Cruisers Forum
 


Join CruisersForum Today

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 20-12-2015, 18:44   #106
Registered User
 
Exile's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Land of Disenchantment
Boat: Bristol 47.7
Posts: 2,964
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackdale View Post
What shunning?

When American Physical Society was reviewing their climate change policy they conducted a seminar with Judith Curry, John Christy and Richard Lindzen, skeptics all; and Ben Santer, Issac Held and William Collins, warmists all.

Climate Change Statement Review
Drs. Curry & Christy who you mention, along with Princeton professor Dr. William Happer, recently testified before Congress on Dec. 8th against the theory of human caused global warming, and part of their testimony discussed funding constraints, shunning, and pressure to conform to the majority position. Dr. David Titley, another professor and retired USN Rear Admiral, testified in support of that (majority) position.

Data or Dogma? Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate over the Magnitude of Human Impact on Earth’s Climate - Hearings - U.S. Senate Committee On Commerce, Science, & Transportation
__________________

__________________
Exile is offline  
Old 20-12-2015, 18:51   #107
Registered User
 
Exile's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Land of Disenchantment
Boat: Bristol 47.7
Posts: 2,964
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackdale View Post
The Cornwall Alliance Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming uses the term "deny" repeatedly. Two of the signatories: Roy Spencer and John Christy, who produce the satellite data from the University of Alabama, Huntsville get all of their funding from NOAA, NASA and DOE.

Richard Lindzen, professor emeritus from MIT and well known skeptic, got over $3,000,000 in funding from the National Science Foundation during his career.

I think you are bothered by a myth.
Not "to deny," as in someone who denies the existence of man-made global warming, but rather a "Denier" or as you've said, a "Denialist." Think Spanish Inquisition.

So a professor emeritus from MIT who got all kinds of funding to research the issue but remains a skeptic? But YOU are so convinced that you think further debate is akin to people who refuse to recognize that smoking is bad for one's health?
__________________

__________________
Exile is offline  
Old 20-12-2015, 18:59   #108
Registered User
 
Delancey's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Miami, FL
Boat: sunk by irma
Posts: 3,464
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Well now here is an interesting graph, kinda like the others, but ends up differently. What's that all about?
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	image.jpeg
Views:	124
Size:	42.7 KB
ID:	115392  
__________________
Delancey is offline  
Old 20-12-2015, 19:01   #109
Registered User
 
Delancey's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Miami, FL
Boat: sunk by irma
Posts: 3,464
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Whoa. Another one!
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	image.jpeg
Views:	123
Size:	99.3 KB
ID:	115393  
__________________
Delancey is offline  
Old 20-12-2015, 19:02   #110
Registered User
 
Delancey's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Miami, FL
Boat: sunk by irma
Posts: 3,464
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Yikers! Not so sure if I like this new trend. Maybe better to just go back to worrying about climate change!
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	image.jpeg
Views:	127
Size:	48.9 KB
ID:	115397  
__________________
Delancey is offline  
Old 20-12-2015, 19:05   #111
Registered User
 
Exile's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Land of Disenchantment
Boat: Bristol 47.7
Posts: 2,964
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lake-Effect View Post
Always room, in just about everything, for honest doubt and skepticism.

I read all your points. There are those who have paid handsomely to make sure we've all seen them, often.

In point-form I believe these are the main ones you raise:
  • dissenting scientists slapped down
  • majority of climate scientists bowing to conformity

I don't think it's been shown that all, or even most scientists who happen to oppose the IPCC finding of AGW have suffered materially. A handful, sure, including some who have been outed as opinions-for-hire.

Here's the big problem: in order for all these various and sundry arguments against the consensus towards AGW to amount to a logical conclusion, you first have to somehow accept that the overwhelming number (90%+) of climate scientists would willfully suppress their ability, training, professionalism and instincts to go along with something that they know hasn't been adequately investigated and proven. And that all of their own professional and scientific institutions are in on the con. As well as the other scientists and their professional and scientific associations who have reviewed the finding and judged them to have been arrived-at using proper scientific procedures and reasoning.

That's patently irrational. I haven't found any argument or combination from the anti-AGW camp that can make it past this point.
Not necessarily a big problem when you consider that the head of the Sierra Club testified before Congress a few months ago that a "preponderance" of scientists supported the theory of man-caused global warming. Technically, that can be as little as 51%. So how much pressure was there to conform at 60% consensus, 70%, 80%?? You can see how this pressure could increase with the consensus and the momentum that creates, especially when applying for grant money or academic tenure.

OR, as you point out, the 90% (or whatever, the % is in dispute too) have it right and the politicians are correct in pursuing remedies. I'm just saying there is a lot to be skeptical about, if not cynical, and I have doubts about what is obviously the mainstream, conformist view.
__________________
Exile is offline  
Old 20-12-2015, 19:25   #112
Registered User
 
Nicholson58's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Live aboard
Boat: Camper & Nicholson58 Ketch - ROXY Traverse City, Michigan No.668283
Posts: 3,466
Images: 83
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by motion30 View Post
Funny, the rest of the advanced world except for the Republican Party believes in climate change. I guess everybody else is wrong
Go here for the Great Lakes Ice Page - Very interesting and useful.
Great Lakes Ice Page | Watts Up With That?

THEN - go to their HOME page and read the posts. This is where the Heretics who have not yet been burned at the stake publish and communicate. These are the guys NOT funded by the guys with an agenda. Follow some of the other links. There is not anywhere close to a 97% agreement and the issue is not settled science. Remember please, that where I sit at this moment there was 6000 feet of ice 12,000 years ago. Its been melting for a long time and we did not do it. Enjoy the Interglacial.

BTW, I am an engineer. I build testing and rebuild equipment for the wind energy sector. This is nothing but a PC scam for feel-good smoke & mirrors. The corruption and laundering of your & my money is most impressive. Here is an inconvenient truth you won't hear from any of the snake oil terrorists. Humans exhale abut 1/3 of the CO2. This is disingenuously not included in the totals they quote. Consider that the explosion on our population since say-1920 makes our own exhaled CO2 far in excess of the annual industrial output of say-1960. At 7 billion today and growing, we will blow past any savings contemplated if all fossil fuel were eliminated. No worry - If the UN and green terrorists have their way, the problem will be solved by most of us starving.

Please understand that I am for all kinds of conservation of resources. It is not the best first use of increasingly rare feed stocks to use a fuel. They are far too important to everything we need to survive. We do need to find better ways to propel cars, heat homes etc. - BUT don't scam me, steel from me and screw with stability, economics, our way of life. Is there any enterprise the government has undertaken that has succeeded?
__________________
Nicholson58 is offline  
Old 20-12-2015, 19:26   #113
Registered User
 
Exile's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Land of Disenchantment
Boat: Bristol 47.7
Posts: 2,964
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Delancey View Post
Not sure how you get this from what I said.

We live on a planet with finite resources and the human population is exploding. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues than any other factor in human history.

As the population continues to grow, more wars will continue to be fought to control the planet's resources and more people will die as a consequence.

Global warming has nothing to do with it. No more so than Gulf War I was about teaching Saddam a lesson or Gulf War II was about going after the ex-goat herders who destroyed the Trade Towers.

As the title of the thread says, climate change won't matter in 20 years.
I must have gotten confused with all those doomsday charts & graphs of yours. I think the global warming/conflict/wars talking point I've heard lately is some sort of connection b'twn warming causing changes to agriculture/industry causing forced human migration causing conflicts b'twn otherwise settled peoples. Or something like that, so long as our political leaders have a problem to fix for us and get themselves re-elected.

Not sure about future conflicts due to overpopulation & ever scarcer resources. Seems like it's mostly been about religion lately, but what else is new? Besides, while population is obviously still increasing, I believe the rate of that increase is now declining, mostly attributed to the numbers of people living in poverty in the developing world also declining. There are various estimates of when world population will level off, but I thought I read it was predicted to be sometime later in this century. I'd guess that whether humans are still around by then might depend more on whether Iran gets the bomb than anything that happens to the planet. But what do I know??
__________________
Exile is offline  
Old 20-12-2015, 19:40   #114
Registered User
 
Exile's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Land of Disenchantment
Boat: Bristol 47.7
Posts: 2,964
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike OReilly View Post
And well you should be dubious. Just follow the money. The funders and supporters of the anti-consensus view are almost universally those with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Just like in the debates around tobacco, those with a vested interest know what the science says, so the only way they can keep their financial gravy train rolling is to politicize the issue. So yes, you should be dubious of all this faux debate.
Always respect your opinions & comments Mike, but isn't the overwhelming majority of the money going to the consensus view? Although I don't know which side is correct, I don't agree the debate is faux or akin to those involving tobacco or vaccinations.
__________________
Exile is offline  
Old 20-12-2015, 19:40   #115
Senior Cruiser
 
senormechanico's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Aug 2003
Boat: Dragonfly 1000 trimaran
Posts: 5,830
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Delancey View Post
Yikers! Not so sure if I like this new trend. Maybe better to just go back to worrying about climate change!
That chart reminds me of the NASDAQ tech sector chart from the year 2000
__________________
Memento,homo, quia pulvis es, et in pulverem reverteris.
senormechanico is offline  
Old 20-12-2015, 19:41   #116
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 Exile View Post
Drs. Curry & Christy who you mention, along with Princeton professor Dr. William Happer, recently testified before Congress on Dec. 8th against the theory of human caused global warming, and part of their testimony discussed funding constraints, shunning, and pressure to conform to the majority position. Dr. David Titley, another professor and retired USN Rear Admiral, testified in support of that (majority) position.

Data or Dogma? Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate over the Magnitude of Human Impact on Earth’s Climate - Hearings - U.S. Senate Committee On Commerce, Science, & Transportation
You do know that this was an entirely partisan grandstanding opportunity set up by a GOP presidential hopeful, in the thick of a primary campaign, right?

To be clear then, is it the case that you believe that over 90% of the world's climate scientists (because it's at least that) have failed in their jobs, or are incompetent, or have been duped/convinced or just chosen to do bad science?
__________________
Lake-Effect is offline  
Old 20-12-2015, 19:58   #117
Registered User
 
Exile's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Land of Disenchantment
Boat: Bristol 47.7
Posts: 2,964
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lake-Effect View Post
You do know that this was an entirely partisan grandstanding opportunity set up by a GOP presidential hopeful, in the thick of a primary campaign, right?

These things are always dog & pony shows, but there was also a panel full of Dems on the sub-committee who had an equal opportunity to examine witnesses from both sides, grandstand, make speeches, do what politicians do. But if it's any consolation, I do think Ted Cruz is annoying.

To be clear then, is it the case that you believe that over 90% of the world's climate scientists (because it's at least that) have failed in their jobs, or are incompetent, or have been duped/convinced or just chosen to do bad science?
The actual percentage is disputed and often contradicted even amongst the pro climate change crowd. But whatever it is, I don't think it's about scientists being duped, conned, being incompetent, or otherwise personally corrupted. I do suspect that the academic/scientific process was corrupted due to so much money & political influence going towards proving only one side of the debate. Just ask yourself what the motivation would be of the many esteemed scientists who took the contrary but minority position? Do you really believe they would risk their reputations & career advancement for the sake of money from Exxon/Mobil or the Koch brothers?
__________________
Exile is offline  
Old 20-12-2015, 20:01   #118
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 Nicholson58 View Post
BTW, I am an engineer. I build testing and rebuild equipment for the wind energy sector. This is nothing but a PC scam for feel-good smoke & mirrors. The corruption and laundering of your & my money is most impressive.

Here is an inconvenient truth you won't hear from any of the snake oil terrorists. Humans exhale abut 1/3 of the CO2.

Humans exhale abut 1/3 of the CO2.


Quote:
This is disingenuously not included in the totals they quote. Consider that the explosion on our population since say-1920 makes our own exhaled CO2 far in excess of the annual industrial output of say-1960. At 7 billion today and growing, we will blow past any savings contemplated if all fossil fuel were eliminated. No worry - If the UN and green terrorists have their way, the problem will be solved by most of us starving.
Oh, my friend...

Normally I want to be factual and concise when i rebut someone here, but to say in the same paragraph "I am an engineer" and then "Humans exhale abut 1/3 of the CO2.". That was special. Do share the source.

If nothing else, please consider this: the carbon we exhale as CO2 came from what we eat, and what we ate got it's carbon from what it ate, and if you follow along far enough, you'll find some plant that got its carbon from... the CO2 in the air.

Closed-cycle. No net CO2 increase. Now, if we happened to eat coal or oil, you'd have a (small) point. Not adding up to a third of the world's CO2 emissions tho'.
__________________
Lake-Effect is offline  
Old 20-12-2015, 20:01   #119
Registered User
 
GoingWalkabout's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: USA & Argentina
Boat: In the market for a Lagoon 56 (seems like the perfect fit)
Posts: 1,477
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

With all this talk about the role of money in Science you shouldn't forget the role of politics as well.

I'm not going to draw any conclusions but present two interesting facts that should be pondered.

1. I grew up in Australia and even as a teenager I read at least three newspapers a day front to back and everything in between. I remember reading that in the same year of the fall of the Berlin Wall the Australian Communist Party self disbanded. In a short two paragraph story it was stated how the leading office holders of the Australian Communist Party in both Sydney and Melbourne the same week of the resignation from the ACP joined the executive committee of the fledgling green movement. All of the ACP assets including printing presses and buildings were also transferred to the environmental activist green movement.

2. Again being an avid reader that has a brain that absorbs information like a sponge, I recall an article in the Financial Times reporting on the growing influence of the German Green Party and traced their beginnings. In this report it told of the initial funding for the German Green Party came in millions of dollars from Saudi Arabia. The German environmental movement was also made up of previous communist agitators and even terrorists.

I could go on about each and every environmental movement around the world. At the end of the Soviet Union a new method to effect global change was adopted by the communists. Donning suits and playing the political game from within democracies and playing on the emotions of tree huggers, they set about with a strategy of undermining the Western capitalist state.

You may well ask where do the Saudis fit into all of this. Simple. They saw the environment movement as a useful tool with subversives who could be used for their own purposes. It was like a marriage of convenience. Saudi Arabia provided millions in funding around the world while the environmentalists used their influence to lobby against new oil wells and nuclear energy in the West. Thereby protecting their dominance of the energy sector.

So since the foundation leaders of the environment movement were communists are you surprised that the meeting in Paris made no demands on China. Since the movement is even today run by global socialists are you surprised that these same environmentalists are wanting to use carbon taxing to transfer billions of dollars to others. I think Karl Marx called it the redistribution of wealth.

Give it a few years and people such as myself who can connect the dots will be gone. Posts like this will be purged. And there will be no collective memory of who, what and why. All that will be left is the masses who will have accepted what they have been told while the socialists and the few corporatists will dominate all things.

Mark my words. These people are evil. They think in terms of not months, years but in decades. Every move they make is like watching moves on a chess board. By the way, have you given any thought as to why they are saying that GW is more dangerous than terrorism? Its simple. If you accept that, then you can easily accept that speaking out against GW orthodoxy is as bad as terrorism. And that then gives Government the excuse to use the apparatuses of the State to "fight" against these evil anti GW dissenters.

If you think I'm kidding about the threat of GW goons you should look up some recent newspaper reports of some GW Scientists calling for the jailing of GW deniers.
__________________
GoingWalkabout is offline  
Old 20-12-2015, 20:12   #120
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 Exile View Post
I do suspect that the academic/scientific process was corrupted due to so much money & political influence going towards proving only one side of the debate.


No one ever backs that up. How was the scientific process corrupted, despite it being our single best method for gaining scientific knowledge? Exactly how have 90%+ of the scientists let their findings be corrupted?

Quote:
Just ask yourself what the motivation would be of the many esteemed scientists who took the contrary but minority position? Do you really believe they would risk their reputations & career advancement for the sake of money from Exxon/Mobil or the Koch brothers?
You're asking us to accept that 90%+ of the field are knowingly risking their reputations and careers to back untruth, and this holy handful have not.

Irrational, sorry.
__________________

__________________
Lake-Effect 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 19:49.


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.