Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

[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?

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.

Here's some rationality for you. From that Master of Disaster, the Duke of Doom and High Priest of Climate Alarm, I present James Hansen:

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&s...BkoPKPmHagg5Hw

Apparently, among other dastardly deeds, we'll manage to boil off the Earth's oceans and really turn the planet into Venus 2. It'll take a billion years or so, but it'll still be our fault.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

..consensus is not science. One right scientist trumps 99 wrong ones.

If that one right one comes up with some science proving the others are barking up the wrong tree then science will happily throw out the entire tree. So far there just isn't another smoking gun to explain the near instant temperature rise in global temperatures (in geological terms) and nothing to suggest that CO2 et Al don't behave as physics predicts they do. But bring it on, it would be fantastic news for everyone.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

Time for a laugh again. Thanks to Third Day

[SailOar]

Study Finds Global Warming as Threat to 1 in 6 Species | New York Times

Climate change could drive to extinction as many as one in six animal and plant species, according to a new analysis.

In a study published Thursday in the journal Science, Mark Urban, an ecologist at the University of Connecticut, also found that as the planet warms in the future, species will disappear at an accelerating rate....

As dire as Dr. Urban’s conclusions are, other experts said the real toll may turn out to be even worse. The number of extinctions “may well be two to three times higher,” said John J. Wiens, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Arizona....

Dr. Wiens also noted that the tropics have been underrepresented in climate extinction studies. In Dr. Urban’s meta-analysis, 78 studies focused on species in North America and Europe, while only seven came from South America. Yet when Dr. Urban combined all the data from South American studies, he found that 23 percent of species were at risk of extinction. In North America, by contrast, only 5 percent faced extinction.

What makes this imbalance all the more glaring, Dr. Wiens said, is the fact that most of the planet’s species live in tropical forests such as the Amazon. If climate extinction research took tropical diversity into account, the planet’s overall risk would be much higher....

Dr. Pearson said that climate extinction models will need to take other factors into account, as well. “What happens to other species in an ecosystem when a species goes extinct?” he asked. Its partners in that habitat might risk extinction as well.

Dr. Urban saw many other ways in which climate extinction models should improve. For one thing, they should take into account the cities, farms and other barriers that humans have put in the way of species seeking new habitats....

[Lake-Effect]

Clarification for Reefmagnet:

Do we exclude those institutes you deem to be crackpots or funded by that mythical "big oil"?
- (big oil is mythical? Heh) The best science is done when there's no agenda, so I personally don't give much credibility to the 'institutes' set up expressly to support a political or corporate viewpoint. Even so... I'll leave that to the scientific community: if these 'alternative' institutes can produce convincing, scientifically valid challenges to the -ahem - consensus, the the scientific community would have to pay attention... or the community themselves aren't doing good science.

We're still waiting for that significant challenge to the current finding of AGW... it hasn't appeared yet. Geez, over half of the articles you've linked or quoted themselves acknowledge AGW. I don't quite know why you keep fighting that.

Ditto for those politically linked because we all know that politicians are stupid?
- are you kidding me? Science with a political agenda is not good science. You guys scream this all the time.

Do we exclude economists that say the numbers don't add up because they ain't climate scientists?
- which numbers? I suspect you're referring to the costs for various types of radical mitigation, which you routinely exaggerate ("trillions"). Well, that's a different argument, isn't it. Not liking the slate of options has nothing to do with the scientific findings.

Do we exclude the engineers that say it can't be fixed because they ain't climate scientists either?
- see above. Disliking the imagined solution doesn't make the problem disappear.

Do we only trust climate scientists to tell us mortals how to reduce fossil fuel dependency? Ditto for eating meat?
- don't get excited, you'll spill your drink. Anyone who isn't thinking we could do better in terms of how much we consume and how big of a mess we are leaving is a fool. You know this.

Or do you just want those that are telling us the earth is warming, it's our fault, and we're all doomed ?
- I hope that felt good. Let it all out. When you've calmed down a bit, we can discuss how we might reasonably steer a middle course between doing nothing (and inflicting a worse problem on our descendents) and the medieval agrarian subsistence you pretend is the only offered solution.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by q240z

What a cartoonish, stereotypical no-nothing prog you are!

Anyone still think this isn't a political debate?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by 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.

Introducing...

Denier Inc

The scientific agency that works for YOU.

Reality got you down? Facts in the way of a comfortable guilt-free existence or a lucrative industry? Let Denier Inc clear the way.

Do you make Brand X toothpaste? We'll find the fifth dentist who didn't recommend Crest.

Tobacco your game? We can fill a (small) room with actual doctors who will state that it's not certain that tobacco causes cancer.

Fluoride in the water a commie plot? We have people for that too.

We can find experts - real, clipboard-bearing,white-coated scientists - to challenge any inconvenient truth.

But, you say, alot of these 'experts' and their objections are inconsequential, or their work has been discredited...

Doesn't matter! Our patented two-pronged approach is foolproof! First, we find the contrarians, and create an aura of plausibility around them. Then, we push, push, push! ensuring our that our message, our facts find every willing ear. With this can't miss approach, we create debate - EVEN when there wasn't one.

And voila! The public is mired in a fabricated debate, government is shackled, and it's business as usual as you just sail through the calm waters of inaction.

Remember - don't cry, Deny!

Operators are standing by.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Clarification for Reefmagnet:

Do we exclude those institutes you deem to be crackpots or funded by that mythical "big oil"?
- (big oil is mythical? Heh) The best science is done when there's no agenda, so I personally don't give much credibility to the 'institutes' set up expressly to support a political or corporate viewpoint. Even so... I'll leave that to the scientific community: if these 'alternative' institutes can produce convincing, scientifically valid challenges to the -ahem - consensus, the the scientific community would have to pay attention... or the community themselves aren't doing good science.

Geez, the campaign must be working. Or maybe all you alarmists aren't actually taking one for the team? Not much of a dent there, fellas.

We're still waiting for that significant challenge to the current finding of AGW... it hasn't appeared yet. Geez, over half of the articles you've linked or quoted themselves acknowledge AGW. I don't quite know why you keep fighting that.

What is being challenged, exactly? IPCC is only 95% confident on MMGW. Are you privy to other information?

Ditto for those politically linked because we all know that politicians are stupid?
- are you kidding me? Science with a political agenda is not good science. You guys scream this all the time.

You missed the exercising the mandate of the people connection?

Do we exclude economists that say the numbers don't add up because they ain't climate scientists?
- which numbers? I suspect you're referring to the costs for various types of radical mitigation, which you routinely exaggerate ("trillions"). Well, that's a different argument, isn't it. Not liking the slate of options has nothing to do with the scientific findings.

The number is in the trillions. Feel free to quote your own figures, however.

Do we exclude the engineers that say it can't be fixed because they ain't climate scientists either?
- see above. Disliking the imagined solution doesn't make the problem disappear.

Just to be clear, engineers should leave the engineering to climate scientists?

Do we only trust climate scientists to tell us mortals how to reduce fossil fuel dependency? Ditto for eating meat?
- don't get excited, you'll spill your drink. Anyone who isn't thinking we could do better in terms of how much we consume and how big of a mess we are leaving is a fool. You know this.

M'kay. You vegan?

Or do you just want those that are telling us the earth is warming, it's our fault, and we're all doomed ?
- I hope that felt good. Let it all out. When you've calmed down a bit, we can discuss how we might reasonably steer a middle course between doing nothing (and inflicting a worse problem on our descendents) and the medieval agrarian subsistence you pretend is the only offered solution.

Righto, now's your big chance to tell us dummies what the fixes are, how to implement them and what the outcome will be in hard numbers. Fire away.



Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Introducing...

Denier Inc

The scientific agency that works for YOU.

Reality got you down? Facts in the way of a comfortable guilt-free existence or a lucrative industry? Let Denier Inc clear the way.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

[weak and rhetorically juvenile responses deleted]

Righto, now's your big chance to tell us dummies what the fixes are, how to implement them and what the outcome will be in hard numbers. Fire away.

We can't get to evaluating solutions when you lot won't acknowledge there's a problem.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

One right scientist trumps 99 wrong ones.

Do you have a name for us?

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Do you have a name for us?

absolutely....

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

absolutely....

Go for it.

[Group9]

Okay, say all of us join you guys and jump on the global warming/global changing/ whatever bandwagon. What is our plan to stop the two billion or so people in India and China who want our lifestyles (heaven forbid if they all want sailboats like us).

How are we going to convince them to be good sports and just accept that they can't have our lifestyle for the good of the planet?

What if they think we're full of **** on that idea?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Group9

Okay, say all of us join you guys and jump on the global warming/global changing/ whatever bandwagon. What is our plan to stop the two billion or so people in India and China who want our lifestyles (heaven forbid if they all want sailboats like us).

How are we going to convince them to be good sports and just accept that they can't have our lifestyle for the good of the planet?

What if they think we're full of **** on that idea?

Your framing of the issue is a bit full of it

My answer would be that having benefited from unrestricted conquest and consumption, the leading nations have an obligation to maybe give a little back, in the form of taking the lead in developing energy alternatives and efficiencies that will permit developing countries to achieve their goals without making the same mess as we did. And maybe we should clean up our act a bit too.

The reality is that China and India aren't sitting around waiting for us to stop bickering and get on with it. China is installing coal emission scrubbers at a faster rate than the US. China's train technology and installed base already surpasses that of North America, and a couple of the bigger Chinese train corporations are currently in talks to buy the railroad division of a major North American manufacturer, to give them access to our market. The Chinese urban consumer is already beginning to be bored with the automobile. India will likewise surprise us.

By the way, considering how long a fiberglass boat lasts, I'd say it's a good use of petrochemicals. As opposed to simply burning oil as fast as possible in oversized vehicles.