Crying shame

The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Group9 said:
Sometimes I think this whole global warming thing is my fault.

I did all 51 things. :blush:
Click to expand...

I didn't want to single you out, but yes. It is all your fault. So you shouldn't feel bad when we raise your taxes and the cost of energy because after all, it is all your fault.
 
It seems many TF members are climate change denialists ( or at least deny that it is caused by the human race). The argument that climate change science is flawed is a possibility, although I bleieve it is a long shot.

Some of the basic facts are undeniable. The earth has warmed extremely rapidly in the past 100 years. CO2 levels have increased rapidly in the past 100 years. These two changes are affecting the climate. Rapid changes in climate place a lot of stress on many species and cause extinction. That much is clear.

What I don't understand is the argument that the push for accepting climate change is coming from those expecting to make money from it. I don't deny this is not the case, but the green energy company lobbyists would be grossly overpowered by the present oil/mining/transport companies. Now many of the oil companies are accepting that man-made climate change is real and are advocating for reducing CO2 emmisions.

If you apply the often used phrase "follow the money", in this case the big money is on the climate change denialists side of the argument. Why aren't they winning the argument?
 
Greetings,
Mr. AC. Could be big oil is hedging their bets just in case climate change IS man made (NOT going there at ALL!) or could also be they are diversifying. Alternate energy sources ARE the up and coming thing and none too soon IMO.

Similarly might be likened to someone who goes to church just in case the particular "Holy Book" (pick your religion) IS true (NOT going there either!).

I think "follow the $$" still applies in any case.
 
Last edited:
While the 2 largest economies in the world are run by people who are or operate like deniers,there is little chance the process, whatever the cause, will be reversed. I`ve Trump/USA, and China, in mind. And FWIW,the root cause of warming is excess population, imho.
Wish I could envisage change coming, but I don`t. So I`m getting on with enjoying life, and what happens happens.
 
Obviously, if the idea of carbon based global warming really bothered any of us here, we would be on the sailboat forum instead.

Imagine how bad it would be if every single person in the world had a carbon spewing powerboat.
 
AusCan said:
Some of the basic facts are undeniable. The earth has warmed extremely rapidly in the past 100 years. CO2 levels have increased rapidly in the past 100 years. These two changes are affecting the climate.
Click to expand...

Correlations exist when causal relationships exist but also when they do not exist. Because climate alarmists rely on correlations for much of their argument, and because no actual scientist would do so, many reject climate alarmism as scientific illiteracy. There's a better correlation between the sale of ice cream and murder than there is between increasing CO2 and climate, yet only a fool would assert that ice cream sales increases murder.


AusCan said:
What I don't understand is the argument that the push for accepting climate change is coming from those expecting to make money from it. I don't deny this is not the case, but the green energy company lobbyists would be grossly overpowered by the present oil/mining/transport companies. Now many of the oil companies are accepting that man-made climate change is real and are advocating for reducing CO2 emmisions.
Click to expand...
Easy to explain. There are hundreds of billions in subsidies being paid for with taxpayer money to fund initiatives based on the belief that a far lower concentration of atmospheric CO2 than has existed in the past is suddenly causing climate changes that have occurred with and without such CO2 in the past. Any company, oil, or otherwise, has a responsibility to its shareholders to belly up to the trough when public money is being tossed around. Plus it is good public relations to cater to movements that have broad popular support, even when those initiatives have spurious premises. For example, you rely on a paper that started the whole 97% consensus myth whose primary author is a former cartoonist without any PhD in any relative area of study. Millions of others do as well, and the fact it is bilgewater doesn't change your support. So why wouldn't Exxon cater to you since you no doubt are a consumer of energy.

AusCan said:
If you apply the often used phrase "follow the money", in this case the big money is on the climate change denialists side of the argument. Why aren't they winning the argument?
Click to expand...
They are winning the argument, simply because little of what has been predicted has occurred.
 
Hi,


Tony Fleming's web page. The picture is a Greenland glacier change, followed for a long time. Writing is Tony's


"This beauty has a sinister side because it is evidence of the rate at which ice is being lost from the Greenland icecap which covers 80% of the country. The icecap is subject to an enormous amount of ongoing, in-depth, research from which the current estimate of annual loss of ice is estimated at 269 billion tonnes. The accompanying map illustrates the rate of loss of ice from the Greenland icecap The world-wide implications are enormous and anyone who denies this is happening is deluding themselves. Minimum sea ice in the Arctic is generally expected at September 10th each year. 2016 has the second lowest amount of sea ice on record and the rate of loss is accelerating."




NBs


Map%20Ilulissat%20ice.jpg
 
What did the icecap in Greenland look like from A.D. 800 to 1300?
 
Last edited:
RT Firefly said:
Greetings,
Mr. 9. Greenland is Greenland thanks to clever marketing. Eric wanted company...



https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/06/iceland-greenland-name-swap/


200.gif
Click to expand...

That bastion of deniers everywhere, National Geographic, says you're wrong.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/06/iceland-greenland-name-swap/

From the article:



So How Did the Names Get Switched?

A glance at the globe might make you wonder why Iceland seems oddly green, while Greenland is covered in ice. There’s even an Internet meme about it.

Schoolyard wisdom says this was intentional—Iceland’s Viking settlers thought the name would discourage oversettlement of their verdant island, while nobody cared if people tried to settle the ice-covered Greenland. But the truth is more complicated, and it has to do with both Norse custom and our shifting global climate.

The Facts
The current names come from the Vikings. Norse custom was to name a thing as they saw it. For instance, when he saw wild grapes (blackberries, probably) growing on the shore, Erik the Red’s son, Leif Eríksson, named a portion of Canada “Vinland.”

Ice core and mollusk shell data suggests that from A.D. 800 to 1300, southern Greenland was much warmer than it is today. This means that when the Vikings first arrived, the Greenland name would make sense. But by the 14th century, maximum summer temperatures in Greenland had dropped. Lower temperatures meant fewer crops and more sea ice, forcing the local Norse population to abandon their colonies.


But, all of that aside, that doesn't answer my very specific question though. What did the icecap in Greenland look like from A.D. 800 to 1300?
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I know it was Brietbart but I remember some of those things that were going to wipe out my world but somehow I’m still here. I don’t know the ultimate answer but we are coming out of an ice age so one would expect tempatures to rise. Does man cause a change in the world? Of course but that is what makes our world unlike any other in space. Unfortunately main stream media has an agenda and produces outrageous predictions which don’t come true. I’m happy I will never live long enough to see this argument to its conclusion.
 
North Baltic sea said:
Hi,


Tony Fleming's web page. The picture is a Greenland glacier change, followed for a long time. Writing is Tony's


"This beauty has a sinister side because it is evidence of the rate at which ice is being lost from the Greenland icecap which covers 80% of the country. The icecap is subject to an enormous amount of ongoing, in-depth, research from which the current estimate of annual loss of ice is estimated at 269 billion tonnes. The accompanying map illustrates the rate of loss of ice from the Greenland icecap The world-wide implications are enormous and anyone who denies this is happening is deluding themselves. Minimum sea ice in the Arctic is generally expected at September 10th each year. 2016 has the second lowest amount of sea ice on record and the rate of loss is accelerating."




NBs
Click to expand...
It is true that ice around the edges of Greenland has been retreating, but this is offset by increases in ice in the interior. Currently, at least according to the Danish Meteorological Institute, the ice mass is quickly growing relative to the average a few years ago, reversing a macro trend of mass loss that began with the end of the last Ice Age, and a much shorter term loss that accelerated after the end of the last Little Ice Age around 1800. Apparently CO2 enrichment causes ice loss, until it doesn't, even when the concentration has been increasing. Puzzling, don't you think?

And to put Greenland ice loss in perspective and to demonstrate how climate alarmism works to create a crisis requiring expanded government taxation where none exists, if the current growth in Greenland ice suddenly stopped and we returned to the average annual loss of 200 gt of ice per year, the effect of this on sea levels would be under 2" over the next century. That assumes that there is no ice mass growth anywhere else on the planet, which turns out to be false, at least according to NASA. They are
now measuring a growth in Antarctic ice mass sufficient to offset all other melting of ice in other areas of the planet.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddar...ns-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
 
Group9 said:
What did the icecap in Greenland look like from A.D. 800 to 1300?
Click to expand...

Lief Erickson thought Greenland was a good place to raise cattle, so he did. It may be why it is called Greenland, what with all the pastures that allowed farming then that can't be supported now because it is too cold. My guess is that it was the cow flatulence of Erickson's herds that triggered global warming that causes global cooling.

Science at its best.

On a serious note, your question is a very important one. Today, alarmists use temperature measurements noted in ship's logs made by clipper ships using mercury thermometers tossed over the side on a string to detect when they entered the Gulf Stream to compare to measurements made with digital instruments that are highly accurate, and conclude from that analysis that the Gulf Stream is warmer today.

We're told the Arctic is experiencing unprecedented ice loss today, even though no one has a clue what it looked like before we started flying satellites over it.

If you want bad science, use bad data.
 
Last edited:
Obviously as a nuclear power retiree, I take a dim view of the much subsidized wind/solar power industry. And especially at this time of year, alternative energy causes collateral damage!FB_IMG_1543277327088.jpeg
 
Group9 said:
That bastion of deniers everywhere, National Geographic, says you're wrong.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/06/iceland-greenland-name-swap/

From the article:



So How Did the Names Get Switched?

A glance at the globe might make you wonder why Iceland seems oddly green, while Greenland is covered in ice. There’s even an Internet meme about it.

Schoolyard wisdom says this was intentional—Iceland’s Viking settlers thought the name would discourage oversettlement of their verdant island, while nobody cared if people tried to settle the ice-covered Greenland. But the truth is more complicated, and it has to do with both Norse custom and our shifting global climate.

The Facts
The current names come from the Vikings. Norse custom was to name a thing as they saw it. For instance, when he saw wild grapes (blackberries, probably) growing on the shore, Erik the Red’s son, Leif Eríksson, named a portion of Canada “Vinland.”

Ice core and mollusk shell data suggests that from A.D. 800 to 1300, southern Greenland was much warmer than it is today. This means that when the Vikings first arrived, the Greenland name would make sense. But by the 14th century, maximum summer temperatures in Greenland had dropped. Lower temperatures meant fewer crops and more sea ice, forcing the local Norse population to abandon their colonies.


But, all of that aside, that doesn't answer my very specific question though. What did the icecap in Greenland look like from A.D. 800 to 1300?
Click to expand...

Greenland is not Norway, it belongs to Denmark ...

We not only fend off forests, here the signs tell about the upward rise in water levels, if history repeats itself, it does not concern

1024px-Vartiovuori_sea_level_plaque.jpg



For this information is Mr Trump etc. This is a Finnish peoples raft, which collects logs from the forest in a bio power plant where they are burnt efficiently and with low emissions.
ponsse-bioenergy-5_reference.jpg


https://www.ponsse.com/var/ponsse/s...773-1-eng-GB/ponsse-bioenergy-5_reference.jpg
ponsse-bioenergy-3_reference.jpg


P.S here also planted a new forest whenever it fell down and plans to increase tree planting to make a "charcoal drain" to multiple locations even in cultivation fields.


NBs
 
Last edited:
AusCan said:
It seems many TF members are climate change denialists ( or at least deny that it is caused by the human race).
?
Click to expand...

Read the thread again. Possibly the root cause is people, too many. Or Trump because he doesn't like the Paris Accords because they are unfair to the US. Or Al Gore is a genius. Or computer models are ignored or skewed by those with an agenda. Yada yada. Deniers reign on both sides.

So many issues but a few simple facts always emerge. For starters:
  • A trip to China and India and try to breathe,
  • BTW, give the above two a free pass for a few more decades
  • Visit man caused wildfire zones ,
  • Examine areas where clear cutting and burning occurs for gaining arable land,
  • Note chronically high PM 10 locations,
  • Try to grasp the plight of poor nations where wood burning fires for heat and cooking are common etc.
  • Overlook the reality of 100s of millions per year of new population
  • And of course, pay no attention to above and say the US is at fault
 
A favorite meme of climate alarmists is that opposing the idea the anthropogenic CO2 emissions are as big an issue as they make it out to be is because there is money in being what they call a "denier". We're told to follow the money, and that is always good advice. So, in that spirit, a bill is being introduced in Congress by our new democratic majority to impose a carbon tax that within 5 years will be at $55/ton. The money will go to the EPA and various government agencies to fight manmade global warming. So, how much money do we find when we follow that trail?

Well, since the U.S. per capita carbon emissions are at 16.5 tons, that means that every man, woman and child in the country would pay around $900 per year to the feds. Multiply that by the population and you have around $300 billion per year in revenue to fund government employees, pensions, healthcare, vacations, nice offices, etc. etc.

So what do you think? Is $300 billion a year worth promoting the notion that CO2 is a deadly gas? I think so.

https://www.atr.org/details-horrible-carbon-tax-bill
 
Greetings,
Mr. s. "Climate change" is one of the better examples of dog whistle politics currently in vogue. Firstly, no-one really knows what the term actually means. The climate has ALWAYS been changing.


Studies and reports are compiled, statistics "analyzed", models produced, solutions offered and fingers pointed based on any particular person's point of view. The bottom line, for me anyway, is this whole mess is a red herring driven by profit.



Now before you label me, allow me to explain. China has been mentioned as a major polluter, and rightly so BUT China is currently spending more than any other country on renewable energy. They've realized the problems they're causing and attempting to fix them (energy-wise anyway).
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackpe...s-in-renewable-investment-again/#1509d8bfeb0a
Ostensibly their efforts are directed toward "climate change" BUT the real benefit will be cleaner air. I've been to China and know EXACTLY of what you speak. I'm not too sure of the efforts being made in India.


The California wild fires (if this is what you are referring to) are simply a case of bad forestry management.


Clear cutting and burning are a case of poor land management whereby clearing new land is cheaper and easier than maintaining or rehabilitating current farm land.


Reduction of PM 10 is quite possible given current technologies but in most cases the producer will not amend their practices unless forced to do so, citing unreasonable expense.


One item you have NOT mentioned that is of particular interest to me and seems to be lost in the climate debate is the slow murder of the oceans. Ocean garbage patches. Eg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_garbage_patch
The oceans are one of the earth's "lungs" along with the rain forests. Kill the oceans and we're DEAD regardless of sea levels, atmospheric temperatures global warming OR climate change.


Yes, man DOES have an effect on climate but that is the lesser of his sins IMHO.
 
Last edited:
Delfin said:
How funny. You hold up peer review as a gold standard of Truth, then reject a peer reviewed study because you disagree with it, or don't understand what it says. You must be a climate scientist.
Click to expand...

Please, Delfin, show me study that supports the following sentence, which was the basis for your post.

"However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic."

There is no citation, no reference, no nothing that describes where that 0.3% figure came from. It relies completely on the phrase "inspection of a claim...". Inspection by who? How? You have used that sentence to negate the "97% consensus" claim - but where does it come from? Thin air, as far as I can tell. Certainly not a peer reviewed study, as you have just claimed - unless the author simply neglected to mention the study? If it's peer reviewed, please provide the link to it.
 
And now, I will bow out of this discussion with one final post. If any of you are really, truly interested in climate change, and the history of how the scientific world has arrived at near-unanimous agreement that it's real, and that it's in large part man-made, read this article:
https://history.aip.org/climate/20ctrend.htm#L_M0465

It will take you a long time to get through it, but if you do, you should, at the very least, end up with a much more informed viewpoint on how we go to the current point in the climate change argument.

I'm out!
 
BrianSmith said:
And now, I will bow out of this discussion with one final post. If any of you are really, truly interested in climate change, and the history of how the scientific world has arrived at near-unanimous agreement that it's real, and that it's in large part man-made, read this article:
https://history.aip.org/climate/20ctrend.htm#L_M0465

It will take you a long time to get through it, but if you do, you should, at the very least, end up with a much more informed viewpoint on how we go to the current point in the climate change argument.

I'm out!
Click to expand...

Brian, thank you for the link. But unfortunately it falls into the trap of "I'll show you mine if you show me yours."

What is lost on both sides is that things can be fixed but not by ignoring the obvious. sometimes common sense must intrude. As RT has noted, China gets it. But what they are doing borders on common sense, shocking I know. But with a country run by engineers and not lawyers they have a very nice advantage.

Get the lawyers, inexperienced academics, military strong men and politicians out of the mix and many good things could be done to deal with the world's pollution issues. Forget arguing the academic nuances of peer review and climate change, deal with recognized pollution.
 
The climate has always been changing but never at the rate it is currently changing. Species will adapt and evolve when faced with a relatively slow change, but we are heading for a biological disaster if we continue on the present path.

I don’t understand the decision by some to do nothing.

Even if you believe our current appetite for luxury has nothing to due with climate change, wouldn’t it be worth making some change to limit the damage.
 
China gets it, not being hampered by attorneys they can deal with polluters the same way they deal with white collar corruption, firing squads or life in prison.
 
Last edited:
Delfin said:
A favorite meme of climate alarmists is that opposing the idea the anthropogenic CO2 emissions are as big an issue as they make it out to be is because there is money in being what they call a "denier". We're told to follow the money, and that is always good advice. So, in that spirit, a bill is being introduced in Congress by our new democratic majority to impose a carbon tax that within 5 years will be at $55/ton. The money will go to the EPA and various government agencies to fight manmade global warming. So, how much money do we find when we follow that trail?

Well, since the U.S. per capita carbon emissions are at 16.5 tons, that means that every man, woman and child in the country would pay around $900 per year to the feds. Multiply that by the population and you have around $300 billion per year in revenue to fund government employees, pensions, healthcare, vacations, nice offices, etc. etc.

So what do you think? Is $300 billion a year worth promoting the notion that CO2 is a deadly gas? I think so.

https://www.atr.org/details-horrible-carbon-tax-bill
Click to expand...


Carl
The NYT had an article today discussing why the "its all about money" isn't the case. Using the numbers they cited, that may well be the case.

However, not only the carbon tax you've mentioned, but a whole host of budgets, grants and monies for federal and state EPA activities whether for staff, academia, contractors or external study groups seems to have been ignored. I'm not saying what these groups do is unnecessary but expenditures are there none-the-less.
 
AusCan said:
I don’t understand the decision by some to do nothing. .
Click to expand...

Who are these "some." I do know they included (are still?) Century Zinc, Mt Isa and the Kalgoorlie"Big Pit" in Australia
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Comodave
Suzuki Microplastic Collection System
Replies
7
Views
972
kapnd
kapnd
wkearney99
Child dies of CO poisoning while on back of small boat
2
Replies
44
Views
5K
Alaskaflyer
Alaskaflyer
Portage_Bay
An interesting read on the security of GPS
2
Replies
40
Views
3K
AMG
A
R
Red Tide
Replies
4
Views
1K
caltexflanc
caltexflanc
FF
That CLEAN bill,
Replies
0
Views
724
FF
FF

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom