Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by SailOar

... I think it is pretty easy to sort those two types of journalist apart. So I wish that adoxograph had thought to categorize me as a science-follower rather than as a generic media-follower. ...

Sorry SailOar, no offense intended. I did not mean anyone particularly, I just used the headline as an example. It was obvious to everyone that you did not fall for catchy headlines and sensationalism.

Originally Posted by SailOar

I agree, the title, though perhaps technically correct, was melodramatic. However, the contents of the article pretty faithfully reported the scientific source...

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I would prefer it if the mods shut it down or at least moderated it harder. It's a sailing forum, there's a thousand other forums where they do nothing but politics. The 'nice' is barely a facade in this thread, it's just a brawl. Thanks for doing your part to keep things noisy.

In the meantime, if the thread exists and someone utters crap, I may respond. You gotta problem with that?

Now go wipe yourself off.

Nope, sorry you're wrong again. This is a very successful "Off Topic Forum," people don't have to read it or participate if they don't want to. mostly sailor types are participating, but it's definitely not a sailing forum.

Several moderators have even taken part and contributed many thoughtful posts on both sides of the discussion.

Let's keep Rollin' ......

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by undercutter

No! There is no place for either Religion in the primary curriculum.

So according to you, AGW denial is religion.

Not one single science academy on the planet disputes the conclusions of the IPCC.

Scientific Organizations That Hold the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action - https://www.opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

... Let's keep Rollin' ......

Absolutely. Don't stop now. The massive interest in this subject shows that it is of high importance to many. Anything that gets people interested in science is great! This thread might be heading nowhere but I have to admit this one is really fascinating to read and also fun to participate in. I for one enjoy it!

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

This is a very successful "Off Topic Forum," people don't have to read it or participate if they don't want to.

As you wish. I do wonder what your measure of 'success' is... eyeballs on ads?

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by jackdale

So according to you, AGW denial is religion.

Not one single science academy on the planet disputes the conclusions of the IPCC.

Scientific Organizations That Hold the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action - https://www.opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

Undercutter,

Don't bite at Jack's bait.... or rather chum. He'll never answer a direct question and will drive you nuts with endless questions, diversions and cut and paste graphs just like any good teacher.

For example.... Here I'll ask him a question: Jack have you invested in solar panels for your home? If not, then why not?

A simple question....

But in all fairness to Jack, I'd very much enjoy sitting down with him and Lake-effect anytime to discuss sailing stuff over a few beers. where I'm sure we'd be in agreement on most issues.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

And the punch line is . . . what? You have a habit of keeping us in suspense.

Delfin claimed that "Oh, that Parry Channel. Same one, I presume, that Amundsen went through in 1906 which was the last time ice had retreated sufficiently to make Arctic passages practical. " He was wrong. Just as he was wrong about warmists starting ice coverage in 1979.

UAH?? What exactly is required for an "academy" or "institution" to "accept" a particular position on the science of AGW? 97% of the scientists who work or teach there? A "significant" majority? A "clear & convincing" one? How about a mere preponderance, a term you have used. Do "academies" or "institutions," at least private ones, even take a position, or is it really the position of the profs & scientists who work there? So if an institution does not take a position, does that mean they don't "accept" any contrary AGW positions, and it's OK to teach children that the mainstream view is "settled science" and the "case is closed?" I bet inquiring parents would like to know.


Please post the position of any science academy that that denies AGW. Just one will do.


It's spelled D-E-L-F-I-N. You may not like it, but the name's definitely been making the rounds lately. Sucks being wrong on a simple spelling task, even for a science teacher. Probably just best to stick to copy & paste.

That was a killer argument.


Another catchy sounding one straight out of your (very old) archives.


No- middle school rules.


And here we go, yet again. Seems obvious that if Arctic sea ice has retreated before, and specifically prior to the claimed big uptick in warming since the 1950's, it's harder to attribute the current ice retreat primarily to MMGW rather than natural causes as Judith Curry seems to believe. No science required here, just some basic logic. Or are Curry's future predictions not worth exploring because you personally don't agree with them? Wouldn't it be more "educational" for you to analyze why you don't agree, or is that giving away the punch line too soon?

Please tell us all where I made the assertion claimed by Delfin.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Undercutter,

Don't bite at Jack's bait.... or rather chum. He'll never answer a direct question and will drive you nuts with endless questions, diversions and cut and paste graphs just like any good teacher.

For example.... Here I'll ask him a question: Jack have you invested in solar panels for your home? If not, then why not?

A simple question....

I live in a condominium that does not yet permit solar panels.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Where did I make that assertion?

Oh good, then we're agreed. Your picture of an escort vessel steaming through Parry Channel showed nothing unusual given past Arctic history, so you must have posted it 'cause it was a pretty picture of a couple of boats.

Glad we cleared that up.

Still slithering down the Graham's hierarchy, I see.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I live in a condominium that does not yet permit solar panels.

YEAH!! I finally got my answer.

Jack you have to get on the condo board and make some changes.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Oh good, then we're agreed. Your picture of an escort vessel steaming through Parry Channel showed nothing unusual given past Arctic history, so you must have posted it 'cause it was a pretty picture of a couple of boats.

Glad we cleared that up.

Still slithering down the Graham's hierarchy, I see.

So you admit you were wrong. Thanks for that. I never said "unprecedented."

BTW - you were also wrong about "Oh, that Parry Channel. Same one, I presume, that Amundsen went through in 1906 which was the last time ice had retreated sufficiently to make Arctic passages practical. " as well. The St Roch transited twice in the 1940's. Amundsen took three years to get through - not very practical.

Yes you are still slithering

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

YEAH!! I finally got my answer.

Jack you have to get on the condo board and make some changes.

A task for you. Please name one science academy on the planet that disputes the conclusions of the IPCC.

To make your task easier, here is a list of 200 that you can exclude.

https://www.opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by jackdale

So according to you, AGW denial is religion.

Not one single science academy on the planet disputes the conclusions of the IPCC.

Scientific Organizations That Hold the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action - https://www.opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

Impressive to see that the American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians and the Croatian Society for Arts and Sciences agrees with the statement that "Climate Change has been Caused by Human Activities". Course, this doesn't actually tell us how much change might be human caused in the opinion of the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums, but then again, a suggestion of significance when none exists is a hallmark of the warmist.

By the way, you do know the difference between an Academy and an Association, do you not? I mean in terms of which one is actually oriented towards science vs. fellowship meetings? Your statement suggests not, but if that were so, then you would have no standing to make any statement on this topic so I presume you misspoke.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by jackdale

A task for you. Please name one science academy on the planet that disputes the conclusions of the IPCC.

To make your task easier, here is a list of 200 that you can exclude.

https://www.opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

Jack... Jack... Jack,

Like I've written many times on this tread.... I'm a cheerleader FOR global warming, not a denier or cultist. I'm not interested in the science unless it involves me driving around more hours and more miles per day in my vintage Ferrari in order to help the process along (the exhaust actually brings tears to my eyes). You've already shown me how I can do my part, and for that, I thank you. But presently, I'm here on Das Boot not doing my fair share to contribute to my cause... Which is to increase the earths temperature wherever I happen to be.

Instead, I'm in the final design process for adding 500 watts of solar to the boat.

I'm a forward thinker.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Jack... Jack... Jack,

Like I've written many times on this tread.... I'm a cheerleader FOR global warming, not a denier or cultist. I'm not interested in the science unless it involves me driving around more hours and more miles per day in my vintage Ferrari in order to help the process along (the exhaust actually brings tears to my eyes). You've already shown me how I can do my part, and for that, I thank you. But presently, I'm here on Das Boot not doing my fair share to contribute to my cause... Which is to increase the earths temperature wherever I happen to be.

Instead, I'm in the final design process for adding 500 watts of solar to the boat.

I'm a forward thinker.

So you are not up to the task. OK.