Boat sinks in The Northwest Passage

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by DeepFrz

What I meant to say was he is a guy writing in a blog instead of an organization such as NASA, or NSIDC or ECRA or IDCC or National Center for Atmospheric Science.

And yes, climate does affect weather.

you do realise who Dr Spencer works for right?
Yes he writes a blog on his own time . What's your point?
You do realize who the nsidc is right?
Now I admit I don't know what you are referring to with the IDCC
Do you mean the IPCC?
Which is actually a bunch of politicians .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

If you bothered to look at the chart I posted and to which you reacted you would know "Marcotte". You would also know the chart uses a different baseline than is currently used.

you must be misspelling the surname please provide a reference due to my not finding anything .
I just looked at the charts again and as I suspected you did misspell the surname there is no e on the end .
I would hazard a guess that it is due to an autocorrect issue.
Its not like you to make that type of mistake.

[Bigmarv]

https://www.skepticalscience.com/ske...oy_Spencer.htm

If this is the guy Newhaul relies on over the vast body of credible peer reviewed literature and easily accessed data, then he's plainly not interested in actual evidence.

[Bigmarv]

From wikipedia:

"In TCS Daily, Spencer wrote, "Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as 'fact,' I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject. Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college."[44]

In the book The Evolution Crisis, Spencer wrote, "I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world. [...] Science has startled us with its many discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the need for a creator and designer."[45]"

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Bigmarv

https://www.skepticalscience.com/ske...oy_Spencer.htm

If this is the guy Newhaul relies on over the vast body of credible peer reviewed literature and easily accessed data, then he's plainly not interested in actual evidence.

WOW just WOW
you obviously need to do your homework a bit more.
You don't even know what it actually takes to get peer review done
Most times its actually a sham.
Not trying to dissuade you but .......

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Bigmarv

From wikipedia:

"In TCS Daily, Spencer wrote, "Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as 'fact,' I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject. Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college."[44]

In the book The Evolution Crisis, Spencer wrote, "I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world. [...] Science has startled us with its many discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the need for a creator and designer."[45]"

Wilki really what hogwash


You do realise we are talking climate not religion here right?

[rbk]

[Bigmarv]

New haul, you are claiming this man is a credible scientific source. A quick google shows why he is not and explains why his followers will tend to be poorly informed, partisans or idiots.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Bigmarv

New haul, you are claiming this man is a credible scientific source. A quick google shows why he is not and explains why his followers will tend to be poorly informed, partisans or idiots.

Again WOW do you actually believe the stuff you post?
I am truly at a loss for words to at least attempt to jumpstart your thought processes.
Are we both talking about the same dr spencer? The one with a doctorate in tha climate sciences?

Sorry to keep asking you but. WOW

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by rbk

How did you know i was eating popcorn

[Bigmarv]

Yes, Newhaul, same guy. Repeatedly criticized for his poor scientific method, demonstrably wrong, and a creationist.

If you have read up on him and still think he's a good starting point, then you're on your own. By all means though, keep going.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Bigmarv

Yes, Newhaul, same guy. Repeatedly criticized for his poor scientific method, demonstrably wrong, and a creationist.

If you have read up on him and still think he's a good starting point, then you're on your own. By all means though, keep going.

the data is good so yes he is one of my climatology sources. You know NASA if you have an issue with him feel free to fall on your sword.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Bigmarv

Yes, Newhaul, same guy. Repeatedly criticized for his poor scientific method, demonstrably wrong, and a creationist.

If you have read up on him and still think he's a good starting point, then you're on your own. By all means though, keep going.

so who do you use?

[Pete7]

Folks, what on earth has this to do with a sinking boat in the NWP?

We all know from previous threads that there are strong feelings on all sides of the global warming (GW)issue. However, this isn't the thread or really the forum unless it is directly connected to sailing and cruising.

Finally, I think the majority of the membership are actually quite bored by the constant bickering on GW and few will take the time to read what you have posted and certainly not bother reading all the links.

Pete

[Bigmarv]

Originally Posted by Pete7

Folks, what on earth has this to do with a sinking boat in the NWP?

We all know from previous threads that there are strong feelings on all sides of the global warming (GW)issue. However, this isn't the thread or really the forum unless it is directly connected to sailing and cruising.

Finally, I think the majority of the membership are actually quite bored by the constant bickering on GW and few will take the time to read what you have posted and certainly not bother reading all the links.

Pete

I hear what you say, Pete, but this thread is addressing ice conditions in the passage and GW is the elephant in the room on that issue.

Anyway, I won't bother replying to this guy anymore, but I hardly think it's fair to describe both sides of this discussion as bickering. One side is backed by the biggest pool of scientific work ever undertaken in human history, and a consensus by all civilized countries on earth (IPCC). The other is advancing a dangerous and essentially baseless position that helps distract from the urgent task of addressing this existential challenge.

If this guy was posting unsafe nonsense on other topics (eg if he claimed LPG was safe to store inside your boat with no venting because it was lighter than air) I expect you'd regard it as your responsibility to correct him. Just because the GW perils are harder to visualize doesn't make it safer. He's wrong, and GW far more dangerous and serious.