Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

[q240z]

"Acknowledging the problem" is a funny statement. What, exactly, is the problem that needs acknowledging?

Underlying all of the alarmist claims, which shift as new data comes in that undermines their previous positions (remember the ice age that was coming in the 1970s?), is a fundamental belief that humanity can regulate global temperature the same way you might adjust the AC in your car, house, or boat. Even more jaw-dropping is the notion that we can do it through the wisdom of regulatory and academic elites who, in addition to other biases, profit personally for their efforts to lead us down the "best" path. I call it jaw-dropping because in the history of government, the trend is for regulators to make all sorts of stupid choices that have all sorts of unintended consequences the experts never imagined.

If there are any problems to acknowledge, it's that our understanding of global climate is pathetically inadequate at this point, and that there's nearly pathological hubris in thinking we can dial in the global temp to just the right spot.

[lordgeoff]

warmlist

........Reefmagnet its true!!!! I copy and pasted from the internet.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by q240z

"Acknowledging the problem" is a funny statement. What, exactly, is the problem that needs acknowledging?

This one.

Originally Posted by LekiM

And I and and my colleagues have all done the Physics 101 level math that shows without ANY controversy that an increase in CO2 will change the thermal budget of the entire planet. And to say otherwise is the physics equivalent of trying to argue that gravity should point up every once in a while. It really is that basic.

[SV THIRD DAY]

If the simple physics is known and understood....great.

Show me a climate model that you can plug all the data into (you know the basic physics of CO2) and not only will it predict the future.....but based on the data we know...will be proven by the past!
Oh...can't do that...ha ha ha....sorry....go back to physics class.

MMGW Cultists Unite....

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by q240z

"Acknowledging the problem" is a funny statement. What, exactly, is the problem that needs acknowledging?

Underlying all of the alarmist claims, which shift as new data comes in that undermines their previous positions (remember the ice age that was coming in the 1970s?), is a fundamental belief that humanity can regulate global temperature the same way you might adjust the AC in your car, house, or boat. Even more jaw-dropping is the notion that we can do it through the wisdom of regulatory and academic elites who, in addition to other biases, profit personally for their efforts to lead us down the "best" path. I call it jaw-dropping because in the history of government, the trend is for regulators to make all sorts of stupid choices that have all sorts of unintended consequences the experts never imagined.

If there are any problems to acknowledge, it's that our understanding of global climate is pathetically inadequate at this point, and that there's nearly pathological hubris in thinking we can dial in the global temp to just the right spot.

Right. Your politics make the conclusions and implications unpalatable, so there must be something wrong with the findings, and with anyone advocating for them. Just what I said.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Right. Your politics make the conclusions and implications unpalatable, so there must be something wrong with the findings, and with anyone advocating for them. Just what I said.

So can you state for us what these politics are exactly....since you seem to think and say politics is the problem...well you should be able to then tell us what these evil dastardly politics of hate and destruction are!

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

So can you state for us what these politics are exactly....since you seem to think and say politics is the problem...well you should be able to then tell us what these evil dastardly politics of hate and destruction are!

hey, don't get in a lather. You'll spoil your nap.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Eating less meat essential to curb climate change, says report | The Guardian

You know, sometimes I'm not sure if you're fair dinkum or just doing a pisstake on the alarmists.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by lordgeoff

warmlist

........Reefmagnet its true!!!! I copy and pasted from the internet.

GOLD! I'll be bookmarking that site for a source of amusement.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by conachair

This one.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Right. Your politics make the conclusions and implications unpalatable, so there must be something wrong with the findings, and with anyone advocating for them. Just what I said.

Deja vu.

Politicians, for the most part in the western world, act on the will of the majority of the people. And asking people to stump up for a "problem" that is yet to be proven beyond doubt that it is a problem is difficult. The real problem is - and it has been well proven even within this thread - is that every stupid, overhyped, or contradictory pro stance article just makes the whole catastrophic scenario of AGW look more and more fanciful to anyone other than an alarmist.

Even the term "climate change denier" is a hyped fib because most anti-alarmists only deny the broad catastrophic scenarios and the notion we might actually have the technology to "unmodify" the climate.


Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[q240z]

Originally Posted by conachair

This one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LekiM
And I and and my colleagues have all done the Physics 101 level math that shows without ANY controversy that an increase in CO2 will change the thermal budget of the entire planet. And to say otherwise is the physics equivalent of trying to argue that gravity should point up every once in a while. It really is that basic.

Right. That's the hubris I mentioned.

The list of assumptions LekiM either overlooked or is unaware of in his calculations is long. Assuming a static global environment in which only one variable moves...I mean, really? Maybe physics 101 is as far as he got in the earth sciences?

Or, as actual scientists have pointed out: "a supercomputer would require longer than the age of the universe to run a single 10 year climate simulation at the required 1mm grid scale necessary to properly model the physics of climate."
Whoops! Study shows huge basic errors found in CMIP5 climate models | Watts Up With That?

But what do they know?

[q240z]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Right. Your politics make the conclusions and implications unpalatable, so there must be something wrong with the findings, and with anyone advocating for them. Just what I said.

Over the last few years, many conservative and libertarian writers, pundits, etc have noted that progressive contributions to public discourse on scientific or political topics that they've staked out as their own indisputable territory can be summed in the phrase "just shut up" when they encounter opinions that are contrary to their dogma. What you've done here is a perfect of example of that. You apparently don't even consider the possibility that at least some of us who disagree with your dogma have read enough reports and checked enough citations, and then followed the debate between actual climatologists who actually specialize in global climate, ultimately concluding completely independent of politics that the alarmists are at times demonstrably full of crap.

There really isn't much in the way of politics in the fundamentals of statistics. So, in a previous post, I mentioned that the alarmist declarations that 2014 was the hottest year ever was statistical nonsense. It's actually kind of startling that more progressives, who fancy themselves to be the smart gang, don't seem to have even a rudimentary understanding of what margins of error are. Either that, or their faith in their dogma is so strong that even if they understand what a margin of error is, they force themselves to block out bad news that blows their dogma out of the water.

There's a great explanation of that BS claim about record temps in 2014 here: On the Biases Caused by Omissions in the 2014 NOAA State of the Climate Report | Watts Up With That?

If that doesn't capture your attention, the UK's Daily Mail covers the topic from a unique perspective: "The Nasa climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth last night admitted they were only 38 per cent sure this was true."
Nasa climate scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest but we're only 38% sure | Daily Mail Online

So, when it comes to politics driving science to the point it changes to dogma, the climate alarmists seem to be leading that field. Look into criticisms of Mann's demonstrably fraudulent hockey stick for more proof.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Even the term "climate change denier" is a hyped fib because most anti-alarmists only deny the broad catastrophic scenarios and the notion we might actually have the technology to "unmodify" the climate.

"Anti-alarmists". Oh so adorable.

It's so important to have a good sightline to the target isn't it? And if there isn't a clear target, you can try and move the subject to where there is a shot... and if all else fails, you can create a target out of straw and then shoot away at that.

Like - calling anyone here who is pointing to the science an "alarmist". Not that anybody here in this thread has really gone off about doom and gloom, just expressed support for the scientists doing the heavy lifting... but in your imagination we have.

Look, if you have doubts about the findings, you're a skeptic. If you attack the scientists, confabulate about conspiracies and Asch and science is a business but the oil lobby is a source of truth, and misrepresent the possible mitigation strategies, and we can't do anything anyway and it's all a greenie power grab... you're a denier, or at least happy in their company.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Boo.....

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by q240z

Over the last few years, many conservative and libertarian writers, pundits, etc have noted that progressive contributions to public discourse on scientific or political topics that they've staked out as their own indisputable territory can be summed in the phrase "just shut up" when they encounter opinions that are contrary to their dogma. What you've done here is a perfect of example of that. You apparently don't even consider the possibility that at least some of us who disagree with your dogma have read enough reports and checked enough citations, and then followed the debate between actual climatologists who actually specialize in global climate, ultimately concluding completely independent of politics that the alarmists are at times demonstrably full of crap.

Well let's put it this way- the post I was criticizing contained very little to suggest that that particular writer was writing from an informed perspective.

If that doesn't capture your attention, the UK's Daily Mail covers the topic from a unique perspective: "The Nasa climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth last night admitted they were only 38 per cent sure this was true."
Nasa climate scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest but we're only 38% sure | Daily Mail Online

Right. The Daily Mail, whose unique world perspective is centered comfortably between Kim Kardashian's breasts. Got my attention now.