Ocean Concerns

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by hpeer

I have no desire to mire myself in this big wallow, not do I expect to change anyone’s opinion.

That said....

MY opinion, based on the best evidence I can find, the opinion of the vast majority scientists, and of folks who live in more northern climes (such as my 93 yo aunt and her contemporaries), folks who have made a living outdoors across the ice for decades.... based on this information I have no doubt the world has warmed significantly within human memory. And from that I conclude it will continue to rise.

PS I would NEVER quote anything from Zerohedge. It’s horrid misrepresentation of anything. Pure propoganda.

As the only one participating in this thread that has given a Scientific Paper presentation at an air pollution control and measurement conference and gained my first retirement in the area of air emission control, I might just have a little insight others lack. Why did I turn my back on the fake consensus and become a denier? Easy...I've been in the room when the fake narratives were written to tilt the data and "consensus" in the direction that mattered to them....A) Money B) Politics. So I retired from the Scam. Enjoy the ride of the MMGWC but I bailed from it after being an inside believer long before many participating in this thread knew what the real issues were, I was there and saw the scam, and ran away as fast as I could.

[SV THIRD DAY]

"4 out of 5 Dentists Recommend Crest Toothpaste"

"97 of Climate Scientists accept MMGW"

If you don't understand the above, then you could be part of the problem also known and the scientific ignorant.

[Alberg30Shill]

Denial is a defense mechanism...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism

A lot of climate change acceptors rely upon Minimization as a defense mechanism...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini...on_(psychology)

If you think it's a problem.for your kids or grandkids, you fall into this category.

I'm afraid both groups are in for a nasty awakening.

[Suijin]

Originally Posted by danielamartindm

Referring to someone with whom you disagree as a vulgar word for a condom

I can't find any reference to the origin of "scumbag" being a used condom. It's defined as a contemptible or objectionable person.

Originally Posted by danielamartindm

and "nicely" characterizing me as "ignorant" do not boost your credibility

To state that someone is ignorant is not an insult; it's an opinion regarding their knowledge of a topic, not their intelligence. The word is unfortunately perceived in contemporary society as pejorative, but it's not.

Originally Posted by danielamartindm

nor does pretending to understand more about the earth and its complex systems than we really do

Is it your position that his demonstration of knowledge of the subject is in some way false? I'd suggest that an objective rebuttal of the points he makes would do a better job of that then simply calling him a pretender.

Originally Posted by danielamartindm

; and "settled science" beauties like yourself are the true deniers, as not all in the scientific community agree that the climate IS warming.

The overwhelming majority of climatologists and those in related, pertinent fields conclude that the climate is warming and a sizable majority of them are ready to pin it on human activity. Maybe it's not 97%, but it's probably close. I'm sure you can find a statistically significant percentage of geologists that believe the earth is only 5,000 years old, but that does not mean that there is debate in the scientific community about the earth being approximately 4.5 billion years old.

[barnakiel]

Question:

Why worry about something that MAY or MAY not be true?

Answer:

Because thinking about things we cannot change (nor do we know if we should!) frees us from doing the actual, immediate and observable with the naked eye: like thousands of tons of pollution being dumped into the oceans.

Not doing what can be done while musing about the great scheme of the things ... truly disappointing my sailing brethren!

Cheers,
b.

[Dave_S]

I'm not on either side.

What I am saying is the information we are fed is told with advantages and this comes from both sides.

In the second graph, I still wonder why 15%, I wonder why we can't see 12 months, and I wonder why we can't also see the full variation of ice spread, I wonder why the volume scale is linear.

If I were pro CC I could point at the huge drop in 2016. If I were anti I would say we were at the top of the charts twice in 2016 and we are heading for record levels of ice right now.

All facts (if the chart is accurate) but both statements are misleading.

Because you read it doesn't make it true.

Like Albert Einstein said "don't believe everything you read on the internet !"

[Bruce K]

Climate and sea levels have always changed, are changing and will always change, due to "natural effects" of which we (homo sapiens) are a part. Just because we are so full of our own importance we think all this should stop! We are no more than a blink (probably less than) in the earth's time frame. Talk of the Great Barrier Reef is dying!! Where do people thing the vast deposits of limestone came from. The Earth Abides.

[rgleason]

Thankyou guys for keeping this intellectual and friendly. as we are all cruisers and the ocean is our playground and concern.

[rgleason]

Otherwise, I will have to ask for removal of this thread

[Dave_S]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

And if you held them more that a couple of years you'd likely loose...

I was just joking :-)

I just based it on the trace of the graph, not anything to do with CC. It's a trace that if it were a stock it looks like it's run out of support.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by Alberg30Shill

Denial is a defense mechanism...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism

A lot of climate change acceptors rely upon Minimization as a defense mechanism...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini...on_(psychology)

If you think it's a problem.for your kids or grandkids, you fall into this category.

I'm afraid both groups are in for a nasty awakening.

Could you be a little less cryptic? (I'm childless as an evolutionary choice [deliberate decision not to spread a genetically transmitted dis-ease]).

[darylat8750]

Originally Posted by geoleo

an Ocean 44 uses a lot of dirty fuel ! aren't you feeling guilty?

Nope.

I burn about 3.5 gallons an hour at 7kts plus about a quart a day for the genset. I don't move the boat every day or even every week. When I'm home in WY I spend more money on fuel than I do when on the boat. Therefore I'm doing the "Un-Deniers" a big favor when I'm on the boat.

[darylat8750]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

As the only one participating in this thread that has given a Scientific Paper presentation at an air pollution control and measurement conference and gained my first retirement in the area of air emission control, I might just have a little insight others lack. Why did I turn my back on the fake consensus and become a denier? Easy...I've been in the room when the fake narratives were written to tilt the data and "consensus" in the direction that mattered to them....A) Money B) Politics. So I retired from the Scam. Enjoy the ride of the MMGWC but I bailed from it after being an inside believer long before many participating in this thread knew what the real issues were, I was there and saw the scam, and ran away as fast as I could.

There is an opinion that carries some weight.

I have been on the outer circle of data gathering and while not a scientist I have observed similar behavior. $$$ talks.

[hpeer]

I fully understand that $$$ talk. And I can believe that researchers tilt evidence to their own gains. That’s all human nature. Researchers and scientists are humans and not pure, unlike the rest of us. And too much of the discussion revolves around this, both sides have something to protect; researchers their funding and deniers their view of life that supports them. I would also put a lot of do- voided organizations in this category, they don’t exist without a flag to rally about.

It when you scrape the above layer away, when you lol at the physical effects, the evidence is clear; Earth is warming and the rate of change is increasing.

I think in some level it becomes religion. On the one hand are those who feel they live in Gods world and all is Gods will. Then there are those who recognize that we live in mans world and man has molded Earth to his will.

I hear folks say “ Man can not change Earth, it’s too big.” It in reality there are 7.4 BILLION of us, we constitute what is probably the single largest single species biomass ever seen. And we are voracious consumers, in someways humanity is more like a wildfire, consuming all before it.

This a very unpopular view point, it upsets many folks at a fundamental level.

I do agree with the deniers that there is noting to do, not because it is outside our technical ability, but outside our emotional ability.

[hpeer]

Regarding the argument about researchers just in it for the money. This can be applied to both sides. CC researchers generally get funding from universities where as denier funding is backed by large corporations who would be adversely affected.

It reminds me of the tobacco debates, RJR et al certainly put their heavy thumb on the scales of research and kept feeding the lies for decades. Why would now be different?