they end up looking

    happens mostly to republicans but the democraps are just as big a bunch of idiots in there own way

    hope that helps you out some there Alan

    cheers
    B
     
  3. fasteddy106
    Joined: Apr 2009
    Posts: 72
    Likes: 17, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 171
    Location: connecticut

    fasteddy106 Junior Member

  4. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    an aptly named web site
    spinning junk science to the uneducated masses rather than admit that the science is so well established that no one else would listen to there spin

    thus they take there dog and pony show on the road and see if they can convince anyone that cigarette smoking is good for you

    its sooooooo easy to debunk this tripe guys
    at least Guillermo attempts to bring in some semblance of science to what you guys keep claiming is a scientific debate
    this junk science page is a poster child for the oil and gas PR campaign

    didn't any of you guys ever see that flick "Thank You For Smoking"

    http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/jLWJg8zMn9w/
     
  5. fasteddy106
    Joined: Apr 2009
    Posts: 72
    Likes: 17, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 171
    Location: connecticut

    fasteddy106 Junior Member


    Not a single bit of refutation, just the tired old elitism from a tired old fraud masquerading as someone of importance using cliche attack tactics and instructions written for him by someone else, pathetic.
     
  6. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    refutation ?
    you want a rebuttal in scientific terms of an op ed piece printed in the industry spin pages containing absolutely not a shred of verifiable scientific data beyond the opinions of its misinformed writers.

    please
    lets try and step it up a notch
    were you actually interested in a scientific debate
    bring it on
    if this kind of pr tripe is all you can devise then you are only admitting that there is no scientific debate to be had

    How about if you deniers present a coherent conglomeration of scientific data constituting a working hypothesis so we can actually have this mysterious scientific debate I keep hearing you folks are so interested in.
    Fact is you dont have such a hypothesis and there is therefor no debate. Speaking of which a scientific debate is largely the discussion of two competing hypothesis and not misinformed attempts to deny the scientific process behind the development of one of the most widely accepted scientific theories of all times

    another thinly veiled attempt at distractions and cheap personal attacks
    sorry but once again you are making my points crystal clear to our readers and after all it is they who I am most interested in geting through to
     
  7. TollyWally
    Joined: Mar 2005
    Posts: 774
    Likes: 26, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 423
    Location: Fox Island

    TollyWally Senior Member

    One would think the scientific method would consist of hypothesis tested against verifiable and repeatable criteria. That the point of peer review is to hang your *** out in the air in as transparent a manner as possible, the OBJECTIVE being to search as hard as possible for flaws in either the hypothesis or the data.

    Things are never proven right, only proven false. Concensus proves nothing. Indeed the history of science is the cycle of concensus being proven wrong, radical thought becoming concensus, concensus being proven wrong.

    Antecdotes regarding the ficticious musings of make believe charactors, such as the merchants of death, in Buckley's tongue in cheek satire are germane how? They are not. Their mention here is a strawman and adds nothing to the debate but distraction.
     
  8. Jimbo1490
    Joined: Jun 2005
    Posts: 785
    Likes: 41, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 527
    Location: Orlando, FL

    Jimbo1490 Senior Member

    It's funny how sensitive you are to "lies and exaggerations" coming from 'skeptics', men who you yourself admit are unqualified, yet the lies and exaggerations from the warmer camp coming from official bodies like the IPCC, and major universities and NASA are all within bounds.

    I think that's called hypocrisy.

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

    Jimbo1490 Senior Member


    Again, the lawsuits are about one person libeling or slandering (damaging) another person or legal entity. They are NOT about the strength or merits of the scientific claims one way or another, but about personal damages.

    On the whole "right 100% of the time" concept, this is a straw man argument since skeptics do not expect predictions of climate to be better than weather predictions, which certainly are not right all the time.

    What we want to see is a match up of observed natural phenomena with the broader predictions of the AGW narrative. These are not so much predictions in the sense that they are about events yet to happen, but about events that have already occurred, or occur constantly, about which we need an understanding. I'll review some of them for clarity on this point:

    • AGW predicts that CO2 levels rise in the atmosphere causing warming; CO2 first, warming to follow. The observed reality is the opposite no matter what timescale you choose. This is a failed prediction of AGW.

    • AGW predicts that since humans are assumed to have caused the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 levels by burning 'fossil' fuels, we should find >21% fossil carbon in the present atmosphere. We do NOT find that amount or anything close. That's another failed prediction of AGW.

    • AGW predicts that the atmosphere, specifically in the areas of cloud formation and precipitation, will react to positive thermal perturbation by increasing the greenhouse effect, forming a strongly positive feedback between positive thermal perturbations (including CO2 increases) and greenhouse warming. We observe the opposite, that a feedback mechanism does exist, but the sign is negative. This is another failed prediction of AGW.

    • AGW predicts that if a warming event is due to an increase in greenhouse warming, then the center altitudes above the tropics will exhibit ~2.5X the total observed 'global' warming. This region of the atmosphere has remained very constant in temperature, even while there has been some warming, meaning that the observed warming is NOT attributable to an increase in the greenhouse effect. This is another failed prediction of AGW.

    • AGW predicts by tabulation that the present atmosphere should contain 800 ppm CO2. We observe less than half this concentration. This is another failed prediction of AGW.

    None of the above predictions are trivial; indeed each one of them alone torpedoes the AGW narrative. And there are more failures than this; I just wanted to touch on the highlights.

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

    Jimbo1490 Senior Member

    So take up the torch, Alan. Go find us a measurement study of CO2 residence time that supports the IPCC's "50-200 years". Remember that it has to be an actual measurement study, NOT a computer model simulation.

    I'm not even asking you to bring back a bucket of compression, either; I've yet to use up the one that Wonder B brought me :D

    Jimbo
     
  11. alanrockwood
    Joined: Jun 2009
    Posts: 130
    Likes: 16, Points: 18, Legacy Rep: 116
    Location: USA

    alanrockwood Senior Member

    So what does that have to do with your bed wetting habit that we were discussing?
     
  12. alanrockwood
    Joined: Jun 2009
    Posts: 130
    Likes: 16, Points: 18, Legacy Rep: 116
    Location: USA

    alanrockwood Senior Member

    My comment above (directed to Jimbo) was, of course, silly and childish. Don't forget though, it was Jimbo who started calling people bed wetters and other names. How about if we all quit making these kind of stupid comments and keep the conversation on a higher level.
     
    1 person likes this.
  13. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    and so the question remains
    what debate
    in all the annals of science a debate consists of two apposing views not one followed by denial
    you guys need to present a coherent counter theory in order to present a debate and thats not what is happening here

    you have either presented arguments against the scientific process or presented obviously flawed papers concerning various points of minutia by sell outs to the oil and gas industry and none constituting a viable coherent counter theory
    hardly constitutes a debate

    yes science advances dramatically by the occasional leap or bound however those are few and far between and to rely on that argument and suggest that the pr campaign of the oil and gas industry somehow represents the genius of scientific insight synonymous with newton or Einstein is ridiculous in the extreme

    so I ask again
    do you deniers have a viable and coherent counter theory that you would like to present to the scientific community and if so why are you waisting your time with a non scientific forum instead of presenting your hypothesis for the kind of review and publication that would illicit a debate

    even a slight application of logic reveals the hollow nature of the deniers argument :D
    there is no debate to be had

    what there is is a overwhelming majority of data in support of the theory of Rapid Climate Change and an ever growing body of scientists who form what is likely the largest consensus of all time
     
  14. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    whats funny is that the dispersion studies done at the time of the nuclear tests you are referring to showed almost the exact opposite of what your trying to say they do

    the excess of isotopes formed or transformed by the nuclear tests did not disperse but instead loitered in the top few feet of the ocean surface and over a relatively localized area. The residency time was non linear and the % remaining in the atmosphere is still with us today

    you seriously should read the original studies rather than just buy the spin sold by the oil and gas PR campaigns Jim
     

  15. TollyWally
    Joined: Mar 2005
    Posts: 774
    Likes: 26, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 423
    Location: Fox Island

    TollyWally Senior Member

    Boston,
    You don't need to counter a theory with a theory in a tit for tat situation. A debate centers around a position and one side takes pro the other con. It is an application of logic and critical thinking, an intellectual sport.

    We speak here not of a debate but the fruit of hypothesis subjected to repeatable and verifiable criteria.

    Jimbo raised 5 examples of failed predictions a few posts back that appear to weaken the cause you so stridently defend. You've done a bit of ad hominem posturing. What do you bring to the table that contradicts the 5 specific failed predictions Jimbo describes? Tell us why those predictions are correct not false as Jimbo contends.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads
  1. rasorinc
    Replies:
    22
    Views:
    1,787
  2. El_Guero
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    800
  3. troy2000
    Replies:
    168
    Views:
    9,326
  4. gonzo
    Replies:
    675
    Views:
    36,415
  5. gonzo
    Replies:
    587
    Views:
    39,090
  6. Grant Nelson
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    2,867
  7. Boston
    Replies:
    162
    Views:
    10,193
  8. Boston
    Replies:
    4,617
    Views:
    264,831
  9. hmattos
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    1,130
  10. brian eiland
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,005
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.