Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

another mostly inscrutible post, mate.

Australia, like Canada, has bet the farm on resource extraction, particularly fossil fuels. (You don't need a degree in climate science to know this) So Australia's kind of dependent on selling coal to Asia, which makes your government somewhat less than welcoming to the message of AGW.

You already know that the fossil fuel lobby funds the majority of "institutes" that provide anti-AGW propaganda... and it's working, so I'm not surprised that a pro-coal government would want to beat back the climate science, too. Even a veterinarian can figure that out.

inscrutable is the word. Indeed it is because it was mostly comprised of a quotes taken from a veterinarian commenting on climate change.

I'd suggest that anti-AGW is gaining momentum because the whole argument of AGW causing climatic catastrophe is starting to come apart at the seams and not because it's funded by big oil. At least the Y2K bug had a use by date. This thing is going to have to die the "death of a thousand cuts". Kudos to the present Aussie government for taking the initiative to investigate beyond the "97%" propaganda imo.

And, just to get this straight. You require peer reviewed papers if it's anything to do with challenging any aspect of AGW - sorry climate change - yet veterinarians are more than welcome to make public comment if it's in support of AGW?

Fair enough. In an inscrutable way of course.

[SV THIRD DAY]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11561629/Top-scientists-start-to-examine-fiddled-global-warming-figures.html

The gift that keeps on giving
When you fake the numbers....ha ha ha

[conachair]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11561629/Top-scientists-start-to-examine-fiddled-global-warming-figures.html

The gift that keeps on giving
When you fake the numbers....ha ha ha

You boys do like reading nutters. Booker, as in asbestos is like talcum powder, passive smoking isn't bad for you and bse can't be transmitted from cows to humans. Add in the GWPF hiding where their money comes from.

This will come to nothing, other than their objective, to muddy the waters in any way possible.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I'd suggest that anti-AGW is gaining momentum because the whole argument of AGW causing climatic catastrophe is starting to come apart at the seams and not because it's funded by big oil. At least the Y2K bug had a use by date. This thing is going to have to die the "death of a thousand cuts". Kudos to the present Aussie government for taking the initiative to investigate beyond the "97%" propaganda imo. .

You must be living in fairy land (or on a boat) if you think the naysayers are gaining momentum. and our government has not 'investigated', there simply in bed with big mining industries who give the liberal party most of their funding.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I'd suggest that anti-AGW is gaining momentum because the whole argument of AGW causing climatic catastrophe is starting to come apart at the seams and not because it's funded by big oil.

Please clarify a small point - are you stating that anti-AGW propaganda isn't being funded and generated by big oil, or are you saying it doesn't matter?

Kudos to the present Aussie government for taking the initiative to investigate beyond the "97%" propaganda imo.

And, just to get this straight. You require peer reviewed papers if it's anything to do with challenging any aspect of AGW - sorry climate change - yet veterinarians are more than welcome to make public comment if it's in support of AGW?

Wow. You do know the difference between science, and political comment, right?

A veterinarian, with some serious cred when it comes to science, has pointed out the obvious (political, not scientific) fact that the Australian government's current short-term interest runs counter to the acknowledgement of AGW, and they are investing money into finding ammo for this fight. (Not exactly the high road of science).

Last I heard, opinions don't need peer review. (let me save you some work. this is where you'll try to tell us that AGW is just an opinion too. To which, I'd say AGW is a conclusion reached after much scientific work by the very best in the field, and supported by the vast majority of the subject matter experts. You're welcome)

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Last I heard, opinions don't need peer review. (let me save you some work. this is where you'll try to tell us that AGW is just an opinion too. To which, I'd say AGW is a conclusion reached after much work, by the very best in the field, and supported by the vast majority of the subject matter experts. You're welcome)

Of course that's just the opinion of someone on the Internet calling him/herself Lake-Effect. One persons "expert" is another persons crackpot depending on our "opinion" of their credentials and credibility.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

Of course that's just the opinion of someone on the Internet calling him/herself Lake-Effect. One persons "expert" is another persons crackpot depending on our "opinion" of their credentials and credibility.

Scientists are crackpots? The majority of climate scientists are crackpots?

You don't have to take my word for anything.

[senormechanico]

DIE THREAD, DIE !!

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

DIE THREAD, DIE !!

In the famous words of Scotty from Star Trek.

"Die he's dead already"

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

DIE THREAD, DIE !!

or, we could go with this one....

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

You must be living in fairy land (or on a boat) if you think the naysayers are gaining momentum. and our government has not 'investigated', there simply in bed with big mining industries who give the liberal party most of their funding.

I'm guessing Clive Palmer isn't a regular donor these days.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Please clarify a small point - are you stating that anti-AGW propaganda isn't being funded and generated by big oil, or are you saying it doesn't matter?

Show me the numbers. You seem to have inside information.

Wow. You do know the difference between science, and political comment, right?

In the context of supporting AGW or not supporting AGW. Don't the ground rules change depending on stance?

A veterinarian, with some serious cred when it comes to science, has pointed out the obvious (political, not scientific) fact that the Australian government's current short-term interest runs counter to the acknowledgement of AGW, and they are investing money into finding ammo for this fight. (Not exactly the high road of science).

If 97% of voters believed in AGW they're signing their own political death warrants. Let's see how this pans out.

Last I heard, opinions don't need peer review. (let me save you some work. this is where you'll try to tell us that AGW is just an opinion too. To which, I'd say AGW is a conclusion reached after much scientific work by the very best in the field, and supported by the vast majority of the subject matter experts. You're welcome)

AGW is a theory.

On a side note, I Googled "Bjorn Lomborg". He must have written a very good anti-AGW book back in 2001 going off the number of character assassinations running rampant on the Internet. I know he's a political scientist or some such and all but as you, yourself, say it doesn't matter who they are and opinions don't need peer review.

A particularily amusing site is this one: Lomborg Errors

Especially the bit where they compare the errors in Big Al's book to Devil Spawn Lomborg's book.

From

index

This gem of a conclusion

Al Gore´s book and film are not without errors. Several errors seem due to careless selection or presentation of examples, so that even though the actual details are wrong, the main point that they should illustrate is probably not wrong. In the words of the British high court judge, the presentation in the film is "broadly accurate". However, there are a few points where the need to make the wake-up call as loud as possible has led to exaggerations of lurking dangers, or even to unfounded scare-tactics. This is unfortunate, because it reduces credibility also of those points which are probably correct.
However, when Al Gore and Lomborg are judged by the same standards, there is a wide difference in credibility. In those texts that deal with the climate issue, Lomborg has on average one to two flaws or errors per page. By comparison, Al Gore´s book has 325 pages. Even if we consider that, because of photos and large letters, this would compare to only 100 pages of Lomborg´s type, that would amount to only 0,13 flaw or error per page. In the film, there is on average one flaw or error every 9th minute. Even if you watch the whole film, you do not meet as many distortions as there are in 10 pages of one of Lomborg´s books.

Oh yeah, here's a typical Lomborg error from the above site, lol

P. 6 right: FLAW

"Sub-Saharan Africa has by far the greatest numbers of starving people - almost 33 percent were starving in 1996, although this was down from 38 percent in 1970 and is expected to fall even further to 30 percent in 2010." Flaw: As explained in more detail in relation to chapter 5, p. 61, this falling "trend" for Africa results from the combination of several data sets, one of which gives a rise in the proportion of starving from 38 % in 1970 to 43 % in 1991, whereas the other gives a fall from 35 % in 1991 to 33 % in 1997. As the figures for 1991 demonstrate, the two data sets are not congruent and therefore should not be combined. On p. 21, Lomborg describes how misleading it can be to combine two incongruent figures; in the light of his remarks there, it is not acceptable that Lomborg himself does the same here. Furthermore, when Lomborg calls himself a statistician, he must stick to the principles of statistics. And among these principles is that if a trend is based on figures that are so uncertain that their difference is not significant, then we cannot speak of a trend. Concerning the estimates of the proportion of starving, these are obviously fairly uncertain. In the FAO report "The state of food insecurity in the world 1999", which Lomborg has used, we can read that the underlying information is imperfect, and that "As better data become available the estimates are revised retrospectively". Also, there is presented a 10 % range of insecurity around the figures presented. Now, the proportion of starving in Africa in 1997 has indeed been revised retrospectively in later reports and is now (2003) set at 35 %. So there is no falling trend since 1991. The oldest figure belonging to a congruent data set is a figure of 37 % for 1980. The difference between 37 % and 35 % is less than 10 % of these figures, and so the difference cannot be considered significant. Thus, statistically speaking, there is no fall. Concerning the estimate for the future, certain factors are now considered more adverse than was the case in 1996. This is especially true for the AIDS epidemic which hampers agriculutral production. Therefore, we cannot rely very much on the estimate of 30 % starving in 2010. Altogether, Lomborg´s claim that the trend is positive even in Africa, is not warranted.

Obviously, the guy's an idiot. Total waste of 4 million bucks.

[Lake-Effect]

So, you don't know the difference between science and political comment. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

So, you don't know the difference between science and political comment. Thanks for clearing that up.

Thanks for demonstrating your ability to draw conclusions from thin air.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

DIE THREAD, DIE !!

A couple of years ago, when this sort of non-sailing, non-productive thread broke out a few times, I asked the mods in the thread to shut it down. Of course I was spitballed by other posters, and like gun-nut threads, was told by the mods that these topics were fair game, as long as everyone was being 'nice'. Apparently politeness has a higher value than accuracy, truth or respect.

So... I'm with you. I don't think AGW or climate-change has ever been a productive topic for CF. But since they do permit it, and people feel comfortable spouting denier nonsense about the science... game on. You seem to enjoy contributing as well.