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. Elmo
    Joined: Dec 2009
    Posts: 32
    Likes: 6, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 170
    Location: Beach

    Elmo Junior Member

    He`s not saying much actually.

    Market forces have always worked in this way.
    The nature of speculation is what it is.
    Traders LOVE SPECULATION.

    Without speculation , there IS no "market".

    And to put that that down to global warming is ludicrous.
    What he is describing is perfectly NORMAL MARKET BEHAVIOR !
    Remember Gordon Gecko ? : Greed works ...Greed is good...
    Sound familiar ?...." Double your money in a year "???????..................

    As far as " the first time ever" , and " unprecedented appeal for $ 500 MILLION.... " .... blah blah...
    well , there will be a lot more of that as the world`s population balloons from six billion to 9 billion around 2040 - 2050.
    Blaming that on some " The Global Warming Myth " conspiracy is equally ludicrous.
     
  2. hoytedow
    Joined: Sep 2009
    Posts: 5,649
    Likes: 271, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 2489
    Location: North of Cuba

    hoytedow Wood Butcher

  3. hoytedow
    Joined: Sep 2009
    Posts: 5,649
    Likes: 271, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 2489
    Location: North of Cuba

    hoytedow Wood Butcher

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

    alanrockwood Senior Member

    Here is a link to a couple of reviews of this man's work:

    http://www.alastairmcintosh.com/articles/2010-Peter-Taylor-Climate-Reviews.htm

    Basically, the reviews are critical of this man's credentials in climatology, and a number of other topics, though there are some comments that some of his stuff is a good read, not for scientific content, but for other reasons. I actually haven't looked into Taylor's background myself, so go ahead and throw spears if you want.

    In any case, please note that Taylor describes himself as a science policy analyst. "Science policy analyst" is not the same thing as "scientist".
     
  5. alanrockwood
    Joined: Jun 2009
    Posts: 130
    Likes: 16, Points: 18, Legacy Rep: 116
    Location: USA

    alanrockwood Senior Member

    I went to the website related to this graph. However, at that web site Dr. Spencer does not disclose how he did this calculation, so there is therefore no way for anyone else to verify the calculation, or to judge what it actually means. I have emailed Dr. Spencer for an explanation, but so far I have not heard back from him.
     
  6. alanrockwood
    Joined: Jun 2009
    Posts: 130
    Likes: 16, Points: 18, Legacy Rep: 116
    Location: USA

    alanrockwood Senior Member

    One year's experience with Killing frosts in Florida or wherever means very little. In fact, it is well known among fruit growers that killing frosts often occur as the result of warm winter weather, which causes fruit trees to bud out too early, and when the nearly inevitable late frost comes it kills the buds, resulting in a lost crop.

    The other reason it means very little is because one year does not a trend make. A trend, is by definition, something that happens over a period of many years.

    So, enjoy your anecdotes, but don't take them too seriously.

    Additional note added later: I am not sure if the Florida losses are the result of late frost or just plain cold weather.
     
  7. Marco1
    Joined: Oct 2009
    Posts: 113
    Likes: 28, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 240
    Location: Sydney

    Marco1 Senior Member

    What is "ludicrous" is your post.

    The point is not the ethics of "speculation" nor the size of grants, The point is, the ONLY point is that the myth of andropogenic CO2 changing climate in any significant way is false.
    The fact that dissenting views in the scientific community have been silenced from the beginning, points to intentional falsification.
    The behaviour of markets, including opportunism is a well known phenomenon and governments function is to regulate not to fire this up if it hurts in this case the food industry. THe CO2 myth has fired up a series of hollow industries, the "green" industry allegedly good for the "planet". The whole assumption that it is better to pay double the cost for electricity because it is produced by "clean" ******** is supported only by a bold face lie. The lie, the fabricated evil of CO2. Take that away and all the green industry will collapse. However the governments of the western world are so deep into this votes purchasing exercise that there is no way back
     
  8. alanrockwood
    Joined: Jun 2009
    Posts: 130
    Likes: 16, Points: 18, Legacy Rep: 116
    Location: USA

    alanrockwood Senior Member

    One quick note about dissenting views, peer review, and the like. I will give the climate deniers the following point: it is generally true that dissenting views are not treated kindly in the scientific literature. In general it is very difficult to publish papers containing dissenting views. The peer review system tends to enforce a kind of conformity that is hard to break through. I have had a number of painful personal experiences with this myself.

    However, do not take what is written above as an endorsement of the views of the climate change skeptics. I still think that the odds are greatly against their being right. I just wanted to point out some of the real life dynamics that go on in the scientific world.
     
  9. alanrockwood
    Joined: Jun 2009
    Posts: 130
    Likes: 16, Points: 18, Legacy Rep: 116
    Location: USA

    alanrockwood Senior Member

    "pay double"? Well there you go again marco, making up numbers to suit your purpose without bothering to check the facts.
     
  10. Marco1
    Joined: Oct 2009
    Posts: 113
    Likes: 28, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 240
    Location: Sydney

    Marco1 Senior Member

    Only scientist support the official version, only truth seekers have an opposing view, "conspiracy" label used for appealing to prejudice and your constant and ridiculous scrutiny of who is a "Climatologist" or who is a real pure bread Scientist...uhuuu shake in your boots guys, Alan will debunk this cross bread ******* who dares to challenge those in the marble tower.

    What do you have to say to the numerous points made against the CO2 is bad "consensus? Nothing of course.

    It is precisely this senseless puerile obtuse dense attitude from some members of the scientific community that is taken up by politicians and build a barrier to debate. "The science is settled", the consensus! Heard that before? Remember the "consensus" of the "scientist" that lobotomy was a good practice?, X ray of pregnant women? Applications of short waves to the head to cure sinusitis? What about tying a women to a chair and throw her in the water if she floats she is a witch. That was a general consensus.
    I can go on and on.
    The demonisation of andropogenic CO2 has already caused immense damage to all the genuine quest for alternative sources of energy by throwing us into the wrong direction into a dead end street, and chaining all the possible inventors of clean energy into grants to combat a chimera, plinking at the windmills.
    Whoever supports this has no common sense and your attempt to oppose the views of this person by attempting to say he has no "credentials" is as ridiculous as all the other claims by the warmist.
     
  11. fasteddy106
    Joined: Apr 2009
    Posts: 72
    Likes: 17, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 171
    Location: connecticut

    fasteddy106 Junior Member

    Alan, one of the cost factors you have to figure in to the cost of "clean" or "renewable" energy is that you must have spinning reserve for any wind or solar power that is transmitted across the grid for primary power. Without spinning reserve, you have the potential for huge trouble. I call that trouble brownouts or blackouts, clean energy folks might use the term rationing. So take you average cost of wind power, between 34-42 cents kw, add on a quick start ng plant for spinning reserve backup at 16-20 cents kw and you have much more than double the cost. The same with solar. Only with solar the efficiency drops dramaticly each year and the disposal costs have to be figured in. I get my ng costs from the director of a public power plant where a new quick start ng unit was just built. Coal runs around 6-8 cents per kw as does oil, an online nuc plant is 4 cents kw. The fact is that wind and solar are not affordable without huge subsidies. The efficiency of wind power sucks to put it simply. Unless you want it for periphreal uses like battery maintenence or water heating it just doesn't make for primary generation nor is it dependable.

    Solar and wind simply can never be primary power producers at anything near an affordable price range.

    Some generating costs from Royal Engineering Society....

    http://www.coalcandothat.com/assets/resources/Cost_Generation_Commentary (2).pdf
     
  12. Guillermo
    Joined: Mar 2005
    Posts: 3,644
    Likes: 185, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2247
    Location: Pontevedra, Spain

    Guillermo Ingeniero Naval

    Yes, this is the general trend when someone dissents about a "consensus" theory lige AGW (realize I highlighted "theory"): Try to discredit the person, instead of debating what he/she says/proposes, to see if it is correct and/or well supported or not. Unluckily a very common behaviour in this thread too (and I'm not innocent here).

    I think it is honest from Taylor to not present himself as a scientist, which he is not. This remembers me some scatteredbrained member in this thread who has seriously presented himself here as a "Scientist" :D :D :D
     
  13. Guillermo
    Joined: Mar 2005
    Posts: 3,644
    Likes: 185, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2247
    Location: Pontevedra, Spain

    Guillermo Ingeniero Naval

    Perhaps you should post at his blog....

    Cheers

    P.S. And perhaps you may be interested in reading this exercise too:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/...ed-the-co2-increase-not-the-other-way-around/
     
  14. fasteddy106
    Joined: Apr 2009
    Posts: 72
    Likes: 17, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 171
    Location: connecticut

    fasteddy106 Junior Member


    Do you mean this guy.................




    Boston the Weasel
     

    Attached Files:


  15. Guillermo
    Joined: Mar 2005
    Posts: 3,644
    Likes: 185, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2247
    Location: Pontevedra, Spain

    Guillermo Ingeniero Naval

    Is that another of his nicknames? :D :D :D
     
Loading...
Similar Threads
  1. rasorinc
    Replies:
    22
    Views:
    2,173
  2. El_Guero
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,047
  3. troy2000
    Replies:
    168
    Views:
    10,707
  4. gonzo
    Replies:
    675
    Views:
    40,072
  5. gonzo
    Replies:
    587
    Views:
    42,944
  6. Grant Nelson
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    3,113
  7. Boston
    Replies:
    162
    Views:
    11,456
  8. Boston
    Replies:
    4,617
    Views:
    288,332
  9. hmattos
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    1,359
  10. brian eiland
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,228
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.