Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

[Dauntlessny]

Does anyone still looking at this thread really care?
Or is it a vehicle to be heard, while no one listens?

Just asking?

I stopped reading when it morphed into a climate debate, though i did find it interesting to see the post about Janet Curry.

For what it's worth, you guys seem to be arguing apples and oranges and seemingly not knowing you are doing so.

Yes, i will admit the the mainstream press tries to simplify everything, so they themselves can understand it, but still.

The main issue in a phase like "Anthropogenic Global Warming" leads one to make assumptions that are not supported by the facts.

Janet Curry does not say humans have not added to global warming. But she does seem to say that the impact is small, which is debatable.

AND in any case, whether the impact is big or small, there is not much we can or should do about it. Again, there is much debate, that's not reported in the mainstream or minor stream press, about the CAN or SHOULD.

I've been looking at climate for more than 40 years. I almost decided to become a paleoclimatologist, before deciding the the academic life was not me.

A productive debate for our society to have would be framed like this:

The climate in the last 10,000 years is clearly getting warmer. Is that good or bad?
If good, what should we do about it? What can we do about it?
If bad, what should we do about it? What can we do about it?

But don't worry, that won't happen, because our politicians went to law school, so they can learn about the law, to make laws, but don't need to know anything else, as in a Liberal Arts background.

For any still reading this, what I find fascinating is that we, the earth, is only a few degrees warmer than our Ice Age mean temperature, which is the coldest the earth has been in the last 500 million years.

Many climatologists believe that the little extra warming human activity has caused in the last 10,000 years (agriculture) DID AFFECT the climate and stopped us from starting the 5th Ice Age.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by sobraon

Name a scientist who has lost their public funding.

Professor Bob Carter instantly comes to mind.

Do tell.

Dr Carter's “official status” with James Cook University - where he had held an unpaid adjunct position since 2002 after retiring - had ended on 1 January 2013. Before his retirement, he had worked as a Professor at the University from 1989.

In 2012, documents acquired from The Heartland Institute revealed that Carter was paid a monthly fee of $1,667 (USD) "as part of a program to pay 'high-profile individuals who regularly and publicly counter the alarmist [anthropogenic global warming] message'."[

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Dauntlessny

Does anyone still looking at this thread really care?

You, apparently. Welcome back

A productive debate for our society to have would be framed like this:

The climate in the last 10,000 years is clearly getting warmer. Is that good or bad?
If good, what should we do about it? What can we do about it?
If bad, what should we do about it? What can we do about it?

I couldn't agree more.

But we are successfully prevented from moving to that debate, because the defenders of the status quo have convinced so many people that
- the science is bad! the scientists are fabricating results!
- it's a conspiracy!
- Al Gore!
...and so forth.

This whole 97% kerfuffle is a perfect example. The deniers are attacking it every which way from Sunday, when all they need to do simply supply the correct number, if 97% is wrong. Or do anything to show that there really isn't a pretty clear consensus after all.

The best anyone's managed so far here, is a carefully curated list of 50 names. 50. Even if we accept that all 50 are scientifically-credible, bias-free objections to AGW, I have to assume that there more than 250 practicing climate scientists in the world. Probably more than 2500. 10,000+? Does anyone want to use my calculator?

Then, in the very remote likelihood that there isn't a consensus, someone needs to show why this work has survived so many peer reviews and other scrutiny. including the Climategate non-scandal, and the work remains so convincing that other scientists, and most national scientific academies, and nations, have endorsed the findings. Hopefully without using the word 'conspiracy'.

tldr; - if no-one can show that there's really a significant split in the climate science community, that a significant number of the experts don't agree with the scientific finding of AGW... then we have to accept the conclusion that the experts are pretty solidly behind their findings, and we should move onto the very questions you've listed.

I know that can't happen, since politics trumps science, and at present no self-respecting 'exceptional' right-winger would get caught dead agreeing with any corduroy-wearing, bicycle-riding leftie 'science' professor.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Dauntlessny

The climate in the last 10,000 years is clearly getting warmer. Is that good or bad?
If good, what should we do about it? What can we do about it?
If bad, what should we do about it? What can we do about it?
...
Many climatologists believe that the little extra warming human activity has caused in the last 10,000 years (agriculture) DID AFFECT the climate and stopped us from starting the 5th Ice Age.

To lend a bit of perspective to the conversation it might be helpful to see what the temperatures have been in the recent and geological past, and where they are projected to be in the near future.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolog...d#Overall_view

As can be seen, temperatures have been pretty stable for the last 10,000 years -- with a bit of a downward drift over the last 1000 years. The worrisome part is the last 100 years, where temperatures have spiked. Current temperatures are the highest they've been in 150,000 years. And some temperature projections for 2100, assuming our continuing to emit CO2 without any self-imposed restrictions, show temperatures at levels not seen on Earth for 4-5 million years.

[SailOar]

Summary of opinions from climate and earth scientists regarding climate change. Click to see a more detailed summary of the sources.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#Mainstream_scientific_p osition.2C_and_challenges_to_it

[goboatingnow]

I think that wiki article sums up it beautifully

"Disputes over the key scientific facts of global warming are now more prevalent in the popular media than in the scientific literature, where such issues are treated as resolved, and more in the United States than globally"

"
Global warming remains an issue of widespread political debate, sometimes split along party political lines, especially in the United States."

Hence the US debate is just a political football, and can , in effect be discounted as rational scientific discourse.

Dave

Sent from my iPad using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by SailOar

To lend a bit of perspective to the conversation it might be helpful to see what the temperatures have been in the recent and geological past, and where they are projected to be in the near future.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolog...d#Overall_view

As can be seen, temperatures have been pretty stable for the last 10,000 years -- with a bit of a downward drift over the last 1000 years. The worrisome part is the last 100 years, where temperatures have spiked. Current temperatures are the highest they've been in 150,000 years. And some temperature projections for 2100, assuming our continuing to emit CO2 without any self-imposed restrictions, show temperatures at levels not seen on Earth for 4-5 million years.

You should go watch Bob Carter's presentations on this subject. They are available on youtube. They offer a reasonable perspective on current trends versus past record.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You, apparently. Welcome back
I couldn't agree more.

But we are successfully prevented from moving to that debate, because the defenders of the status quo have convinced so many people that
- the science is bad! the scientists are fabricating results!
- it's a conspiracy!
- Al Gore!
...and so forth.

This whole 97% kerfuffle is a perfect example. The deniers are attacking it every which way from Sunday, when all they need to do simply supply the correct number, if 97% is wrong. Or do anything to show that there really isn't a pretty clear consensus after all.

The best anyone's managed so far here, is a carefully curated list of 50 names. 50. Even if we accept that all 50 are scientifically-credible, bias-free objections to AGW, I have to assume that there more than 250 practicing climate scientists in the world. Probably more than 2500. 10,000+? Does anyone want to use my calculator?

Then, in the very remote likelihood that there isn't a consensus, someone needs to show why this work has survived so many peer reviews and other scrutiny. including the Climategate non-scandal, and the work remains so convincing that other scientists, and most national scientific academies, and nations, have endorsed the findings. Hopefully without using the word 'conspiracy'.

tldr; - if no-one can show that there's really a significant split in the climate science community, that a significant number of the experts don't agree with the scientific finding of AGW... then we have to accept the conclusion that the experts are pretty solidly behind their findings, and we should move onto the very questions you've listed.

I know that can't happen, since politics trumps science, and at present no self-respecting 'exceptional' right-winger would get caught dead agreeing with any corduroy-wearing, bicycle-riding leftie 'science' professor.

You do know it wasn't the "deniers" that originally threw the 97% "kerfuffle" into this fray, don't you?

When NASA and the President of the United States of America starts trumpeting this value - taken from a document that is decried from every point of the compass as dodgy - people should start taking notice. Obviously for different reasons to the alarmists, however.

But we are successfully prevented from moving to that debate, because the defenders of the status quo have convinced so many people that

- the science is bad! the scientists are fabricating results!

Hockey stick;
Homogenization;
Satellite temperature records;
97% consensus;
2.4m sea level rise by 2100;
6 deg. C temperature rise by 2100;
More rain and snow and less rain and snow;
An Inconvenient Truth;
Every year is the hottest year on record;
And so on and so forth

- it's a conspiracy!

Climategate
SealevelGate;
Homogenization;
The entire reason for being of the IPCC https://www.ipcc.ch/docs/UNGA43-53.pdf
And so on and so forth

- Al Gore!

An Inconvenient Truth;
Full stop.

...and so forth.

Something we agree upon.

[Lake-Effect]

Sorry you didn't have time to read while you were cutting and pasting.

Here, just read this bit:

if no-one can show that there's really a significant split in the climate science community, that a significant number of the experts don't agree with the scientific finding of AGW... then we have to accept the conclusion that the experts are pretty solidly behind their findings, and we should move onto the very questions you've listed.

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

When NASA and the President of the United States of America starts trumpeting this value

...maybe because it's true? maybe because there's more than just that one source to support it? Or do you think the President just skims Skeptical Science when thinking up policy?

Oh wait. conspiracy. sorry.



Here's a fun link. Hint - mouse over and click the people.
Caution - open mind required.

[senormechanico]

President?
I might believe a REAL president, but that's just me.

More thread drift, I know...

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Sorry you didn't have time to read while you were cutting and pasting.

Here, just read this bit:

if no-one can show that there's really a significant split in the climate science community, that a significant number of the experts don't agree with the scientific finding of AGW... then we have to accept the conclusion that the experts are pretty solidly behind their findings, and we should move onto the very questions you've listed.




...maybe because it's true? maybe because there's more than just that one source to support it? Or do you think the President just skims Skeptical Science when thinking up policy?

Oh wait. conspiracy. sorry.



Here's a fun link. Hint - mouse over and click the people.
Caution - open mind required.

I'd already posted your link previously. Sorry to have stolen your thunder. Perhaps you too are a non-reader of counter argument, or "Tensenite"?

If you choose to quote an EXACT number i.e. 97%, that number MUST have originated from somewhere. And I doubt Mr President does too much of his own research into the matter. Perhaps NASA advises him?

So tell us. Why do you think there is so much derision on AGW (not to be confused with climate change)?

Are deniers uneducated rednecks. Are scientists that speak out against AGW theory crackpots? Why is this?

While you are at it, explain why the practice of science is explained in layman's terms as "scientists trying to prove a whole bunch of other scientists wrong" yet when it comes to AGW it switches to a style usually associated with politics and religion; that of non swaying belief and alleged consensus whereby alternative ideas, explanations, concepts or simply a questioning of conclusion are shouted down and ridiculed in many cases without proper scientific debate or analysis or other due process?

The above is made even more disgusting when personal attacks on the character and motivations of dissenters ensue. Someone previously mentioned a likeliness to the McCarthy era. They may not be too far off target.

Perhaps if you have a read of the link I posted from 1988 regarding the purpose of the IPCC you'll start to connect the dots.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

So tell us. Why do you think there is so much derision on AGW ?

- because some major industrial sectors stand to have their profits curtailed by any reduction in fossil fuel consumption, and have spent massive amounts to fund "counter-science" and advocacy, leaving no trick unplayed, to block the science from gaining traction with the public and governments.

- because we're in a period of increased political polarization, and the above groups, the status quo, are most closely aligned with the right wing, and ecological concern is most closely aligned with the left, and people seem quite content to follow politics over science.

The collateral damage in all of this is, of course, the people who dedicate their lives and careers to the pursuit of knowledge (for not very f#@king much money either), and the scientific process itself.

Not that you seem to give a damn...

[senormechanico]

"Not that you seem to give a damn... "


Ah yes. Typical leftie.
When you can't prove your argument, throw in a personal attack.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

- because some major industrial sectors stand to have their profits curtailed by any reduction in fossil fuel consumption, and have spent massive amounts to fund "counter-science" and advocacy, leaving no trick unplayed, to block the science from gaining traction with the public and governments.

Are GE and Siemens doing the same with pro-AGW? Would that make sense as an argument?

- because we're in a period of increased political polarization, and the above groups, the status quo, are most closely aligned with the right wing, and ecological concern is most closely aligned with the left, and people seem quite content to follow politics over science.

The world is somewhat bigger than the US. Or is it time to raise the "One World Government comprised of non-elected officials" conspiracy theory?

The collateral damage in all of this is, of course, the people who dedicate their lives and careers to the pursuit of knowledge (for not very f#@king much money either), and the scientific process itself.

Obviously doesn't apply to "the people who dedicate their lives and careers to the pursuit of knowledge" who refuse to stand in the Kool-Aid line?

You still haven't read why the IPCC was formed yet, have you?

Not that you seem to give a damn...

Actually I do. Hence my interest in the subject. So there.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

"Not that you seem to give a damn... "


Ah yes. Typical leftie.
When you can't prove your argument, throw in a personal attack.

+ we had big oil, corrupt politics and assumption of absolute consensus to boot