Now is the time to act, we can all do something good!

[Fish53]

Fish,

Good points, but many of us have heard this message before and it doesn't delivery good facts or a way to save the planet. Most of us are WAY more practical and look at the total picture.

I'd bet we all contribute to "saving the planet" in our own way, but the suggestion that we slow up a bit is a non starter and a non issue. If we were that serious, we'd sell our boats. And if that's your thing, sell your boat, most of us don't care.

For most of us, we don't do stupid stuff, but we are not willing to make ridiculous sacrifices for very little to no benefit.

We will keep our cars, boats and jets and life goes on......

That has nothing to do with my comments, the subject there is apparent.

 

[Delfin]

That's it huh? The only two options you could come up with are those? Try hard I believe there are others. I have a question for myself, should I believe the evidence and conclusions provided by a huge portion of the worlds scientists or place my trust in some guy on a boat forum with an obvious bias? Hmmm? Let's see? Scientists, I believe the scientists. You see rather than me trying to act like an expert, which I'm not, I've decided to trust the majority of the scientific community when it comes to an understanding of the existence and effects of climate change. Why, which actually is what you're asking? I don't really need a why, I certainly don't need your why and why is what I want it to be and I might change it from time to time and I'll act accordingly. So there you go, I believe climate change is real, I believe it's effects will harm life on this planet now and in the future. I also believe that a small but significant portion of the cause is human activity, and I believe it's possible to do something to mitigate it's negative effects on the habitability of this planet. If you have some problem with that being what I believe well, that's life, everyone ain't you.

Of course climate change is real. That's what climate does. It changes, just as it has for millennia. The current change of warming began around 1820 or so, long before the best tax source big government lovers have discovered since the income tax came over the hill. And just for the record, my bias is for science. Since the warmist agenda is now and has been for a long time primarily a political campaign, it's enlightening for someone who actually cares about good science to try to understand why MMGW enthusiasts believe what they believe. And generally, as in your case, figuring that out is an exercise in political, not physical science.

 

[Fish53]

I moved past the climate change debacle a couple of posts ago, I'm addressing how North Baltic Sea's idea to try and do some good was addressed here. I get it most of you are deniers of some form or another or thought his idea wasn't a particularly good one, as most posts make quite clear. His idea may not have had too much of an effect on climate change but it was a nice gesture if you believe climate change is real. As most on here apparently don't or have a differing opinion his idea met some resistance, I just think some of you could have been a bit less boorish, just a tiny bit, while expressing that.

 

[FF]

"I hate it when scientists make stuff up and spoil all the fun, thank goodness we have clearer and more open minds to keep the issue on track."


Gov. funded "research" gets the results it purchases.

 

[Fish53]

"I hate it when scientists make stuff up and spoil all the fun, thank goodness we have clearer and more open minds to keep the issue on track."


Gov. funded "research" gets the results it purchases.

There's one now!

 

[Garywbryan]

I'm all in! I drive a prius and run my trawler at slow steam. My grandchildren will thank those of us who tried to make a difference

Gary

 

[Fish53]

I'm all in! I drive a prius and run my trawler at slow steam. My grandchildren will thank those of us who tried to make a difference

Gary

But some will vilify you for it on here.

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Mr. ff. Having worked in direct support of "science" most of my career, your generalization of "Gov. funded "research" gets the results it purchases.", may be true in some minority cases. Fortunately, I hold the integrity of the vast majority of researchers in much higher regard than you appear to and I am somewhat insulted by your inference.



You can readily quote many examples of "junk science", I'm sure, in government and private organizations AND it is very difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff quite a lot of the time but that does NOT negate ALL scientific findings.


The bottom line IMO is the interpretation of the findings AND who exactly is doing the interpretation. THAT'S where the problem lies!

 

[Delfin]

But some will vilify you for it on here.

Just because some find virtue signaling with no material impact on anything useful somewhat pointless doesn't mean those who are doing the signaling are being vilified. However, with religious movements, like "Climate Change", adherents generally feel put upon when one of their articles of faith is questioned.

Which is not to say I'm not in favor of people using less fuel, so attaboy Mr. Baltic Sea. If less fuel is used, and we keep discovering more and more oil, as we are doing, the price of energy will fall, and offset the damage done to poor people from climate change politics' impact on increasing energy costs. So please, everyone slow down - I know I do, not because I think it will have the slightest impact on global temps but because I like quiet better than louder and better mileage more than poorer mileage.

Besides, I have no idea whether a slightly warmer earth is better or worse, and no warmist does either. So I don't know whether doing things that would cool the planet is virtuous or bone head stupid and harmful. What I do know, from the science, is that nothing humans are doing, or say they could do, will have any impact on temps, so I mostly just find the whole debate very amusing.

 

[sunchaser]

My goal this year is to burn as much boat fuel as I possibly can. While at the same time keeping a light hand on the fueling levers. And I hope the same for my fellow cruisers.

That said, I'm sure happy I don't have to pay European fuel prices. I find it interesting that North Sea oil imported to the US sells for about 1/3 at the pump as the same fuel in Oslo.

 

[Fish53]

Just because some find virtue signaling with no material impact on anything useful somewhat pointless doesn't mean those who are doing the signaling are being vilified. However, with religious movements, like "Climate Change", adherents generally feel put upon when one of their articles of faith is questioned.

Which is not to say I'm not in favor of people using less fuel, so attaboy Mr. Baltic Sea. If less fuel is used, and we keep discovering more and more oil, as we are doing, the price of energy will fall, and offset the damage done to poor people from climate change politics' impact on increasing energy costs. So please, everyone slow down - I know I do, not because I think it will have the slightest impact on global temps but because I like quiet better than louder and better mileage more than poorer mileage.

Besides, I have no idea whether a slightly warmer earth is better or worse, and no warmist does either. So I don't know whether doing things that would cool the planet is virtuous or bone head stupid and harmful. What I do know, from the science, is that nothing humans are doing, or say they could do, will have any impact on temps, so I mostly just find the whole debate very amusing.

Well thanks for educating me, god only knows where I got those silly ideas. I hope in the future I can rely on you to clarify complex issues for me so I don't make a fool of myself again, sometimes I can be such a scatterbrain.

 

[ancora]

Flash: the planet has only 12 years left...from a reliable source.

 

[AusCan]

I moved past the climate change debacle a couple of posts ago, I'm addressing how North Baltic Sea's idea to try and do some good was addressed here. I get it most of you are deniers of some form or another or thought his idea wasn't a particularly good one, as most posts make quite clear. His idea may not have had too much of an effect on climate change but it was a nice gesture if you believe climate change is real. As most on here apparently don't or have a differing opinion his idea met some resistance, I just think some of you could have been a bit less boorish, just a tiny bit, while expressing that.

I don't think some can help themselves. That's what we use the "ignore" function for. You can find it under "User CP" in the top LH corner or the screen.

 

[Paul Swanson]

I did not intend to get drawn into this conversation. However, I do appreciate some of the intelligent and non-emotional responses.

Sunchaser: I did look at the article you referenced and it was quite good. Although I don’t think it helps your case. 300 million years ago CO2 levels were very much higher than today. It took 150 million years to come down to todays level. It took 50 million years for temperatures to come down 15 C to the present levels. Modern man has only been here for about 50 thousand years. In the last 100 years temperatures have increased about 2 deg C and CO2 has doubled. That is what I meant by unprecedented rapid changes. I don’t really know the difficulty in processing ice core samples but two of you rejected them out-of–hand. I think that is unreasonable.

OC diver: I am not emotionally or professionally involved in climate change. I am retired but do care about the world we will leave our children. Of course there are other pressing problems. Population has been mentioned several times and it impacts almost every other social problem. But we work on what we can. Slowing our trawlers may not help much but it does help.

Delfin: Water vapor is highly variable both vertically and horizontally. At higher altitudes it is frozen and no longer vapor. At lower altitudes it condenses into clouds. All have different effects on absorption, emission and reflectivity. What is your point here?

Paul

 

[boatruptcy]

I moved past the climate change debacle a couple of posts ago, I'm addressing how North Baltic Sea's idea to try and do some good was addressed here. I get it most of you are deniers of some form or another or thought his idea wasn't a particularly good one, as most posts make quite clear. His idea may not have had too much of an effect on climate change but it was a nice gesture if you believe climate change is real. As most on here apparently don't or have a differing opinion his idea met some resistance, I just think some of you could have been a bit less boorish, just a tiny bit, while expressing that.

Just look at the repeated use of the term "deniers", climate change is a religion to you and that makes your beliefs and desired policies dangerous because you want to impose your religion on the rest of us. Climate change is about as far from settled science as you can get.



Clean air and water and good stewardship of our planet we all agree on, but climate change is a political movement dressed up as a religion for the useful idiots in our society.

 

[sunchaser]

I I don’t really know the difficulty in processing ice core samples but two of you rejected them out-of–hand. I think that is unreasonable. Paul

Paul

I did not reject ice core samples out of hand. Re-read my comment. I do though know from those who do ice cores (for many reason beyond the GW political debate) that measurement of any residual gases or byproducts thereof is highly subjective if not inaccurate.

CO2 levels can be directly quantified by plant growth, radio isotope and carbon dating of same. Even for periods 100s of millions of years ago. There is no scientific debate that CO2 levels during the past 10,000 years are at a statistical low point as are average temperatures. The debate is what has happened during the past 100 or so years, a pin prick in terms of geologic time.

But don't get your knickers in a twist yet. Most all can agree that air pollution, water contamination, waste disposal and world health concerns are at a crisis stage. These are things that man can indeed and is dealing with. We need to do more, especially for those in Africa, South America and Asia.

 

[Seevee]

Paul

I did not reject ice core samples out of hand. Re-read my comment. I do though know from those who do ice cores (for many reason beyond the GW political debate) that measurement of any residual gases or byproducts thereof is highly subjective if not inaccurate.

CO2 levels can be directly quantified by plant growth, radio isotope and carbon dating of same. Even for periods 100s of millions of years ago. There is no scientific debate that CO2 levels during the past 10,000 years are at a statistical low point as are average temperatures. The debate is what has happened during the past 100 or so years, a pin prick in terms of geologic time.

But don't get your knickers in a twist yet. Most all can agree that air pollution, water contamination, waste disposal and world health concerns are at a crisis stage. These are things that man can indeed and is dealing with. We need to do more, especially for those in Africa, South America and Asia.

We were in a crises with this stuff 40 years ago.

 

[sunchaser]

We were in a crises with this stuff 40 years ago.

Long before that.

 

[Fish53]

Just look at the repeated use of the term "deniers", climate change is a religion to you and that makes your beliefs and desired policies dangerous because you want to impose your religion on the rest of us. Climate change is about as far from settled science as you can get.



Clean air and water and good stewardship of our planet we all agree on, but climate change is a political movement dressed up as a religion for the useful idiots in our society.

Thank you for telling me what I think, it's always refreshing to have a genuine genius clarify things for you. I do have a question though as you appear to be an expert, is using the word "deniers" once really "repeated"? I only ask because I can see you're so much smarter than me.

 

[AusCan]

J Climate change is about as far from settled science as you can get.

.

No science is ever completely settled. It is always questioned. That is the nature of science.

However, the facts are clear in the case of climate change.
There are current no scientific bodies of national or international standing which maintain a formal opinion dissenting any of the main points regarding climate change.
Zero.
The last scientific body to dissent was the American Society of Petroleum Geologists, but even they have dropped the dissenting position since 2007.

Yes - individual scientists disagree, as with any scientific viewpoint.
Scientific bodies sponsored by the petroleum industry disagree.
Plenty of the public disagree.

But mainstream science has definitely agreed.

 

[Fish53]

I don't think some can help themselves. That's what we use the "ignore" function for. You can find it under "User CP" in the top LH corner or the screen.

Thanks I just discovered that myself earlier, got twelve on there now. I have no problem with disagreement what I can't stand is sanctimonious people that are rude or inconsiderate.

 

[78puget-trawler]

The pot calling the kettle black. Oops, I forgot... dang it!

 

[Fish53]

The pot calling the kettle black. Oops, I forgot... dang it!

There is an edit button if you feel you've posted in error.

 

[Delfin]

Delfin: Water vapor is highly variable both vertically and horizontally. At higher altitudes it is frozen and no longer vapor. At lower altitudes it condenses into clouds. All have different effects on absorption, emission and reflectivity. What is your point here?

Paul

Thanks Paul, I agree with your description of the distribution of water vapor in the atmosphere. Unfortunately, the calculations for climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 that underpin all IPCC models are based on a different view. These models treat water vapor as being uniform throughout the atmosphere, with a positive feedback effect on atmospheric CO2. Water vapor is not uniform, as you note, and the supposition that it is a positive feedback on warming is an unknown. Since it is unknown, the IPCC presents the positive feedback character of humidity as a "belief", not a data driven conclusion.

This mischaracterization of humidity in the atmosphere is used as a simplifying assumption in climate ensemble models for the simple reason that we currently lack the computing power to model water vapor any other way. However, the result of this incorrect, but key assumption on the impact of a greenhouse gas that comprises 97% of greenhouse gases, is to undermine the validity of the models based on that assumption. For example, all IPCC models predict a tropical hot spot over the equator, yet none exists.

So, if one's perspective on the impact of anthropogenic emissions is based on the computer models developed by the IPCC, one is relying on a faulty model, which sounds like a fairly squirrely approach to science. Which might explain why, even with CO2 increasing, the rate of warming that started around 1820 has slowed in the last few decades, at least according to the wonderful data resource on global temps from all available sensors since 1900 or so that is available from York University in the UK. The CO2 climate sensitivity values are simply wrong, with the result that the entire premise of man made warming is suspect.

So to answer your question on what my point is, you have implied that "deniers", an ad hominem pejorative, are similar to "flat earthers" in their understanding of science, which is another pejorative. While deploying logical fallacies in lieu of debate is typical of MMGW promoters, it is an ineffective rebuttal to contrary data one might find uncomfortable, especially when one seems unfamiliar with the data models they rely on for their belief system, as you seem to be.

 

[Delfin]

Thanks I just discovered that myself earlier, got twelve on there now. I have no problem with disagreement what I can't stand is sanctimonious people that are rude or inconsiderate.

How interesting. I have no one on Ignore, perhaps because I have no problem defending my views. But I can see why one would want not to hear contrary data when one's beliefs are based on a very dim understanding of reality, and easily refuted.

 

[Fish53]

How interesting. I have no one on Ignore, perhaps because I have no problem defending my views. But I can see why one would want not to hear contrary data when one's beliefs are based on a very dim understanding of reality, and easily refuted.

How interesting, you so feel the need to promote yourself you inject yourself into a conversation you're not part of. Oh wait sorry I used the word "sanctimonious" so I guess you were. But thanks for being an expert on just about everything, and announcing it to all.

 

[boatruptcy]

Thank you for telling me what I think, it's always refreshing to have a genuine genius clarify things for you. I do have a question though as you appear to be an expert, is using the word "deniers" once really "repeated"? I only ask because I can see you're so much smarter than me.

Used multiple times but not in that quote. I'm not telling you what to think just using your words to explain it. You're arrogant and combative, maybe it would be helpful to look into some other religions besides climate change, something that celebrates tolerance and kindness?

 

[Fletcher500]

We are all entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts. Science, and facts in general have been under attack for awhile now. With that said, most of us are in our 50-70's and are not going to change our mind on this subject based on a post on TF.

 

[AusCan]

We are all entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts. Science, and facts in general have been under attack for awhile now. With that said, most of us are in our 50-70's and are not going to change our mind on this subject based on a post on TF.

How true.

It is sad how science is under attack. I was mistakenly thinking that mankind was developing beyond that. Not that it shouldn't be questioned scientifically, but instead it is being attacked for personal agenda. I'm hoping this is just a short blip in world development and we'll be back on track soon.

It is also sad how much of a fixed mindset most people have in old age. I actively try to avoid it, but the brain physically changes and becomes more hard-wired compared to the younger folk.

I do have great faith in how the younger generation will care for the planet once we get out of their way.

 

[AusCan]

Gov. funded "research" gets the results it purchases.

Who else is going to fund climate change research?
Do you consider research from oil companies to be unbiased?