Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

[SV THIRD DAY]

Lets all hope for Global warming so Lake's frozen lake will thaw and he can do sailing and leave us alone with his MMGW Cult....

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

If you're saying that you think the choice is between "throw[ing] trillions at researching and combating" AGW, and not spending trillions... then you're confused. You're leaving your kids a big bill one way or the other. One of the ways leaves your descendents with more resources and less mess to deal with.

Yep, no alarmist here. Move on folks...

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Yep, no alarmist here. Move on folks...

You said trillions, not me. Who's the alarmist?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You said trillions, not me. Who's the alarmist?

Is this a trick question?

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Lets all hope for Global warming so Lake's frozen lake will thaw and he can do sailing and leave us alone with his MMGW Cult....

I dunno. You're living aboard, on the California coast, yet you find enough time to regularly chase the AGW kids off of your metaphorical libertarian lawn.

[q240z]

Lake-Effect, I agree with you that anti-alarmist is a bizarre term. But you have a rapid-fire strawman button, man: "oil lobby is a source of truth"? Who the hell says that?

You're pointing to science? Is it really science when some of the key data that underpins your beliefs is so blatantly cherrypicked? (see Mann et al) Politics vs Science? (see criticisms of NOAA's 2014 climate report or anything out of the IPCC for the last 17 years) Is it really scientific to put temp sensors used for your gang's data sets next to building roof HVAC vents? Doesn't that introduce uncertainties into the results? Or is it just political?

An interesting thing I've noticed in these discussions is that critics of the alarmists dogma will critique the uncertainties, poor analysis, etc associated with pretty much any studies, even ones that are otherwise supportive of the critics' position. But true believers of AGW and man's ability to adjust the temperature of the planet by regulatory force alone never can bring themselves to admit when one of their star scientists is outed as a hack.

Cults are freaky.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Is this a trick question?

Would you like time to think about it?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by q240z

Lake-Effect, I agree with you that anti-alarmist is a bizarre term. But you have a rapid-fire strawman button, man: "oil lobby is a source of truth"? Who the hell says that?

Reefmagnet.

You're pointing to science?

[litany of out of context and disproven counterclaims against the scientific consensus deleted]

An interesting thing I've noticed in these discussions is that critics of the alarmists dogma will critique the uncertainties, poor analysis, etc associated with pretty much any studies, even ones that are otherwise supportive of the critics' position. But true believers of AGW and man's ability to adjust the temperature of the planet by regulatory force alone never can bring themselves to admit when one of their star scientists is outed as a hack.

Nothing you've listed, even if they were all true, dislodges the fact that the vast majority of subject matter experts are onside with the finding of AGW, and that the science has been properly done. Room for doubt and skepticism? Of course there is. Condemnation of an entire branch of science? Hardly rational.

[q240z]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

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.

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

Since I got the impression you don't peruse journal portals very often, I gave you two unrelated, plain language sources that raised the exact same critiques of the crap data you worship. You have no response to anything Mr. Watts has written, but then it could just be that you don't understand most of what's on the page. The Daily Mail quoting the NASA hack Schmidt though...attack the messenger if you like, but the Daily Mail was only the vessel. If you had any curiosity about you, you could query the web and find that Schmidt's belated admission that the headlines aren't supported by the data has been a rather hot topic of discussion. Are they all wrong? Do margins of error really not matter?

[SV THIRD DAY]

Notice if you will the retreat to the old line of 4 out of 5 dentists support MMGW...ha ha ha....consensus is not science. One right scientist trumps 99 wrong ones.

[q240z]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Reefmagnet.

[litany of out of context and disproven counterclaims against the scientific consensus deleted]

Nothing you've listed, even if they were all true, dislodges the fact that the vast majority of subject matter experts are onside with the finding of AGW, and that the science has been properly done. Room for doubt and skepticism? Of course there is. Condemnation of an entire branch of science? Hardly rational.

I'll let Reefmagnet speak for himself.

As for the repeat performance of the progressive "shut up," you certainly do have your talking points down. Once you perfect "shut up" as a response to every critique, there really is no point in continuing the discussion.

And that's reinforced now that you've used the phrase scientific consensus. I mean...that's rich. What a cartoonish, stereotypical no-nothing prog you are!

This will come as complete nonsense to you, but even if there were complete, global consensus on an issue, as soon as a 12-year old demonstrated with brute logic that the consensus is wrong...it's wrong. Group think is strong, but it eventually collapses in the face of facts. Some day, I hope you get that.

In the meantime, have fun filling subsequent pages with your uninformed blah.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by q240z

Since I got the impression you don't peruse journal portals very often, I gave you two unrelated, plain language sources that raised the exact same critiques of the crap data you worship.

Hoo boy.

I seek rationality. I respect the scientific process. If the vast majority of the world's experts are behind something that I'm not an expert in, I'm going to consider it. If those opposed to this something (and with monetary incentives for opposing it) can only muster, and cling to a fairly small set of quibbles that have been repeatedly disproven, or need to attack the scientists because they can't attack the science... that makes me have even more confidence in the majority opinion.

If in the next big climate scientist get-together, there were like 20% or more expressing doubts or counter-arguments against the IPCC findings... I would have to reconsider my position. Right now, they're just about in unison about AGW. Can you make any comment about that, without requiring us to believe they're all corrupt or incompetent?

And gee whiz, I'm sorry for not indulging your regurgitation of all the anti science crap. In my defense, it has been done to death, and we don't need to be cutting and pasting from Skeptical Science or the Heartland Institute yet again. Would love to meet that 12 year old who can prove that all climate scientists are wrong.

Finally, the only rational answer to disputed science, is more and better science. Not slagging science.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Hoo boy.

I seek rationality. I respect the scientific process. If the vast majority of the world's experts are behind something that I'm not an expert in, I'm going to consider it. If those opposed to this something (and with monetary incentives for opposing it) can only muster, and cling to a fairly small set of quibbles that have been repeatedly disproven, or need to attack the scientists because they can't attack the science... that makes me have even more confidence in the majority opinion.

If in the next big climate scientist get-together, there were like 20% or more expressing doubts or counter-arguments against the IPCC findings... I would have to reconsider my position. Right now, they're just about in unison about AGW. Can you make any comment about that, without requiring us to believe they're all corrupt or incompetent?

Opponents that don't toe the line don't get invited to IPCC junkets, err, conferences. That's why all your alleged consensus, get together, whatever, is no more a true representation of the big picture than asking the supporters of a particular football team who they think is the best football team.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Opponents that don't toe the line don't get invited to IPCC junkets, err, conferences. That's why all your alleged consensus, get together, whatever, is no more a true representation of the big picture than asking the supporters of a particular football team who they think is the best football team.

IPCC isn't the only game in town for climate science. Can you point to any of the many climate science institutes or centres, or any of the general science assemblies around the world, who have expressed significant doubt about the finding of AGW, or about the legitimacy and quality of the scientific work behind those conclusions?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

IPCC isn't the only game in town for climate science. Can you point to any of the many climate science institutes or centres, or any of the general science assemblies around the world, who have expressed significant doubt about the finding of AGW, or about the legitimacy and quality of the scientific work behind those conclusions?

Clarification needed.

Do we exclude those institutes you deem to be crackpots or funded by that mythical "big oil"? Ditto for those politically linked because we all know that politicians are stupid? Do we exclude economists that say the numbers don't add up because they ain't climate scientists? Do we exclude the engineers that say it can't be fixed because they ain't climate scientists either? Do we only trust climate scientists to tell us mortals how to reduce fossil fuel dependency? Ditto for eating meat?

Or do you just want those that are telling us the earth is warming, it's our fault, and we're all doomed ?

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app