Cruisers Forum
 


Join CruisersForum Today

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 26-02-2016, 09:12   #2671
Marine service provider
 
newhaul's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: puget sound washington
Boat: 1968 Islander bahama 24 hull 182, 1963 columbia 29 defender. hull # 60
Posts: 4,057
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

LE we already have been taking "preemptive" actions to clean the environment. However some new studies suggest that these same actions are infact causing the " warming" of the planet.
Shocker: Global warming may simply be an artifact of clean air laws | Watts Up With That?
__________________

__________________
newhaul is offline  
Old 26-02-2016, 10:47   #2672
Registered User

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Toronto
Boat: Sandpiper 565
Posts: 2,943
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by newhaul View Post
LE we already have been taking "preemptive" actions to clean the environment. However some new studies suggest that these same actions are infact causing the " warming" of the planet.
Shocker: Global warming may simply be an artifact of clean air laws | Watts Up With That?
From that article's quote from the source paper:

Quote:
The actual impact of cleaner air and insolation brightening on temperature remains to be elucidated.
... yet they are ok to lead with
Shocker: Global warming may simply be an artifact of clean air laws

So, show of hands - is this the cause of AGW? We need to know. OMG. Or will you jump onto something equally overblown next week?

Seriously, do you really consider this sort of distorted reportage scientifically meaningful?

(btw, how is cleaner air bad, exactly?)
__________________

__________________
Lake-Effect is offline  
Old 26-02-2016, 13:02   #2673
Senior Cruiser
 
senormechanico's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Aug 2003
Boat: Dragonfly 1000 trimaran
Posts: 5,834
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY View Post
Because at it's core MMGW has nothing to do with Environmental Science, it is a political means to an end that the supporters of MMGW could not get otherwise. It's a political tool, plan and simple. So once you start to view the MMGW cultists in this "it's all about politics" light, then finally it all starts to make sense. Finally why their CO2 emissions are OK while others are bad, makes sense. Think about it. If they REALLY believed in MMGW and it wasn't anything more than a clever political tool to gain power and control then wouldn't THEY themselves want to save the world, give up their CO2 spewing lifestyles? But they don't....why?

Folks...MMGW is a Political Movement, not an Environmental Movement.

Remember, I was on the inside.
Wrote the papers.
Presented at the Environmental conferences.
Did the air CO2 testing from the Coal fired power plants.
Sat in the EPA building with the Secretary of the EPA and plotted the political talking points and strategy.
I once drank the KoolAid.....

Why did I get out....easy....once I saw the inside of the movement (not the useful idiots that just parrot the talking points of doom) I realized just how big of a scam the industry was, so I packed my bags and got out. It's why I don't seemingly have patience for these MMGW Cultists, I've seen behind the curtain and folks...it's ugly.

But alas...call me names...cite the bogus data and play the political game....me....I'm out and laughing.

POST OF THE DAY.

Btw, have any of you GW believers actually gone sailing since this thread started?
__________________
Memento,homo, quia pulvis es, et in pulverem reverteris.
senormechanico is offline  
Old 26-02-2016, 13:47   #2674
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Probably in an anchorage or a boatyard..
Boat: Ebbtide 33' steel cutter
Posts: 3,542
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by senormechanico View Post
any of you GW believers
Is physics really that black and white?
__________________
conachair is online now  
Old 26-02-2016, 14:03   #2675
Don't ask if you can't handle it
 
sailorboy1's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: On the boat somewhere
Boat: Hunter 410
Posts: 12,336
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by boatman61 View Post
. nobody has a clue.. just a lot of assumptions and suppositions mixed up to create a 'Bullshit Baffles Brains' scenario.. much less the scientists.
The BBB theory of climate change. It's a little sad that so many posters don't recognize that they are in full support of this theory.
__________________
jobless, houseless, clueless, living on a boat and cruising around somewhere
sailorboy1 is online now  
Old 26-02-2016, 14:40   #2676
cruiser

Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 113
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Oceans will rise...get used to it...earth can't sustain all the humans we have.
__________________
Sailor Jer is offline  
Old 26-02-2016, 17:04   #2677
Senior Cruiser
 
StuM's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Port Moresby,Papua New Guinea
Boat: FP Belize Maestro 43
Posts: 6,717
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sailor Jer View Post
Oceans will rise...and fall....get used to it...earth can't sustain all the humans we have.
Yes it can.
__________________
StuM is online now  
Old 26-02-2016, 17:38   #2678
Senior Cruiser
 
StuM's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Port Moresby,Papua New Guinea
Boat: FP Belize Maestro 43
Posts: 6,717
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lake-Effect View Post
AGW is the poster-boy for any proactive action towards mitigating man-made pollution and damage, and promoting sustainability. Many anti-AGW posters here have made that pretty clear. Not all... but many. Perhaps most. The great eco-conspiracy must be stopped!

So, from an earth-centric view, all the eggs are currently in the AGW basket.
You see, that is where you are wrong. AGW and pollution/damage mitigation are two different things entirely.

The "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming caused by CO2" sceptics/doubters are generally very much in favour of pro-active action towards man-mad pollution and damage.

I exclude "sustainability" because that is another buzzword which is totally abused and used as a code word for the avoidance or even destruction of technological civilisation.

Quote:
Do we work with the best information we have, do we plan a little for the future... or can the work of experts be thwarted and neutralized successfully by special interests who feel threatened?

If the skeptics are right, why aren't they working within the system? Why aren't these skeptic sources you champion subject to peer review? Because conspiracies, right? Secret or not-so-secret government agenda?
Sorry, meaningless rhetoric. You are begging the question - in it's true logical fallacy meaning.


Quote:
So, anyway... what are the consequences of the skeptics being right, yet we get proactive on AGW, promote sustainability, and reduce all the other human-caused insults to the planet?
The consequences of that are totally beneficlal and it is what we ARE all working towards. You again falsely imply that belief in CAGW is synonymous with a desire to reduce pollution and planetary degradation and that you can't have one without the other.

Quote:
For that to be true, you'd have to believe that the vast majority of the climate science field have f'ed up, yet can't bring themselves to admit it... and the scientific process has broken down. Is that what you believe?
"f'ed up" is a gross over-simplification of a large range of factors and motivations which have indeed resulted in the scientific process breaking down in "climate science".

Quote:
As I understand it, the predictions have always acknowledged short-term uncertainties,
Acknowledged by whom? Please provide links to a few such acknowledgements?

Why do you never see error bars in prediction graphs?

Quote:
there's more warming to consider besides net air temp (...ocean temp, anyone?), and that the warming trend will reveal itself more clearly in time. In other words, the theory will be more clearly proven, or falsified, down the road.
But after every falsified prediction over the last 30 years or so, they have lengthened the road. The classic being the "hiatus". As it has got longer, so has "the expected maximum duration of any such pause in warming according to the models" from an initial 7 years up to 30 years and counting.

Not my words originally, but I agree with it:
"Few people would make an important decision based on next week’s weather forecast. When it comes to “climate,” though, the $360 billion-per-year climate establishment is telling humanity that civilization must be reorganized from top to bottom based on failed models purporting to make predictions decades and even centuries in advance."

[/QUOTE]Of course, today's question is - do we have good enough information now to justify taking preemptive action?[/QUOTE]

And today's answer is "Not when you look at the societal costs of the proposed actions".
__________________
StuM is online now  
Old 26-02-2016, 18:56   #2679
Registered User
 
transmitterdan's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2011
Boat: Valiant 42
Posts: 4,034
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Stu is right. Nobody wants to live with unbreathable air and contaminated water. Frankly it's offensive to be told that just because I don't believe we need to reduce the world population by 25, 30 or 50% to create a "sustainable" ecosystem I am against all efforts to clean up the environment.

Someone asked "what's the harm if the world just accepts the AGW disaster scenario" on faith? Surely reducing greenhouse gases and AGW would help us all.

The trouble is that the solutions all require in effect genocide. We cannot reduce the world GDP by 25% without huge numbers of deaths from starvation & disease. Most importantly, if we had to reduce use of carbon based energy by 15-30% overnight (which would do little to help AGW) there would almost certainly be a world war with release of nuclear weapons. What do you think that would do to the climate? If you think I am "crazy" ask yourself why there have been 3 ICBM test launches in the last month?

So the cure is much worse than the disease. And there are many knowledgeable AGW proponents who know all this. Even so, as in some of these posts, they cynically demonize anyone with the temerity to explain what it all really means.
__________________
transmitterdan is online now  
Old 26-02-2016, 19:45   #2680
Marine service provider
 
newhaul's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: puget sound washington
Boat: 1968 Islander bahama 24 hull 182, 1963 columbia 29 defender. hull # 60
Posts: 4,057
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lake-Effect View Post
From that article's quote from the source paper:

... yet they are ok to lead with
Shocker: Global warming may simply be an artifact of clean air laws

So, show of hands - is this the cause of AGW? We need to know. OMG. Or will you jump onto something equally overblown next week?

Seriously, do you really consider this sort of distorted reportage scientifically meaningful?

(btw, how is cleaner air bad, exactly?)
Less so2 into the atmosphere but more co2 instead. Also you obviously didn't actually read the title. It stated that gw may be an artifact of the clean air act. Not that it was a result of it.( also I didn't say cleaner air is bad. Personally I like it).
__________________
newhaul is offline  
Old 26-02-2016, 20:38   #2681
Registered User

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Toronto
Boat: Sandpiper 565
Posts: 2,943
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by StuM View Post
You see, that is where you are wrong. AGW and pollution/damage mitigation are two different things entirely.

The "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming caused by CO2" sceptics/doubters are generally very much in favour of pro-active action towards man-made pollution and damage.
Not true. Most skeptics/doubters in the general population are simply anti-green, period; AGW is just the current lightning rod for their opposition.

Quote:
I exclude "sustainability" because that is another buzzword which is totally abused and used as a code word for the avoidance or even destruction of technological civilisation.
...yet sustainability is the easiest concept of all: let's live in a way that we can maintain indefinitely.

Quote:
You again falsely imply that belief in CAGW is synonymous with a desire to reduce pollution and planetary degradation and that you can't have one without the other.
Uh, no, I was observing that many, likely most that oppose AGW also don't really give a **** for other ecological concerns in general. It's been amply illustrated by more than a few here.

(ooh - almost missed the C in front of AGW. Nice one.)

Quote:
"f'ed up" is a gross over-simplification of a large range of factors and motivations which have indeed resulted in the scientific process breaking down in "climate science".
So.. you think climate science has f'ed up. The majority of them are wrong? Can you prove this?

Repeating, cos you dodged this: If the skeptics are right, why aren't they working within the system? Why aren't these skeptic sources you champion subject to peer review?

Quote:
the $360 billion-per-year climate establishment is telling humanity that civilization must be reorganized from top to bottom
... that's just so much bullshit. What climate "establishment", and how is it more organized, powerful and self-interested than the fossil-fuel lobby which actually exists?Where's this reorganization manifesto that's keeping you up at night?

Quote:
Quote:
Of course, today's question is - do we have good enough information now to justify taking preemptive action?
And today's answer is "Not when you look at the societal costs of the proposed actions".
What proposed actions? Please show us these monsters under your bed.
__________________
Lake-Effect is offline  
Old 26-02-2016, 20:50   #2682
Registered User

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Toronto
Boat: Sandpiper 565
Posts: 2,943
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by transmitterdan View Post
The trouble is that the solutions all require in effect genocide. We cannot reduce the world GDP by 25% without huge numbers of deaths from starvation & disease. Most importantly, if we had to reduce use of carbon based energy by 15-30% overnight (which would do little to help AGW) there would almost certainly be a world war with release of nuclear weapons. What do you think that would do to the climate? If you think I am "crazy" ask yourself why there have been 3 ICBM test launches in the last month?
Wow. Just, wow. I don't know where you guys come up with this stuff, but in my occasional bouts of shortwave listening I can't help but fall across professional doom nutbars like Alex Jones and his ilk, so I shouldn't be completely surprised.

But, putting this aside, are you saying your opposition to AGW is mainly because you fear what acknowledgement would lead to?
__________________
Lake-Effect is offline  
Old 26-02-2016, 21:16   #2683
Senior Cruiser
 
StuM's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Port Moresby,Papua New Guinea
Boat: FP Belize Maestro 43
Posts: 6,717
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lake-Effect View Post
Not true. Most skeptics/doubters in the general population are simply anti-green, period; AGW is just the current lightning rod for their opposition.
"anti-green" is just another one of those convenient labels so beloved by the alarmists. Anti unscientific green zealots, maybe.

You might try reading Green Philosophy: How to Think Seriously About the Planet: Amazon.co.uk: Roger Scruton: 9781848872028: Books

Quote:
...yet sustainability the easiest concept of all: let's live in a way that we can maintain indefinitely.
Ah, the good old "sustainability myth" Nothing is "indefinitely sustainable".
Adapt or perish.

Quote:
Uh, no, I was observing that many, likely most that oppose AGW also don't really give a **** for other ecological concerns in general. It's been amply illustrated by more than a few here.
B*llsh*t. Show me the posts from the "CAGW from CO2" sceptic/doubters showing that they don't give a **** for othe ecological concerns in general.

Most of us are very much conservationist in our outlooks.


Quote:
So.. you think climate science has f'ed up. The majority of them are wrong? Can you prove this?
They prove it themselves with every falsified prediction and every distorted/falsified claim, many of which I have debunked in this thread. Haven't you been reading my posts?

Quote:
Repeating, cos you dodged this: If the skeptics are right, why aren't they working within the system? Why aren't these skeptic sources you champion subject to peer review?
Repeat: Begging the question (do you understand what this means?). Many of them are working within the system and subject to peer review. You could start with a few of these:

Popular Technology.net: 1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism


Quote:
... that's just so much bullshit. What climate "establishment", and how is it more organized, powerful and self-interested than the fossil-fuel lobby which actually exists?Where's this reorganization manifesto that's keeping you up at night?]

What proposed actions? Please show us these monsters under your bed.
COP21? Agenda 21?
__________________
StuM is online now  
Old 26-02-2016, 22:03   #2684
Registered User

Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 570
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lake-Effect View Post
...most that oppose AGW also don't really give a **** for other ecological concerns in general. It's been amply illustrated by more than a few here.

(snip)

... that's just so much bullshit...

(snip)

Please show us these monsters under your bed.
O-o-o-Kay....
__________________
fryewe is offline  
Old 26-02-2016, 23:16   #2685
Senior Cruiser
 
Kenomac's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Somewhere in the Adriatic Sea
Boat: Oyster 53 Cutter
Posts: 8,518
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lake-Effect View Post
Not true. Most skeptics/doubters in the general population are simply anti-green, period; AGW is just the current lightning rod for their opposition.

...yet sustainability is the easiest concept of all: let's live in a way that we can maintain indefinitely.

Uh, no, I was observing that many, likely most that oppose AGW also don't really give a **** for other ecological concerns in general. It's been amply illustrated by more than a few here.
I leave this thread for just a few days and one of us backslides to the who's greener than who argument.....

Well Mr. Lake effect... Should I bring out my home photos of the solar panels again? And you can show us yours?
__________________

__________________
Kenomac is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cruising and the Coming Storm ~ Recession, Depression, Climate Change, Peak Oil jtbsail Off Topic Forum 162 13-10-2015 13:17
Weather Patterns / Climate Change anjou Off Topic Forum 185 19-01-2010 15:08
Climate Change GordMay Off Topic Forum 445 02-09-2008 08:48
Healthiest coral reefs hardest hit by climate change GordMay Off Topic Forum 33 11-05-2007 03:07



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 15:17.


Google+
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.