Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by jackdale

What climate scientist or model proposes that CO2 is the only factor in climate change.

The link

Models

References at the bottom.

Bingo...yet what are we told...we have to cut our CO2 to save mother Gia...you just proved my point exactly.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Bingo...yet what are we told...we have to cut our CO2 to save mother Gia...you just proved my point exactly.

Anthropogenic CO2 is one the factors within our control.

1751 - 3 million tonnes of anthropogenic carbon emissions per annum

2010 - 9167 million tonnes of anthropogenic carbon emissions per annum

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2010.ems

And it accumulates.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

what I think you are failing to come to terms with is the corruption of thought. Look, we all have an easy time agreeing that politicians are mostly corrupt these days. ... What logic can be brought to the table that the men entering science ... are somehow immune to this general moral and ethical corruptness? Why are politicians and businessmen known to be corrupt yet someone calls himself a "Scientist" and he has only pure and honorable intentions? Boloney.

Answer... the scientific process. It's our single best system for cutting through human weakness, biases, competing interests, to gain the best possible knowledge and insight.

What else is there, really? How could the world do climate science any better than it's done now?

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

"hey...the measured data is not predicted by the climate models, so how can you say your models for CO2 doom and gloom are accurate? "

To ask that question is to be a Denyer, to be written off as someone in the pocket of big oil, etc. Yet the question remains unanswered and ducked. The models are all wrong....yet we are to change the entire economy of the world based on wrong models?

"The models are all wrong". Well, that's real science-like. We can sure gain some deep insight from that.

There's other reasons besides AGW for moderating and changing our consumption habits. Rest assured, we won't ever make it to the changing the economy part; the anti-AGW forces have successfuly tied us in knots and frozen the debate by p1ssing on an entire branch of science. So relax, your bedtime stories of solar-powered socialist agrarian dystopias won't come to pass.

Cap and trade is a workable free-market mechanism for managing the costs of cleaning up after our use of fossil fuels, because the current price models for fossil energy DO NOT also cover the very real costs of the effects of their consumption (there's no free lunch, right?). Currently the taxpayer bears the burden. Why wouldn't you, as a taxpayer, want to shift this burden onto the consumers of said fuels? Isn't that more equitable?

(Q: when is a capitalist not a capitalist? A:when they can sucker the taxpayer into eating the risk and costs. See 2008)

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Cap and trade is a workable free-market mechanism for managing the costs of cleaning up after our use of fossil fuels, because the current price models for fossil energy DO NOT also cover the very real costs of the effects of their consumption (there's no free lunch, right?). Currently the taxpayer bears the burden. Why wouldn't you, as a taxpayer, want to shift this burden onto the consumers of said fuels? Isn't that more equitable?

(Q: when is a capitalist not a capitalist? A:when they can sucker the taxpayer into eating the risk and costs. See 2008)

I am not a fan of cap and trade. It just moves the problem around. I favour a carbon tax.

A carbon tax is simply a means of putting a cost on excess CO2. Any company that has waste product in a liquid or solid form has to pay to have it properly disposed. Are invisible gases exempt just because we cannot see them i the air?

A carbon tax is collected from fossil-fuel companies upon the first sale at the mine, wellhead or port of entry.

The money collected via this fee would be distributed to the public as a monthly “dividend” or “green check.” Distributing all of the revenue equitably to households will ensure that families can afford the energy they need during the transition to a clean energy future, and it should help win public support for a rising carbon fee.

There is no government revenue and no corporate profit.

Check out the carbon tax in British Columbia. It is revue neutral.

Province of British Columbia

+++++++++++++++

Even advocates of the free market understand that it cannot account for waste by-products - please note I did not say pollutant.
A home construction company cannot simply dump the excess biodegradable lumber into a ditch.
The fossil fuel industry seems to get a free ride because its waste is odorless and invisible.
___________________________
Garret Hardin, a strong advocate of private property, in his landmark essay The Tragedy of the Commons (1968)
In a reverse way, the tragedy of the commons reappears in problems of pollution. Here it is not a question of taking something out of the commons, but of putting something in--sewage, or chemical, radioactive, and heat wastes into water; noxious and dangerous fumes into the air, and distracting and unpleasant advertising signs into the line of sight. The calculations of utility are much the same as before. The rational man finds that his share of the cost of the wastes he discharges into the commonsis less than the cost of purifying his wastes before releasing them. Since this is true for everyone, we are locked into a system of "fouling our own nest," so long as we behave only as independent, rational, free-enterprisers.
The tragedy of the commons as a food basket is averted by private property, or something formally like it. But the air and waters surrounding us cannot readily be fenced, and so the tragedy of the commons as a cesspool must be prevented by different means, by coerciv laws or taxing devices that make it cheaper for the polluter to treat his pollutants than to discharge them untreated. We have not progressed as far with the solution of this problem as we have with the first. Indeed, our particular concept of private property, which deters us from exhausting the positive resources of the earth, favors pollution. The owner of a factory on the bank of a stream--whose property extends to the middle of the stream, often has difficulty seeing why it is not his natural right to muddy the waters flowing past his door. The law, always behind the times, requires elaborate
stitching and fitting to adapt it to this newly perceived aspect of the commons.
+++++++++++++++++++++
Milton Friedman, the grand daddy of capitalism, in 1979
Phil Donahue: Is there a case for the government to do something about pollution?
Milton Friedman: Yes, there’s a case for the government to do something. There’s always a case for the government to do something about it. Because there’s always a case for the government to some extent when what two people do affects a third party. There’s no case for the government whatsoever to mandate air bags, because air bags protect the people inside the car. That’s my business. If I want to protect myself, I should do it at my expense. But there is a case for the government protecting third parties, protecting people who have not voluntarily agreed to enter. So there’s more of a case, for example, for emissions controls than for airbags. But the question is what’s the best way to do it? And the best way to do it is not to have bureaucrats in Washington write rules and regulations saying a car has to carry this that or the other.The way to do it is to impose a tax on the cost of the pollutants emitted by a car and make an incentive for car manufacturers and for consumers to keep down the amount of pollution.

[Reefmagnet]

Let's hear it from all those commenting within this thread that have totally divulged themselves of a reliance on using energy produced from fossil fuels.....

(cricket chirps)

Well all the research and 95% consensus has done a fat load of good then, hasn't it?

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Let's hear it from all those commenting within this thread that have totally divulged themselves of a reliance on using energy produced from fossil fuels.....

(cricket chirps)

Well all the research and 95% consensus has done a fat load of good then, hasn't it?

Bingo, even the prophets of the religion are not obeying the commandments.

But here's the funny thing, I'm living off the grid with solar and occasional generator run and I work from the boat so I don't make the evil car commute. So this Denyer has a smaller carbon footprint than all the Chief Priests....that's called Irony.

Originally Posted by jackdale

I am not a fan of cap and trade. It just moves the problem around. I favour a carbon tax.

Let me know when that Carbon Tax makes it through the US House of Representatives........not a chance amigo, the voters have spoken at the ballot box.

But if it's REALLY a threat, why tax it, why cap-n-trade it, if the fate of the world depends on getting rid of it...why don't we just ban it? Ah easy...because it's a scam for money and power...bingo.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Oh the Joys of Timing.
Editor’s Note: Patrick Moore, Ph.D., has been a leader in international environmentalism for more than 40 years. He cofounded Greenpeace and currently serves as chair of Allow Golden Rice. Moore received the 2014 Speaks Truth to Power Award at the Ninth International Conference on Climate Change, July 8, in Las Vegas.

Why I am a Climate Change Skeptic | Heartlander Magazine

I am skeptical humans are the main cause of climate change and that it will be catastrophic in the near future. There is no scientific proof of this hypothesis, yet we are told “the debate is over” and “the science is settled.”
My skepticism begins with the believers’ certainty they can predict the global climate with a computer model. The entire basis for the doomsday climate change scenario is the hypothesis increased atmospheric carbon dioxide due to fossil fuel emissions will heat the Earth to unlivable temperatures.
In fact, the Earth has been warming very gradually for 300 years, since the Little Ice Age ended, long before heavy use of fossil fuels. Prior to the Little Ice Age, during the Medieval Warm Period, Vikings colonized Greenland and Newfoundland, when it was warmer there than today. And during Roman times, it was warmer, long before fossil fuels revolutionized civilization.
The idea it would be catastrophic if carbon dioxide were to increase and average global temperature were to rise a few degrees is preposterous.
Recently, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) announced for the umpteenth time we are doomed unless we reduce carbon-dioxide emissions to zero. Effectively this means either reducing the population to zero, or going back 10,000 years before humans began clearing forests for agriculture. This proposed cure is far worse than adapting to a warmer world, if it actually comes about.
IPCC Conflict of Interest
By its constitution, the IPCC has a hopeless conflict of interest. Its mandate is to consider only the human causes of global warming, not the many natural causes changing the climate for billions of years. We don’t understand the natural causes of climate change any more than we know if humans are part of the cause at present. If the IPCC did not find humans were the cause of warming, or if it found warming would be more positive than negative, there would be no need for the IPCC under its present mandate. To survive, it must find on the side of the apocalypse.
The IPCC should either have its mandate expanded to include all causes of climate change, or it should be dismantled.
Political Powerhouse
Climate change has become a powerful political force for many reasons. First, it is universal; we are told everything on Earth is threatened. Second, it invokes the two most powerful human motivators: fear and guilt. We fear driving our car will kill our grandchildren, and we feel guilty for doing it.
Third, there is a powerful convergence of interests among key elites that support the climate “narrative.” Environmentalists spread fear and raise donations; politicians appear to be saving the Earth from doom; the media has a field day with sensation and conflict; science institutions raise billions in grants, create whole new departments, and stoke a feeding frenzy of scary scenarios; business wants to look green, and get huge public subsidies for projects that would otherwise be economic losers, such as wind farms and solar arrays. Fourth, the Left sees climate change as a perfect means to redistribute wealth from industrial countries to the developing world and the UN bureaucracy.
So we are told carbon dioxide is a “toxic” “pollutant” that must be curtailed, when in fact it is a colorless, odorless, tasteless, gas and the most important food for life on earth. Without carbon dioxide above 150 parts per million, all plants would die.
Human Emissions Saved Planet
Over the past 150 million years, carbon dioxide had been drawn down steadily (by plants) from about 3,000 parts per million to about 280 parts per million before the Industrial Revolution. If this trend continued, the carbon dioxide level would have become too low to support life on Earth. Human fossil fuel use and clearing land for crops have boosted carbon dioxide from its lowest level in the history of the Earth back to 400 parts per million today.
At 400 parts per million, all our food crops, forests, and natural ecosystems are still on a starvation diet for carbon dioxide. The optimum level of carbon dioxide for plant growth, given enough water and nutrients, is about 1,500 parts per million, nearly four times higher than today. Greenhouse growers inject carbon-dioxide to increase yields. Farms and forests will produce more if carbon-dioxide keeps rising.
We have no proof increased carbon dioxide is responsible for the earth’s slight warming over the past 300 years. There has been no significant warming for 18 years while we have emitted 25 per cent of all the carbon dioxide ever emitted. Carbon dioxide is vital for life on Earth and plants would like more of it. Which should we emphasize to our children?
Celebrate Carbon Dioxide
The IPCC’s followers have given us a vision of a world dying because of carbon-dioxide emissions. I say the Earth would be a lot deader with no carbon dioxide, and more of it will be a very positive factor in feeding the world. Let’s celebrate carbon dioxide.
Patrick Moore (pmoore@allowgoldenricenow.org) was a cofounder and leader of Greenpeace for 15 years. He is now chair and spokesman for Allow Golden Rice.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Working models....ha ha ha...folks....the models are scams.



DOCTORAL CANDIDATE DISMANTLES CLIMATE MODELS
A Ph.D. thesis by Alexander Bakker from The Netherlands, “The Robustness of the Climate Modelling Paradigm,” challenges the belief general circulation climate models are useful tools for determining the causes of climate change or projecting future climate impacts. Bakker worked with climate models for eight years at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute. “I have been regularly confronted with large model biases,” he wrote. “Virtually in all cases, the model bias appeared larger than the projected climate change, even for mean daily temperature. It was my job to make something ‘useful’ and ‘usable’ from those biased data. More and more, I started to doubt that the ‘climate modelling paradigm’ can provide ‘useful’ and ‘usable’ quantitative estimates of climate change.” Bakker’s work also addresses concerns about the enormous amount of resources being plowed into climate modeling. “Another important consideration is about the expenses. Apart from the very large computation time (and costs), the post processing and storage of the huge amounts of data ask lots of the intellectual capacity among the involved researchers. The used capacity is not available anymore for interpretation and creativity. This might be at the expense of the framing and communication of uncertainties and of the quality of some doctoral dissertations.” Judith Curry praises Bakker’s “intellectual integrity and courage in tackling this topic in ... his Ph.D. thesis. I am further impressed by his thesis advisors and committee members for allowing/supporting this. I seriously doubt that such a thesis would be possible in an atmospheric/oceanic/climate science department in the U.S. – whether the student would dare to tackle this, whether a faculty member would agree to supervise this, and whether a committee would ‘pass’ the thesis.” That is a sad commentary on the free exchange of ideas within the American university system, and on the scientific process as it has been corrupted in the field of climate research.

[Albee rose]

Assertion ain't argument.

Nor are bed-wetting conspiratorial hysterics about communism and socialism being the scales before the eyes of an unwitting public or pathetic ad hominem attacks on Al Gore.

On balance, the sorta person who is inclined to indulge in these embarrassing forms of fatuous self-abuse is a hyperventilating reactionary, one who is spoon-fed the scary bed-time stories of eco-monsters that stalk the Big Rock Candy Mountain of "all-the-rights-of-citizens-but-none-of-the-responsibilities" free-market fundamentalism. A mind impervious because dogma bars entry.

By the way: If you can name me a more socialistic institution than the United States military, I'd like to hear it.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by alctel

What? That webpage you linked seems to show that the hole stopped growing - I think that is a success by any reasonable metric!

But what was the ozone hole like in the 1930s, '40s, 50's 60's ?

Is it now bigger or smaller than it was then?

[seandepagnier]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I am not a fan of cap and trade. It just moves the problem around. I favour a carbon tax.

The only way I can see is if the tax was high enough to cover the cost of carbon sequestration and burial which current talks it's no where near.

I am against a carbon tax because that would be like having a murder tax.

Why should someone get the right to do something that is deemed wrong because they are rich?

Even if there is a carbon tax in some places... it will never happen in most of the world. I have seen the way people are in many countries, and mostly people are willing to work extra hours just so they can burn more fuels. The majority of humanity lives day to day and has no consideration for the future.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Ya....kind of like doubting the "Big Bang Theory" which has now been proven to be false. So much for consensus...which isn't Science...

When was the Big Bang Theory proven false, and by whom? I must have missed the news of the changing consensus.

The scientific consensus is sometimes wrong, and/or sometimes evolves over time. Yes, that is so.
The consensus is not immutable truth, but a provisional approximation to the truth; based upon the best evidence/knowledge currently at hand.
This doesn’t change the fact that the consensus is the best guess at the truth that we laypeople have.

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by savoir

Poor old Al. It took the British judicial system to drag him in to line.
Gore's climate film has scientific errors - judge | Environment | The Guardian

If you actually read the article, instead of just poaching it after a Google search, the Judge said the film is "broadly correct." What do you make of that?

[sobraon]

OK, so that no one is under a misunderstanding I'll treat this like an AA meeting.

Hi, my name is Garry, I am a AGW Skeptic. It's been 56 years since I last believed in AGW.

I laugh when ever I see a title, whether on a forum or social media, that evokes AGW / Climate Change. You can guarantee 2 things within the first few posts from the zealots to try to put down anyone with an alternate view.

1. The 97% myth and 2. Deniers are all sponsored by big oil.

The first one: 97%.

The chief protagonist of the myth is John Cook. A blogger/cartoonist who is the author of the oxymoronically titled Skeptical Science blog. By his own admission he is neither a scientist nor a climatologist. His work whilst religiously quoted by zealots and socialist politicians has been proven to be so dodgy that it it is laughable. For those who don't believe me I suggest you do a little Googleing. Or have a read of just this one article : The 97% consensus myth – busted by a real survey | Watts Up With That?

The 2nd: Big Oil.

Is as laughable as the first; however it has malice attached that the zealot wield as if all those who are skeptical are some how corrupt and stupid. (In Denial) The real joke is that the same argument could easily be waged by skeptics that all zealots are financed by Socialist Organisations and Governments with an agenda that neither has a lot to do with Climate and more to do with social engineering and reform.

For those of you who preach the virtues of a Carbon Tax as the way to heal the world, I assume that you have never lived under one. It took less than 4 years in Australia for it to ruin the economy and drive manufacturing out of the country. Even if all the models had have been correct and the fanciful reductions achieved, Australians spent billions of dollars to achieve less than 1000th of a degree difference whilst transferring lots of cash towards the IPCC. It is a myth perpetuated by the likes of the IPCC to redistribute wealth. Something Socialist love to do.

OK. Back to the AA meeting. I have strayed. I believe the world has warmed. It has been warming and cooling since the big bang. What I am passionate about; however are the real issues, that are forgotten, that we as sailors can have an actual impact on. Raising the awareness of and reducing pollution in the worlds oceans. Stopping mindless deforestation to grow 'ECO' crops like Palm Oil and sugar and beet for ethanol production.

Whilst the debate over man made global warming goes on real things that could be achieved to help the planet are overlooked and the money is funneled off to the wealthy Ministers, Chairmen and Officials of Government, Committees and Organisations intent on lining their own pockets. I would ask one question of the IPCC and it's supporters. Why was it necessary to fly hundreds of delegates to a gab fest in Brazil last year when in the age of internet they could have, if they were so concerned about CO2 emissions, achieved the same outcome using on skype. (HYPOCRITES) Same for this years summit in France.

I have had many of these discussions/arguments with fellow cruisers and have even been "defriended" on social media by some, simply because I posted a counter arguments to there often ludicrous predictions. One I thought particularly hilarious was a cruiser who says he is a Physicist and wants to save the planet, stated that he liked a debate; however when confronted with contrary justifiable evidence he defriended me and told me he was sick of the same argument time and time again. Hello!!! Pot this is Kettle! The same guy bought TBT in Penang to put into his antifoul, even though it is highly dangerous, toxic, extremely bad for the planet and illegal. (HYPOCRITE)

So to finish my AA meeting. I am skeptic, not an alcoholic so when we arrive on the West Coast, Rick (Third Day), I'll look you up and enjoy a drink or two with a like minded cruiser.


OHHH! Don't get me started on those idiots at Sea Shepherd.


Garry
sv Spirit of Sobraon
Home Page - www.sobraon.com

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by rassabossa

What an interesting thread. It seems to demonstrate how easily we like to divide ourselves into opposing groups instead of realizing how similar we are. ....

That's pretty much the culture of this forum.