Earth day
Printed From: CorrectCraftFan.com
Category: General Correct Craft Discussion
Forum Name: Off Topic
Forum Discription: Anything non-Correct Craft
URL: http://www.CorrectCraftFan.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=29609
Printed Date: December-22-2024 at 5:20pm
Topic: Earth day
Posted By: OverMyHead
Subject: Earth day
Date Posted: April-23-2013 at 1:37am
3 to 6 inches of snow coming tonight. The earth gets no earth-day presents from me, infact I drove a few extra times around the block and threw a Styrofoam to go box out the widow.  ------------- For thousands of years men have felt the irresistible urge to go to sea, and many of them died. Things got better after they invented boats. 1987 Ski Nautique |
Replies:
Posted By: OverMyHead
Date Posted: April-23-2013 at 2:03am
|
Speaking of earth day, why is it that world CO2 emissions have risen 30% since 1998 but temperatures have not increased at all in that same time period? I thought CO2 was the root of all evil. Did somebody fib? ------------- For thousands of years men have felt the irresistible urge to go to sea, and many of them died. Things got better after they invented boats. 1987 Ski Nautique |
Posted By: jbach
Date Posted: April-23-2013 at 2:48am
| that debate has long since jumped the boundary between science and politics. I trust very little data since the leaked email fiasco. always an agenda. |
Posted By: TX Foilhead
Date Posted: April-23-2013 at 3:40am
|
Don't worry, they'll refine the message to explain everything a little better before too long. I'm sure they' can find a more average description to explain why everything is not average, just give them some time. First year we were going to run out of flood and have an ice age in the 80's, next we were going to cook. That didn't work so we moved to climate change which can go either way and CO2 which gets produced from by dam near everything that doesn't used it for food. I think for the most part they can't remember the current message since its a little tot close to 4/20. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: April-23-2013 at 10:54am
|
The words----------Global warming.. really do NOT mean warm temps. The real meaning is ERATIC weather patterns.. Snow now,in almost May-- real warm in say- December where it should be much colder.. Nothing to do with High temps...or the word WARMING.. I just got a real rush saying this-- Now I know what Mr. Peter must feel like to always be right... WOW-- Amazing feeling.. all through my body! I just hope it is not to addictive! |
Posted By: OverMyHead
Date Posted: April-23-2013 at 11:03am
|
There is another term for erratic weather temps, "weather". ------------- For thousands of years men have felt the irresistible urge to go to sea, and many of them died. Things got better after they invented boats. 1987 Ski Nautique |
Posted By: phatsat67
Date Posted: April-23-2013 at 11:55am
|
My term for erratic weather patterns "Indiana" ------------- |
Posted By: davidg
Date Posted: April-23-2013 at 12:05pm
|
I was listening to a radio talk show yesterday. A lady calls in and told her story about how, when she was a young girl in 1970 (when Earth Day started), she was really scared by it. The people that sponsored it were telling of gloom and doom...plants wouldn't grow, and people would freeze. She said she was went to her dad crying, and asking how he was was going to be able to provide heat for their house, food for the family, etc, etc. Fast forward to today. Weren't school kids being forced to watch ALGORE's "global warming/climate change/erratic weather" video a few years back, back when some people still believed. Same reaction.....kids come home scared to death that the world is coming to an end as they know it. I call that a soft form of indoctrination. Get 'em believing in the cause when they are young, and you have 'em for life to help promote the agenda. Today, when I hear a politician talk bout needing higher taxes, or new laws, to reduce global warming, I think to myself how cute it is they still believe and are trying to get the rest of us to believe too. But, apparently, some still do. |
Posted By: Hansel
Date Posted: April-23-2013 at 12:50pm
|
Hi Everybody, You don't have to "believe" in "global warming" or "climate change" for it to be real. This has been hashed over to death on this forum (let alone the rest of the internet) already, but of course it was bound to come up with the cold spring that we have been experiencing in the Midwest (and maybe other places too?). I'm simply here to remind you that while it may seem crazy to you and your buddies to take climate change seriously, among people who actually study the phenomenon or who have a large stake in the outcome (I think it is worth mentioning that this includes the Dept. of Defense) it is no laughing matter. The world is already far warmer than it was only a few decades ago, and it will be much warmer by the end of your lifetimes. It is also worth mentioning that the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling%20" rel="nofollow - "global cooling" media hype of the 1970s was just that; hype. In fact serious science has been predicting an increase in global mean temperatures as a result of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since at least the 1960s. So you can add predictions of an ice age in the 1980s to the long list of debunked attempts to discredit the scientific community (ala "climategate"). I guess what I want to know is what makes you think you know more about climate than people who study it? We all know people on this site that are experts in props, fiberglass repair, engine rebuilding, etc. It isn't often that I see their expertise thrown in their face and called "silly." Most CCFans have respect for people who have experience and who have learned the ins and outs of these boats. Don't you think you should give the same respect to the thousands of scientists all over the world who are trying to tell us what we are doing to the planet? |
Posted By: phatsat67
Date Posted: April-23-2013 at 1:56pm
|
Didn't Mt. St. Helens release more Carbon into the atomsphere than all vehicles on earth combined since the introduction of internal combustion? Nuff said. ------------- |
Posted By: davidg
Date Posted: April-23-2013 at 1:57pm
|
Here is a great article about the "godfather of climate change", James Lovelock, changing course on the whole issue. He admits he got a little caught up in the moment, and admits that, as Obama would probably say, "he got out over his ski's" on this one. Many scientists have also debunked global warming as well. Plus, remember the hacked email scandal in the UK a few years ago that caught the global warming rascals with their hand in the the global warming cookie jar. I am certainly no expert on global warming, nor do I profess to be. My guess is you aren't either Hansel (maybe I am wrong about that), although I know you are very well educated and if not mistaken are either a graduate student or professor at UW Madison. We can both read all the available articles, and look at opinions and trends, and form our opinions from them. I am with the crowd that says man made global warming is not as big of deal as its been made out to be. However, I will be the first to admit that I think the earth does go through natural climate cycles. You know, just like the ones that formed all these beautiful lakes we ski on when the glaciers melted millions of years ago. I am pretty sure that was not caused by man made pollution. http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/042412-609042-gaia-theorist-admits-errors-on-climate-change.htm" rel="nofollow - Jame Lovelock Article on Global Warming....He was "Too Alarmist" |
Posted By: DeepCreekNauti
Date Posted: April-23-2013 at 6:27pm
|
We need to just ban global warming or pass "common sense" laws that will only allow the earth to warm a few degrees at a time. |
Posted By: ononewheel
Date Posted: April-23-2013 at 6:31pm
|
Completely Frickin Astounding. Where is the CROWD you are with? No really. You are standing with people whom still think the Earth is flat. ------------- If we let the professionals do everything it takes all the fun out of youtube |
Posted By: GlassSeeker
Date Posted: April-23-2013 at 6:36pm
 ------------- This is the life |
Posted By: ononewheel
Date Posted: April-23-2013 at 6:39pm
|
Like Dave is credible. Plastic. Pays Daves bills. ------------- If we let the professionals do everything it takes all the fun out of youtube |
Posted By: Bones71
Date Posted: April-23-2013 at 8:49pm
| If you want to see something interesting about global warming check out "chasing ice" on you tube or tv. I don't have much of an opinion on this stuff but this documentary is very interesting. Check it out. Bones. |
Posted By: SNobsessed
Date Posted: April-23-2013 at 9:22pm
Regardless of what you believe, most people are not going to change their behavior until it is economically prudent to do so. Unless, of course it becomes against the law to water ski  ------------- “Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.” Ben Franklin |
Posted By: fanofccfan
Date Posted: April-23-2013 at 9:48pm
| We all wish we could change mother natures behavior but we can't. She has been doing her own thing since the beginning of time. With that said....I want winter to go away and let summer begin. I have boats that need to get used. |
Posted By: OverMyHead
Date Posted: April-24-2013 at 4:31am
There are many scientist that feel global warming is nothing more than an environmentalist belief system. A consensus is not science. If you have been following the oil filter threads, you will have find a consensus here that Fram filters are all junk,so can we just stop there? Recently some new testing is showing that the consensus might very well be wrong at least in part. The fact is historically a consensus of science has often been wrong, and a single scientist bucking the trend has often been proven to be correct. The leaked UN climate report has the three UN sponsored global warming studies all falling short on predicted temperature rise. Two at the bottom of a wide margin of error for their predictions, and one with temps falling below the margin of error proving it to be invalid. If science really understood what is happening and had accurate predictions they should be seeing actual temps falling close to the mean of their predictions.
Jamin, It comes up when its cool just like climate change gets brought up by the mainstream media, every time it snows, or does not snow. or it is warm, or not warm, or there is a hurricane, or no hurricanes. That is just a little to convenient. you did not address my original question.
This is something that has scientist baffled and the global climate change people in a tizzy. We have been told that Increased CO2 in the atmosphere will raise temperatures, and that the CO2 that man has produced is significant, and yet when we increase our CO2 out put by 30 percent we see no temperature increase. Either the CO2 is not doing what we think, or we have greatly overstated the power man has over the planet. You ask us to ignore own experience n favor of a science that demands an awful lot from us but does not deliver on its conclusions.
The only thing that is constant about climate is change. This planet has been both far warmer and far cooler than it is now. There are natural climate cycles that were going on long before man produced any CO2, and they will go on long after we are gone. The cause and effect correlation of man produced CO2 and temperature rise is illustrated in my initial question. Where is the correlation. We can not predict next weeks temperature with any real accuracy. Your statement that the planet will be far warmer by the end of our lifetimes is pure wishful conjecture.
The global cooling hype in the 70's came from the science community and was hyped by the environmentalists. They blamed pollution. Their solution to stop cooling was to do what environmentalist always want us to do, conserve, stop advancing, stop consuming, and pay them to help save us. Their dire predictions did not come true, but we cleaned up the pollution anyway. With global warming environmentalists again hyped what the scientists were telling us. They blamed CO2, something that we find naturally everywhere on the planet, we can never get rid of it all so they have a permanent crisis. Their solution to stop warming was to do what environmentalist always want us to do, conserve, stop advancing, stop consuming, and pay them to help save us. Again the warming stopped and did not pan out so now we have global climate change, the environmentalists can hype any change in the weather, so they avoid the traps they had previously set for themselves. They can preach their religion of conservation, stop advancing, stop consuming, and pay them to help save us. No matter what happens they can blame it on CO2. How can we possibly be sure this is not more hype just like in the 70's? Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. This is all a little to convenient.
We repeatedly see that our members do far better stringer work than "professional" shops. Don't sell them short on any subject. People being paid to study things are always suspect due to the money, we freely recognize this with tobacco and oil industry studies, but refuse to acknowledge it in academic research. Always follow the money, and there is big research money available based on man made global warming being real. Jamin, you seem to have your mind made up and dont want to be bothered with any additional in formation that might change it. That is not a good mindset for a scientist. If your only allowed conclusion is climate change is real, that is the only one you can ever each. Open your mind, science is about proof, not a consensus. ------------- For thousands of years men have felt the irresistible urge to go to sea, and many of them died. Things got better after they invented boats. 1987 Ski Nautique |
Hansel wrote:Posted By: Hansel
Date Posted: April-24-2013 at 6:22pm
Hi Dave, I don't have time to rehash an old conversation, or go back and forth on who says what and why. Look, when it comes to science you've got it completely backwards. I know because I do science for a living. Science isn't about "proof" at all, and in fact is largely based on consensus. It is true that at times individuals or small groups have bucked the consensus. If their arguments were persuasive and backed repeatedly by good data in the form of observation and experimentation the consensus has changed. That is the beauty and power of science; its ability to take in new information and shift a consensus. It is happening all the time. I suspect you actually know very little about how science, and by extension academia, truly works. Do you know any professional scientists? Have you ever visited a university research lab? Do you read peer-reviewed literature on climate change? I live these things everyday. Do you? Please correct me if I am wrong. I do have an open mind and have changed by beliefs in the face of real challenges to established paradigms. The problem is that the issues you and others point to ("climategate", volcanoes, sun spots, long-term natural cycles in climate, a UN conspiracy) have all been investigated at length and they have not been able to change the consensus. The evidence for climate change comes from a wealth of data from all over the world over many decades of research. It is supremely robust. With all due respect Dave, you don't know what you are talking about. There isn't a thing you can teach a climate scientist about climate or science that they don't already know. Stop sowing doubt about science and scientists until you know something about it. You are confusing yourself, and worst of all, other people. Peace, I'm out. I've got stuff to do and the dock/boat/lift is going in on Monday! |
Posted By: jbach
Date Posted: April-24-2013 at 7:53pm
mind... blown... you know what i've found to be the most important benefit of the recent climate-gate scandal? it was not revealing how the leading climate scientists were purposely manipulating data, methods, and peer reviews to exaggerate the evidence of significant global warming to fit an agenda, but rather, it was how the scandal has all but permanently deflated the rhetorical value of the phrase “scientific consensus.” what type of science do ya do for a living? |
Posted By: GlassSeeker
Date Posted: April-24-2013 at 7:54pm
|
The Dustbowl is a lesson in man playing with nature causing unintended consequences. Caused by natural weather and human activity. There is your precedent. ------------- This is the life |
Posted By: davidg
Date Posted: April-25-2013 at 2:32am
|
Science is really basically only concensus among well educated peers with a certain point of view/agenda?!?! REALLY! So, if you get enough brilliant scientists, professors, and UN bureaucrats together in a room that all want to believe it is night, when it is actually day, it will be so because they all agree that its night!?! Oooookkay! I work with brilliant PhD's in the PLASTICS industry every day. I will have to ask them about this consensus theory. I had never heard that before. Okay, I am going to wander over to the edge of the earth now and look over and take in the wonderful view. 
|
Posted By: OverMyHead
Date Posted: April-25-2013 at 3:42am
Wow, that scares the crap out of me if that is what the scientific community now believes. Theory is about consensus but when it comes to studies and hypotheses it is about proof. Look back to Galileo, and he had to agree with the consensus to save his life despite his research proving the earth moved around the sun. There is no proof that man has a significant effect on climate change. We are legislating based on unproven theory, causing our society hardships, and impacting Our countries ability to compete in a global market. The studies are worth while, but action should be based on proven science. A huge red flag for me that the movement is political is the fact that fellow scientists label others "deniers" in an attempt to discredit them rather than evaluating the merits of their research.
That is demeaning and dismissive, but I understand the theory of discrediting the arguer if you cannot discredit their argument. I do not question climate change based on ignorance, but on experience. I like science and am amazed at what we have accomplished with it. I have a college degree (I graduated with a 3.91 GPA so I even paid attention). In the University of Minnesota system I took biology, botany, zoology, multiple geology classes (I can still recite the geologic time scale after having to memorize it in 1981), I learned anatomy in the med schools cadaver lab. As a paramedic I learned cellular physiology,chemistry and pharmacology. For my business management degree I studied research techniques and statistics. I may not be a "scientist" but I am not a stranger to the field. My sister worked on the Joides resolution research ship Staffed by Texas A&M researchers. They drilled core samples around the globe analyzing age and magnetic orientation to "prove" the "theory" of plate tectonics, which is no longer considered theory. (very cool) I have read Peer reviewed studies. I understand their place in academia, and they are a great source for very specific information, but a very inefficient way to consume volumes of information, having to get through ten pages of @$$ kissing and covering to find half a page of useful data. I prefer journals for the level of information I seek.
Climate gate was huge, but was widely ignored because of the consensus, and their media accomplices. It showed collusion to misrepresent/manipulate hard data, and obstruct anyone wanting to investigate further. Duplication of results is a cornerstone of science but the climate scientist would not share the raw data pools. That is a smoking gun. The decades of research have mostly shared the very same manipulated data as their source material. Another corner stone is correlation. There is far greater correlation with the earths temperature and solar changes than there is with CO2 in the atmosphere. I would like to hear a convincing argument that the UN is not a corrupt US hating organization that would happily use doctored science to break US economic dominance.
I don't claim to be able to teach anything to a climate scientist, only to have the education and experience to have good grasp on the situation. I will give you some slack for being young and naive. You have learned what the system has taught you and bought into the possible snake oil hype. Human nature drives us to believe in what we do. As a paramedic I spent years pumping sodium bicarb into cardiac arrest patients, and saw anecdotal evidence that it worked. While giving some short term results studies reveled that there was long term alkalosis consequences post cardiac arrest. I remember the struggle with accepting that what the consensus had us all doing for decades was harming the patients in my care. It was science and consensus that came up with the theory of using bicarb. It was real studies that proved the theory wrong and dangerous. Prior to being convinced of bicarbs dangers I would have preached its benefits till I was blue in the face. It turns out I had been sold snake oil and bought into it. I have learned a few things over the years from my snake oil purchases. One is to be wary of a product that claims to grow hair on a bald head, but stop ear hair growth, improve liver function, stop gout, make the tall shorter, the short taller, the blind to see and the deaf to hear. Nothing does everything. When I hear climate change makes more rain or less rain, higher temperatures or lower temperatures, more storms or fewer storms....... I suspect a snake oil salesman, and will approach them with healthy skepticism. Especially when they first claimed cold only, then hot only, but found neither theory sustainable. My original correlation question has still gone unaddressed.
Glad to here you are moving into the summer season. Our lakes are still frozen, so I am waiting for the climate to change. I may get out to at least do my terrorist check on Saturday. ------------- For thousands of years men have felt the irresistible urge to go to sea, and many of them died. Things got better after they invented boats. 1987 Ski Nautique |
Posted By: quinner
Date Posted: April-25-2013 at 4:22am
|
Hansel, how do you explain Green Lake usually being choppy? Many wind farms in that area which would lead one to believe, there is a reason, is it easily explained? More importantly, will we see you there in July?? |
Posted By: Hansel
Date Posted: April-25-2013 at 4:41am
|
Haha, Chris. I love that you posted just now. Dave often posts late too. What is up with CCFans being night owls? I've never been there, but looking at Green Lake on a map I'd say it is often choppy because it is longest in the east-west direction and most wind in this part of the world comes from the west. Not sure about the wind farms, but there is a lot of flat, open land in that area (I have driven through the area in the winter) so I suppose that would explain things. I hope to make it in July! As davidg suspected I am a graduate student, but am wrapping things up and looking for a job. It is hard to say what will happen but as I've mentioned before Green Lake has been on the "to-do" list for a long time. I was always working far away during the summer so I could never make it in the past (as long as I have known about CCFan). If I do make it, we better share a few beers. I've also often entertained joining the Chicago crew for beers, but being a typical Madison hippie I don't own a car and I don't think I would make it there in time on my bike. Whether you "believe" in climate change or not, I know we'd get along Chris because I am a disciple of the kneeboard when it comes to long line footin'. 
|
Posted By: quinner
Date Posted: April-25-2013 at 4:56am
|
Forget the job, tell Gretel she needs to work harder, lol Cool, hope you can make GL, would be great to meet you and do a double BF KB kick off with ya!! |
Posted By: P71_CrownVic
Date Posted: April-28-2013 at 9:59pm
|
The only thing real about Global Warming is the fact that people are exploiting the non-event to get rich. The left loves a manufactured crisis. Look at all of the trillions of dollars that have been completely wasted on green initiatives? It's a scam, of the highest order. ------------- |
Posted By: OverMyHead
Date Posted: April-28-2013 at 10:44pm
 ------------- For thousands of years men have felt the irresistible urge to go to sea, and many of them died. Things got better after they invented boats. 1987 Ski Nautique |
Posted By: P71_CrownVic
Date Posted: April-28-2013 at 10:52pm
I didn't realize ALGORE was that jaundice... ------------- |
Posted By: OverMyHead
Date Posted: April-28-2013 at 10:57pm
|
The cartoon was funny but but your line is funnier. ------------- For thousands of years men have felt the irresistible urge to go to sea, and many of them died. Things got better after they invented boats. 1987 Ski Nautique |
Posted By: P71_CrownVic
Date Posted: April-28-2013 at 11:09pm
Well thanks. I'm here all night (literally) so try the veal. ------------- |
Posted By: davidg
Date Posted: April-29-2013 at 12:24am
And don't forget to tip your waiters and waitresses!! Another flat earth society, knuckle-dragger (as the "progressive thinkers" refer to us as)!! Welcome to the club P71! |
Posted By: OverMyHead
Date Posted: April-29-2013 at 12:52am
 ------------- For thousands of years men have felt the irresistible urge to go to sea, and many of them died. Things got better after they invented boats. 1987 Ski Nautique |
Posted By: davidg
Date Posted: April-30-2013 at 12:57am
|
Today I was listening to a radio talk show host who was talking about a Dutch sociologist that worked for a university in the Netherlands. This guy had formed some really radical ideas about people who ate meat, and how bad they were as people. It turned out he faked all his data to achieve a certain result. Hmmmm! Sound familiar? Attached is the transcript of that part of the radio show that discussed this guy, and tied it together with the same pablum we have been fed by scientists, academia, government and media on global warming. But, we had to believe in "climate change" because there was.....wait for it........CONSENSUS that it was real! An interesting read! http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2011/11/04/dutch_sociologist_falsified_data_to_codify_liberalism_as_science" rel="nofollow - Dutch Sociologist Faked Data.....Transcript From Radio Show |
Posted By: OverMyHead
Date Posted: April-30-2013 at 9:43am
|
Dave, I heard the same broadcast, and also found it timely to this discussion. what it clarified for me is that proof of a theory is a scientific process. Reaching a consensus on an unproven theory is a political process and thus subject to all the pitfalls of politicians such as greed, corruption, self promotion, and misrepresentation. So much research these days is funded by special interests groups. Science has enjoyed a period of very strong credibility, and the special interest groups seek to purchase that credibility for their cause. These groups expect a return on investment, placing great pressure on researchers to produce that return in order to keep getting funded. This is leading to the scientific community loosing their credibility over time. ------------- For thousands of years men have felt the irresistible urge to go to sea, and many of them died. Things got better after they invented boats. 1987 Ski Nautique |
Posted By: davidg
Date Posted: April-30-2013 at 10:19am
|
Exactly Dave! I thought of how much this topic on the radio tied into this conversation. If there is CONSENSUS among academia, science, govt, and media......it has to be so!! And then it opens to door to shove whatever law or tax or mandate down our throats. Oil bad.....wind/solar good. Unfortunately, the technology and costs aren't there yet, and nobody wants to buy them, which is why almost all of the "investments" we taxpayers have made via the govt have failed. The private market will do a much better job of it when the time is right, and a profit can be made. |
Posted By: OverMyHead
Date Posted: May-22-2013 at 3:23am
|
I was admonished this spring for referencing the cold temperatures as evidence against global warming, and told I could not draw such a conclusion from an isolated anecdote. But now that it is warm and we have tornado's ....... Excerpt from an interesting Newsweek article. "Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states. To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather." This sounds very similiar to Sheldon Whitehouses remarks yesterday on the senate floor, "So, you may have a question for me: Why do you care? Why do you, Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, care if we Republicans run off the climate cliff like a bunch of proverbial lemmings and disgrace ourselves? I’ll tell you why. We’re stuck in this together. We are stuck in this together. When cyclones tear up Oklahoma and hurricanes swamp Alabama and wildfires scorch Texas, you come to us, the rest of the country, for billions of dollars to recover. And the damage that your polluters and deniers are doing doesn’t just hit Oklahoma and Alabama and Texas. It hits Rhode Island with floods and storms. It hits Oregon with acidified seas, it hits Montana with dying forests. So, like it or not, we’re in this together." This after a 15 year period with no rise in global temperatures (Remember when they called climate change global warming? but then the warming stopped in 1998) Sadly as he was politicizing the weather on the senate floor, people were tragically dying from a tornado in Alabama. While the two statements are similar, the Newsweek article is from April 28, 1975. It blamed the tornado's on a DROP in the earths temperature and gave a very dim outlook for the remainder of the century (1975 to 2000) due to global cooling. http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm" rel="nofollow - Read the full article Just 40 years ago (hardly the dark ages for science) a consensus of the best and brightest in the science community believed this to be our future and wanted us to act on it now to stop man made global cooling, but then from the 80's through 1998 we saw global warming. The climatologists wanted us to believe they could predict the weather 25 years ahead, but they were dead wrong in 5 years. This is why I am a doubter of climate change. Any time a so called climate scientist or senator tells you something that contradicts your own experiences, your internal BS meter should go off the scale. Its politics, not science. My heart and prayers are with the families impacted by this weeks weather events. ------------- For thousands of years men have felt the irresistible urge to go to sea, and many of them died. Things got better after they invented boats. 1987 Ski Nautique |
Posted By: Hansel
Date Posted: May-22-2013 at 12:21pm
|
For anybody foolish enough (like me) to still be following this thread, I'd like to clear up the confusion that Dave continues to sow. 1. In 2006 Newsweek published a piece titled http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2006/10/22/remember-global-cooling.html" rel="nofollow - "Remember Global Cooling?" In it editor Jerry Adler writes that "global cooling" is not supported by the data and that Newsweek "got it wrong." I wouldn't hang my hat on a tiny throwaway piece in a mass media journal that even they don't support anymore. 2. While it is apparently true that the earth has not appreciably warmed over the last decade or so, the majority of those years remain the warmest on record. A http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1836.html" rel="nofollow - recent paper published in Nature Geosciences (a highly respected peer-reviewed journal) attributes most of this slowdown to the oceans acting as large heat sinks. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22567023" rel="nofollow - A recent BBC article on this research ends with the question, "Is there any succour in these findings for climate sceptics who say the slowdown over the past 14 years means the global warming is not real? "None. No comfort whatsoever," he (lead author Dr. Alexander Otto) said."
3. I bet that most of us could go to http://www.aos.wisc.edu/~sco/lakes/mendota-dur.gif" rel="nofollow - ice on/off records of our favorite lake(s) and see that average ice on is later, and ice off earlier, today than it was when you were a child. I'd say that global climate change is backed up by most of our experience, so anytime a so-called climate scientist or senator (or boat forum poster) tells you something that contradicts your own experiences, your internal BS meter should go off the scale. It's politics, not science. Don't listen to Dave, and don't listen to me. Do your own independent research and read/think with an open mind. I'm confident you'll find that the evidence overwhelmingly supports the global climate change hypothesis and that it is something you should be concerned about if you care even the slightest bit about the kind of world that we will give to future generations. With that in mind, thank a Vet and have a safe and fun Memorial Day Weekend everybody! |
Posted By: OverMyHead
Date Posted: May-22-2013 at 12:32pm
|
Jamin, ice out on lake minnetonka in the Twin Cities was in May. One of only three times for a May ice out in its recorded history. Weater records are only reliable for a few hundred years anyway. On a geologic time scale everything we have seen in our lifetime is well within the planets natursl cyclical variations both during and before humans were ever here. ------------- For thousands of years men have felt the irresistible urge to go to sea, and many of them died. Things got better after they invented boats. 1987 Ski Nautique |
Posted By: JoeinNY
Date Posted: May-22-2013 at 1:04pm
|
Owasco Lake froze over solid Every year in recorded history up until 1988 -- has frozen over completely only 3 times since then. People have been living on that lake since the 1830's, the native americans much longer. We are surrounded by massive bodies of water that average out the effects of one or two years of errant jet stream modifications and represent a much more relevent case study about the long term trends. The size of the polar ice caps provide similar unrefutable evidence. Only ignorance of the reality of the state of the planen would allow one to think the earth isn't warming. One who is highly skeptical of science might argue the source of that warming, but argueing against the warming itself is proof that one is willing to argue about something they know nothing about. ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1477 - 1983 Ski Nautique 2001 1967 Mustang 302 "Decoy" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO5MkcBXBBs - Holeshot Video |
Posted By: davidg
Date Posted: May-22-2013 at 1:14pm
| What caused the glaciers to melt millions of years ago? Dinasaur farts? Just asking. But, it does make one wonder how that could have happened back then? Could it possibly be natural earth cycles? I don't know. I will rely on the experts to answer that. |
Posted By: OverMyHead
Date Posted: May-22-2013 at 1:15pm
|
Joe, where lake Minnetonka sits there have been oceans depositing what became sandstone and glaciers which formed the lake itself. Which is then normal? It depends on when you are there to observe it. To base climate science on the brief period man has recorded it is both neive and arrogant. The planet warms and cools what it almost never does is stay the same. ------------- For thousands of years men have felt the irresistible urge to go to sea, and many of them died. Things got better after they invented boats. 1987 Ski Nautique |
Posted By: Hansel
Date Posted: May-22-2013 at 9:20pm
|
Climate science is not based on the brief period that man has recorded it. There exists a host of evidence from paleontology to geology that provides us with indicators of past climate. Comparing the historical record with recent conditions strongly suggests that the rate of change in climate is unprecedented within at least the last http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198.abstract%20" rel="nofollow - 11,000 years . Indeed the rate of change from 1920-40 was as great as all global temperature increase during the http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Global-warming-spike-called-unprecedented-4338218.php" rel="nofollow - first 4,000 years after the last ice age . I've even heard some estimates that the extra CO2 already added to the atmosphere will cause us to miss the next ice age or two. It's true that the planet warms and cools on its own, believed in part to be caused by slight changes in the Earth's orbit, and this has been taken into account. Nearly all evidence tells us that the planet is warming very, very fast and that humans are very, very likely the cause. In the face of all the evidence why persist in practicing denial? Yeah, maybe it is just a natural cycle. But sticking with that is a very dangerous wager since if we are wrong we've toasted the only planet we've got. The stakes couldn't get any higher. There is no worst case scenario even half as bad for what could happen if we chose to do the prudent thing and reduce CO2 emissions. I'm sure if 97% of doctors told you there was a 90% chance you had cancer you'd darn well pay attention to that warning. Well, %20http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html" rel="nofollow - 97% of climate scientists are telling us that there is a 90% chance that we're giving the planet cancer. Time to start taking these warnings seriously. I didn't want to jump back in, but the whole "the climate is always changing" line is getting pretty old. Yes, it has always changed but the bottom line is that now we're causing it and we have the power to stop it if we so choose. Since our entire civilization is based on Earth "as is" I'd say the conservative thing to do would be to try to keep it the way it is for as long as we can. The cost of a climate "mistake" is just too great. |
Posted By: TX Foilhead
Date Posted: May-23-2013 at 12:00am
|
Sounds like you're working on a poly sci degree. You're welcome to help out all you can, leave the boat on the trailer. I'm going to continue to continue on my quest to to make wonderful sounds turning gas into CO2 hopefully quicker and more effectively than last year. |
Posted By: OverMyHead
Date Posted: May-23-2013 at 10:32am
|
Jamin, Hold that thought! ------------- For thousands of years men have felt the irresistible urge to go to sea, and many of them died. Things got better after they invented boats. 1987 Ski Nautique |
Posted By: OverMyHead
Date Posted: May-24-2013 at 2:46am
|
Jamin, I have been busy but was working on what undoubtedly would have been a brilliant response to your last post including the cancer analogy. Today I got an update on my niece who had surgery to remove a mass from a salivary gland on Tuesday. The doctor told her that these masses are benign something like 97% of the time. The pre-op needle biopsy also came back benign. Post surgery he said the mass was small, and well defined, no problem, but they would send it to the lab anyway. Today my 27 year old niece who is busy planning her August wedding was told she has cancer, and will have another surgery followed by 12 weeks of radiation. What 97% of the doctors think with 90% certainty about these tumors is not consoling any of us much right now, Never count out the 3%. If everyone who reads this could offer up prayers for a full recovery it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Dave. ------------- For thousands of years men have felt the irresistible urge to go to sea, and many of them died. Things got better after they invented boats. 1987 Ski Nautique |
Posted By: davidg
Date Posted: May-24-2013 at 4:38pm
| Dave....Sorry to hear of your nieces illness! Will keep her in my prayers, and wish her a speedy recovery! |
Posted By: OverMyHead
Date Posted: May-25-2013 at 1:59am
|
Thanks Dave. This is hard. I know there is a plan but the one book of the Bible that I can never wrap my head around is Jobe. I have trouble finding the greater purpose when bad things happen to good people. ------------- For thousands of years men have felt the irresistible urge to go to sea, and many of them died. Things got better after they invented boats. 1987 Ski Nautique |
Posted By: SNobsessed
Date Posted: May-25-2013 at 10:51am
|
Jamin - What should we do about this? It will take an economic reason for anything to change. I don't see our government leaders cutting back on their transportation fuel usage. That must be for the masses only. ------------- “Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.” Ben Franklin |
Posted By: GlassSeeker
Date Posted: May-25-2013 at 4:51pm
|
along these lines: I suffer from allergies. I have been through all the over the counter stuff and it quits working for me. I mentioned it to my general practitioner who had me try Kenalog. I got immediate and complete relief lasting for a year from 1 shot for about $15. A few years later I had moved and was suffering from allergies so I called a local allergist(Don't call an allergist!) and asked for Kenalog, they went batcrazy saying my old doctor was poisoning me yada yada yada... I called my old Doc and he told me that the allergists just want to milk my wallet they are not interested in SOLVING my problem only wanting to "control" the allergies and keep me coming back monthly to pay them $$$. My doctor told me he wanted to solve my problem and not see me in his waiting room for allergies for a year. Hopefully my point will come across. Is there a conflict of interest as far as climate scientists go? ------------- This is the life |
Posted By: Hansel
Date Posted: May-30-2013 at 1:42am
|
Chris, I think that there is already a strong economic incentive to cut back. From the http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/climatechange%20" rel="nofollow - World Bank , "Climate change is a fundamental threat to sustainable development and the fight against poverty. The World Bank is concerned that without bold action now, the warming planet threatens to put prosperity out of reach of millions and roll back decades of development." The problem is that vested interests have confused the issue sufficiently to convince us to err in favor of short-term vs. long-term gains. In fact the government is cutting back on transportation, though not for reasons related to CO2. The sequester has taken a big bite out of federal travel budgets. And on that note I have to say that I don't care much for Al Gore either, and am generally of the opinion that he is just about the worst climate change "ambassador" possible. What we should do about this is up to society and policy makers. Climate scientists are simply here to tell us all what we are doing to the planet. Maybe we do nothing, but that should be an informed choice. I'm just completely tired of the denials. Andy, I think I know what you are trying to say. I know a lot of climate scientists* and I can tell you that none of them are profiting off of climate change. Just how exactly do you think that they would? There is a much bigger incentive for oil companies, etc. to try to cover up climate change than the science community has for promoting it. Saying that climate scientists promote climate change because it funds them is like saying that EMTs promote accidents because it employs them. It is somewhat crass. I don't know anything about Kenalog, but it seems that you've decided to side with your general practitioner over the allergist. That might be correct, but from my vantage point it is hard to see why you would believe one and not the other. It could very well be that the gen. practitioner is wrong. Hard to say without looking at the evidence. Dave, I am sorry to hear about your niece, and my best thoughts go to her and the rest of your family. She was probably seen by one or at most a few doctors, and the percentage that they gave is based on similarities between her symptoms and other documented cases. Global climate change is totally different. It is like if a single patient were examined by hundreds of doctors, and nearly all of them agreed that the patient had cancer. Furthermore, in the case of climate change we are mostly talking about the downside of a false positive; that is saying you have cancer when you really don't. I think most of us would agree that a false negative like your niece recieved (oops! you actually do have cancer) is generally less desirable than a false positive (oops! we thought you had cancer but it turns out you don't). What I've been trying to say is that nothing is 100%, but if you were a betting man/woman you would never bet against climate change based on the evidence. It is simply just too strong, and I am completely convinced that if you evaluated all of it honestly, without political or cultural bias, you would come to the same conclusion. I must continue to ask, what makes you all think you know so much more than the hundreds of people who have spent their LIVES studying this? Again, I quote the http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/climatechange/overview%20" rel="nofollow - World Bank , "The science is unequivocal that humans are the cause of global warming, and major changes are already being observed. Current global mean temperature is about .8° C above pre industrial levels. The twelve years from 2001 to 2012 rank among the warmest since record keeping began 133 years ago." *full disclosure I am a scientist, but I do not study climate. |
Posted By: OverMyHead
Date Posted: May-30-2013 at 9:52am
I wish I had more time for this, but I will do my best. The world bank is an international organization who's goal is not prosperity, it is to reduce poverty (there is a difference). They are a welfare organization that seeks to transfer wealth from prosperous nations to impoverished ones. To source the world bank on climate change is like sourcing a welfare mom on the need for government spending. Look at how serious the UN is about lowering emissions of CO2. They want to cap and penalize prosperous nations, but exempt developing nations. They US has already reduced its co2 output and our economy is stagnant. China is greatly increasing its CO2 output, and its economy is thriving, but the UN turns a blind eye to china and focuses on us. It is all about a political wealth transfer, not about solving climate change.
You are correct about the scientists role, but that is not what is happening. they are so invested in the outcomes and solutions that they ignore and demonize anyone with evidence that contradicts them. they also manipulate and then refuse to share their data so as to stymy peer review.
Who pays them? Keeping your job is profiting!
Thanks
The definition of unequivical is "clear; having only one possible meaning or interpretation: an unequivocal indication of assent" That comes from proof, not a consensus. If global warming science was unequivocal the actual earths temps would be falling right in the mean of the UN climate studies used to guide our decision making, but of the three we have fallen on the bottom end of warming in two, and completely the margin of error on the third one. If it was unequivocal there would be no need to demonize, diminish, and label deniers. 103 years of climate data represents something like one millionth of one percent of the earths history. I wish I could be more accurate, but my calculator had to go into scientific notation as I figured it out and that makes my head hurt! We know it was warmer in the middle ages than it is now. That was just a few hundred years ago, but we didn't collect data then so it is not part of your conclusion. I am not willing to handicap our economy based on 97% of scientists who are 90 percent sure about one millionth of our earths climate history. We are not saying we know more than scientist, we are just saying we where not born yesterday! I am soooo late for work! ------------- For thousands of years men have felt the irresistible urge to go to sea, and many of them died. Things got better after they invented boats. 1987 Ski Nautique |
Posted By: JoeinNY
Date Posted: May-30-2013 at 10:23am
|
Climate scientists are fudging data to support global warming because they profit off it? That is some backward logic. There is no doubt about global warming itself, it is an observable fact, the only studies that doubt man’s effect on global warming are funded by those that make trillions of dollars digging up dinosaur remains so they can be set on fire. They have infinitely more profit motive to distort the science than a scientist who by their very nature seeks the truth. An actual scientist willing to deny the facts about global warming would never have to worry about a job again the coal and gas industry will fund all their efforts, not to mention get them published at a level far in excess of what they would be as one of the 97% of rational scientists. That is the facts, all the profit motive is in being a denier. Anyone that has ever done any sort of risk assessment knows that you need to take into account both the probably and severity of the risk. When either get near 50% of your relative scale you are well past where you should put remediation efforts in place. The cost of man-made global warming is somewhere between ridiculously high, and infinite. The probability is as high as anything that can be scientifically conceived of, and the cost of remediation efforts going up exponentially with time. Even if the probably was deemed exceedingly low the ridiculously high cost would require remediation. Only a fool- or one of the Koch brothers would argue that we should do nothing. As to hanicapping our economy, that is a false argument as well. Ignoring climate change favors only a very small part of the economy, that which is controlled by old money, at the expense of those who innovate and invent, all while destroying the common resources such as the lakes and air we breathe. Who in their right mind would advocate doing that without even getting paid to do so? ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1477 - 1983 Ski Nautique 2001 1967 Mustang 302 "Decoy" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO5MkcBXBBs - Holeshot Video |
Posted By: OverMyHead
Date Posted: May-30-2013 at 8:55pm
|
If all this is true, then why is it that world CO2 emissions have risen 30% since 1998 but temperatures have not increased at all in that same time period? And if you say natural climate cycles, then why is that an explanation for cooling, but not warming? Lets put the consensus on the hook. If the 97% and future generations of their families could be held responsible for reimbursing the planet for the cost of remediation if we find out later they were wrong, what kind of commitment would we get from the 97% that are 90% sure about the 1 millionth of a percent of world history encompassed by climate records? Incidentally if climate records started in 1880 was that not just about the end of the 300 year mini ice age? Should we not then expect generally rising temperatures for a few centuries? Is a 133 year period of transition between cycles an accurate reflection of what our climate Should naturally be? ------------- For thousands of years men have felt the irresistible urge to go to sea, and many of them died. Things got better after they invented boats. 1987 Ski Nautique |
Posted By: Hansel
Date Posted: May-31-2013 at 12:49am
|
Hi Dave, It is estimated that CO2 levels prior to the Industrial Revolution were around 250 ppm, or 0.025%. When consistent record keeping began in the late 1950s CO2 concentrations were about 315 ppm. In 1998 they were around 365 ppm, and just a couple of weeks ago we crossed the 400 ppm mark, considered to be a significant milestone. You can see the increase in CO2 over the years from the record taken by %20http://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/" rel="nofollow - Scripps at Mauna Loa. Since an increase from 365 to 400 only represents a 10% increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, I'm assuming you meant that global CO2 output has risen 30% in the last 15 years, which is more or less the case from what I can tell. According to the %20http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html" rel="nofollow - EPA global carbon emissions have risen from about 25 billion tons to around 33+ billion tons today. So yes, we have increased emissions by some 20-30%, but we've only increased the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere by about 10%. It is awfully convenient of you to pick 1998 as the year upon which to hang your hat. 1998 was an El Nino year, and was the warmest year on record up to that time. I haven't done the math, but looking at a %20http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif" rel="nofollow - chart of global average temperatures by year if you chose 1997 or 1999 instead of the very convenient 1998 you wouldn't be able to make the claim that temperatures have not increased. You'll also notice on that record that ten year periods without significant warming are not that hard to find. That doesn't change the fact that %20http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#Warmest_years" rel="nofollow - 1998 is the only year in the top 10 warmest years from last century , or that the 1980s were the warmest decade on record until the 1990s because the warmest decade, until the 2000s became the warmest decade... Do you see a pattern here? My guess is that the consensus would gladly go on the hook based on the evidence. Will climate deniers go on the hook if they are wrong? I hope they are ready to pay up... You raise some good questions about the Little Ice Age and how we can know so much from such a small amount of time. While humans have only been keeping scientific records for about 150 years, there are some cultural records that go back a few hundred. However there is a strong paleoclimate record that uses indirect methods such as tree rings, ice cores, pollen, sediment, fossils, and rocks to recreate likely conditions in the past. Take a look at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology" rel="nofollow - paleoclimate Wikipedia page and the nice graph of estimated temperatures on Earth to get an idea of how climate has fluctuated naturally in the past. Temperature is going up up up. This is consistent with the concept and predictions of anthropogenic climate change. It is real, it is happening. The fact that we can observe it happening over such a small time scale should actually cause you some serious concern. It is ironic that you find comfort in the fact that we've bumped CO2 levels to their highest in the last few million years and temperatures to the highest in 10,000 or so all in just a few centuries. I can assure you that no known natural process could do that. I'm afraid that leaves us as the culprits. |
Posted By: TX Foilhead
Date Posted: May-31-2013 at 1:53am
| Nice, that explains why the yards I take care of are looking better with less water and less fertilizer this year. More money in my pocket so I can buy more gas for the boat and enjoy the longer summer. |
Posted By: P71_CrownVic
Date Posted: May-31-2013 at 6:50am
Haha, you are way too smart to be a medic. Only kidding, what service did you work for? I dispatch for the EMS agency that covers the vast majority Minnetonka... As for the subject at hand, all I'll say is: Global warming is crap. And frankly, life is too short to not enjoy it. Some people enjoy life by wanting to ruin everyone else' way of enjoying life and eating rabbit food. I enjoy life by keeping to myself and burning dinosaurs by making them explode in the 16 synchronized chambers that my two vehicles split. ------------- |
Posted By: OverMyHead
Date Posted: May-31-2013 at 9:25am
|
Matt, I worked for HealthEast providing 911 services to 7 northern Dakota county cities. I preferred to be a ways from home so as not to have the extra stress of taking caring for friends and neighbors. Of course after 20 years in a service area, you end up knowing a few people. Keep up the good work in the dispatch center. I may be counting on you some day. ------------- For thousands of years men have felt the irresistible urge to go to sea, and many of them died. Things got better after they invented boats. 1987 Ski Nautique |
Posted By: OverMyHead
Date Posted: May-31-2013 at 9:45am
|
Hansel. I picked 98 because that is when the turn around started, but your refernce to 97 and 99 is significant. Man produced co2 was only slightly less in 97 and slightly more in 99. and man produced CO@ has increased by 30 percent since then. What we see is a lack of correlation to between production and temperature. Obviously much more is in play. Global warming, and later global climate change when the warming stopped has been a solution looking for a problem since the start. Even you "a scientist who by their very nature seeks the truth" to quote Joe end up quoting the World Bank, a political organization who's stated goal is to goal is to eliminate poverty, not to eliminate global warming, they just hijacked the cause to facilitate global wealth transfer. I don't hear many addressing the planets natural co2 buffers. Hypothetically (or maybe not)since plants convert CO@ to Oxygen could deforestation of rainforests be a bigger problem than CO2 production? Are we looking at our natural coping mechanisms as a part of the problem or the solution? Would the world bank be on board if the solution was for developing rainforest nations to stop developing? Nope! The fact that the solutions were there before most of the research was ever done makes me skeptical. Add in the scandals, the fact that the climate models don't work, and that developing nations with the dirtiest industries are left out of the solution says this is political movement. I will gladly take on the responsibility for doing nothing. Since we are already acting that bus has left the station and the liability is gone. ------------- For thousands of years men have felt the irresistible urge to go to sea, and many of them died. Things got better after they invented boats. 1987 Ski Nautique |
Posted By: OverMyHead
Date Posted: May-31-2013 at 9:59am
Joe, I have no old money, but I have lots of skin in the game. I pay 30 percent more on my electrical bill for the state mandated renewable energy percentage. I pay more for blended fuel, I pay a lot more for the now scarce un-blended fuel for the boat. I pay in products who's prices are inflated at each step of their production due to regulation, taxes, and increased energy costs. I pay to subsidize each gallon of ethanol produced, (Which has more particulates than petroleum screwing up the water and the air I breath) at the same time increasing the prices of the grains I buy and driving meat prices through the roof. I also face diminished employment opportunities as jobs go to the developing countries not shackled with compliance. Who in there right mind would do this to the working class of this country? Man made CO2 may or may not significantly effect our earths temperature, but it does not harm the water we use or the air we breath we breath. You produce it with every breath you take for goodness sake. CO2 a natural part of our air. It is not a poison. ------------- For thousands of years men have felt the irresistible urge to go to sea, and many of them died. Things got better after they invented boats. 1987 Ski Nautique |
Posted By: Hansel
Date Posted: May-31-2013 at 11:22am
|
Hey Matt, You are free to ignore global warming as much as you can. But that doesn't mean it is "crap." Nobody can make you care, but I would suggest to you that the way you live your life does influence others, and not just your neighbors. As a global citizen you have some responsibility to at least be aware of the issues facing all of us. Dave, Yes, I agree, there is much more at play. Global climate change is based on averages over many years, there is simply too much else going on to cause each year to be warmer than the last. Nobody said that was going to happen. The effects so carbon emissions from 1997 and 1999 will remain with us for centuries, at least. I used the World Bank since you obviously have no respect for science. I didn't realize that you had no respect for the World Bank either. Do you respect the Dept. of Defense? They consider climate change to be one of the greatest national security threats of the 21st Century. There is a ton of talk about natural CO2 buffers, but you are right most of it doesn't make it into the popular media. The largest CO2 buffer are the world's oceans, which actually soak up much of the excess carbon in the form of carbonate. Perhaps you've heard of ocean acidification? Similarly, nobody is making the claim that CO2, or other greenhouse gases for that matter, only come from driving around in your car or running the coal plant down the road. My links in the last post seem to have failed, but the EPA website shows that forestry and agriculture account for ~40% of total greenhouse gas emissions. This has all been taken into account. Yes, we breathe out CO2, and nobody is claiming that it is a "poison." We do know, based on thermodynamics and observation of the earth's record, that increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere increases global temperatures. Therefore, to try to prevent excessive amounts some people want it classified as a "pollutant." It may not be directly "poisoning" the air or water, but it is definitely warming both of them and acidifying the latter. Since we know that warming can cause a host of changes in how ecosystems that we depend on function, I'd say it is fair to consider excess CO2 a serious pollutant. It doesn't make any sense to me why you dismiss global climate change based on the fact that somehow politics is involved in trying to solve it. Of all people I'd expect that you would understand that people are political, and thus any global problem will inherently be political. You are free to choose your politics, but to say that climate change is not real because some people might use it for a broader political agenda is just ridiculous. Do you similarly question the existence of terrorism, healthcare, gun crimes, etc? Face it, you guys are simply uncomfortable with climate change for reasons that have nothing to do with the science of climate change. You don't "believe" in it because you don't like what it might mean. This is a pretty unwise way of going about things. Maybe I'll try that on the boat and just start ignoring things when they go wrong, because well, I'd just rather not spend the time/money on fixing it. That is a great long-term strategy... |
Posted By: JoeinNY
Date Posted: May-31-2013 at 12:52pm
|
There is skeptical, there is ignorant, then there is starting with a preconceived belief and actively seeking out propaganda that reinforces it. Two are understandable… anyone left seriously denying climate change is the third. As for your payment and the costs.. if your premise is that it costs more than it is worth.. then consider what the world would look like today without any air and water regulations. If you think a few dollars more in energy costs comes close to the amount of skin you have in the game you’re incredibly short sighted. Without regulation drinkable water would certainly cost more than gas and you would be lucky to see a sunset through the smog, not that you would live very long to worry about it. Unregulated free markets have proven to have a remarkable capacity to destroy the air and water with alarming efficiency. These are all costs society will bear.. it is just a question of how long you let the interest build up before you start paying. Should we wait until we turn 50 percent of the planet into a superfund site and then try to clean it up? What do you think your taxes are going to look like then? Denying reality is how we get silly solutions like ethanol in place, the gridlock is taken advantage of those with the money to buy the votes to suit their own interests , which then provides them with more money to buy the propaganda that causes the gridlock that makes it easier to buy votes. If you really need to seek out biased information to make you feel better about your world view at least be decent enough to not go out of your way to spread it on unrelated websites … ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1477 - 1983 Ski Nautique 2001 1967 Mustang 302 "Decoy" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO5MkcBXBBs - Holeshot Video |
Posted By: OverMyHead
Date Posted: May-31-2013 at 8:21pm
|
A CLIMATE CHANGE UPDATE MINUTE It was announced in Minnesota today that last years climate change induced drought has officially come to an end due to this years..climate change....induced.....abundant rains. This climate change update minute was brought to you by Global Climate Change who wants to remind you that - "We may seem exactly like weather, but we're not!"  ------------- For thousands of years men have felt the irresistible urge to go to sea, and many of them died. Things got better after they invented boats. 1987 Ski Nautique |
Posted By: davidg
Date Posted: May-31-2013 at 10:21pm
Just like we always say here in the Midwest....If you don't like the weather today, just wait until tomorrow! Or, maybe the new twist is.....If you don't like the weather this decade, just wait until the next decade. |
Posted By: OverMyHead
Date Posted: September-11-2013 at 3:48am
|
Wow, who would have saw this coming, well except me. You have to love a good climate report http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/09/arctic-sea-ice-up-60-percent-in-2013/" rel="nofollow - Arctic sea ice up 60 percent in 2013 Some of my favorite quotes from the story. 1) Explaining why we were not ice-less in 2013 as many alarmists were predicting “We should not often expect to observe records in consecutive years. 2012 shattered the previous record low sea ice extent; hence 'regression towards the mean' told us that 2013 would likely have a higher minimum extent,” wrote Dana Nuccitelli. I can see a "regression towards the mean" giving us a little to no loss ice loss (minimum extent) in a given year, but using it to explain a record 60% increase sounds like she is blinding me... with science. I don't remember seeing crazy Al's hockey stick graph "regress towards the mean", but now that its cooling..... 2) And this from the leaked UN climate report. For years any of us that said the climate was about far more than CO2, and that warming was due to solar cycles, or fluctuating volcanic activity were labeled deniers, but when facing 15 years of flat temperatures we get this "A leaked draft of the next major climate report from the U.N. cites numerous causes to explain the slowdown in warming: greater-than-expected ash from volcanoes, a decline in heat from the sun, more heat being absorbed by the deep oceans, and so on." Suddenly and shamelessly all the factors cited by "deniers" (realists) to explain warming, for which the "deniers" (realists) have been scoffed at, are the very factors that are used to explain cooling during a period with massively increasing world wide CO2 production. Oh the Irony, ------------- For thousands of years men have felt the irresistible urge to go to sea, and many of them died. Things got better after they invented boats. 1987 Ski Nautique |
Posted By: Kristof
Date Posted: September-11-2013 at 4:56am
|
Thanks for that OverMyHead! Now I won't feel guilty about emptying my DPF (diesel particulate filter) on the Beamer on thursday. That annoying thing was invented to comply to the so called Euro 4 norm on exhaust fumes. The thing is, these get clogged up at about 180.000 kms (even faster when people only drive short distances), and it costs 1500 euro (some 1800 $) to replace them  I managed to keep it for 300.000 kms, but now its clogged up, and causes the car to respond badly to the throttle... So that's why lots of guys on my BMW forum just empty them. ------------- - Gun control means: using BOTH hands! - Money doesn't make one happy, but when it rains cats and dogs, it's still better to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle... |
Posted By: TX Foilhead
Date Posted: September-11-2013 at 9:27am
| I didn't do my part and run the boat a lot this summer, sorry. I'll try to make up for it the rest of this year and get an early start on next year. |
Posted By: OverMyHead
Date Posted: September-19-2013 at 1:39am
|
Illuminating article http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/12/climate-models-wildly-overestimated-global-warming-study-finds/" rel="nofollow - Climate models wildly overestimated global warming, study finds Synopsis: 114 of 117 global warming studies from the 1990's overestimated the temperature rise between 1989 and 2010 by a factor of 285% (2 degrees average predicted vs. 0.7 degrees recorded). This is the "science" that we have been using to handicap our own global competitiveness. But its not the climate models fault, the clouds did not do what they were supposed to. ------------- For thousands of years men have felt the irresistible urge to go to sea, and many of them died. Things got better after they invented boats. 1987 Ski Nautique |
Posted By: TX Foilhead
Date Posted: September-19-2013 at 1:49am
| Don't worry, the leftists will find another problem so they can continue to take our money and tell us what to do. Now maybe they will stop putting alcohol in my gas and stuffing things into the exhaust pipes. |
Posted By: OverMyHead
Date Posted: September-19-2013 at 1:58am
|
More fun http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=20225160&ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com" rel="nofollow - Wind energy facilities have killed at least 67 golden and bald eagles in the last five years, but the figure could be much higher, according to a new scientific study by government biologists. Saving the planet by whacking eagles. Its amazing silent the environmentalists are on this. You would think greenpeace would be standing in front of the blades. ------------- For thousands of years men have felt the irresistible urge to go to sea, and many of them died. Things got better after they invented boats. 1987 Ski Nautique |
Posted By: JoeinNY
Date Posted: September-19-2013 at 1:52pm
|
In case anyone cares about actual science, or facts.. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/19/sorry-arctic-sea-ice-isnt-really-recovering/" rel="nofollow - Link one http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/18/the-vital-long-view-in-tracking-diminishing-arctic-sea-ice/?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0" rel="nofollow - Link two And yes the "environmentalists" do picket and stop the windmills over birds dying. Or because it is going to ruin the view -- this for offshore field that would be unable to be seen by the naked eye from anyplace on land. The oil companies have been giving heavily to these stop the windmill campaigns forever... who can blame them. ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1477 - 1983 Ski Nautique 2001 1967 Mustang 302 "Decoy" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO5MkcBXBBs - Holeshot Video |
Posted By: jbach
Date Posted: September-19-2013 at 4:14pm
|
it will be interesting to see the IPCC report. my bet is it will finally admit that all the models have failed. basically not only can scientists not predict the climate of the future, but that they've also failed to "predict" the climate of the past.
|
Posted By: JoeinNY
Date Posted: September-19-2013 at 4:29pm
Wanna Bet? ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1477 - 1983 Ski Nautique 2001 1967 Mustang 302 "Decoy" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO5MkcBXBBs - Holeshot Video |
Posted By: OverMyHead
Date Posted: September-19-2013 at 4:38pm
|
The IPPC is investedcin redistributing the worlds wealth through climate change. They will not admit they are wrong. The latest speaking pointcis tgat dispite carbon emissions rising 30% in the last 15 years. Warming is on "hiatus". Warming is just on vacation, no need to ponder scientific things like corrolation. We may have 90% of scientists who believe in global warming, but they are proving to be wrong 97+ percent of the time. ------------- For thousands of years men have felt the irresistible urge to go to sea, and many of them died. Things got better after they invented boats. 1987 Ski Nautique |
Posted By: Riley
Date Posted: September-19-2013 at 4:52pm
We've had quite a lot of wind mills developed in Maine during the past 10 years. From what I've seen the enviormentalists are strongly opposed to it, as are everyone else that lives nearby, liberal or conservative. |
Posted By: JoeinNY
Date Posted: September-19-2013 at 5:01pm
It's actually 97 percent of scientists and the data is correlating quite nicely to predictions - the only talking points out there are the ones that you are repeating that originate in oil funded right wing think tanks. The preemptive attacks on the upcoming IPPC report from the wing nuts have been so obviously orwellian in thier nature I am surprised anyone is buying into them. ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1477 - 1983 Ski Nautique 2001 1967 Mustang 302 "Decoy" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO5MkcBXBBs - Holeshot Video |
Posted By: 81nautique
Date Posted: September-19-2013 at 5:25pm
|
Slightly relevant to this discussion, I've recently learned that our beloved Clinton power station is on a list of possible plant shutdowns. With all the wind farms in our area now it is predicted that by 2016 the Nuclear plant will be operating in the red, basically costing more to produce energy than they can sell it for. Y'all better not miss too many more of our fall get togethers before they turn off the hot tub. ------------- You can’t change the wind but you can adjust your sails |
Posted By: OverMyHead
Date Posted: September-20-2013 at 9:24am
Here in Minnesota I only seem to hear complaints from neighbors. Nobody straps themselves to wind towers or uses other typical save the whoever techniques. I did not even hear anything about the wind farms on my last trip to the Raptor center (I wonder if they are getting big checks from the industry?) What are they doing in opposition in your state? ------------- For thousands of years men have felt the irresistible urge to go to sea, and many of them died. Things got better after they invented boats. 1987 Ski Nautique |
Posted By: OverMyHead
Date Posted: September-20-2013 at 10:08am
Joe 114 of 117 predictions (hopeful guesses???) being overestimated by an average of 285% being viewed as correlating quite nicely seems more like a faith based acceptance than an evaluation of scientific merit. I know they say this is short term, and we should stick with them for the long term, but if my stock broker over-promised me returns by 285% in 15 years, I would surely not leave my money with him for another 25. I am always amused when industry scientist are viewed as being paid off to the industries agenda, but government and the scientists they pay are seen as agenda-less. ------------- For thousands of years men have felt the irresistible urge to go to sea, and many of them died. Things got better after they invented boats. 1987 Ski Nautique |
Posted By: JoeinNY
Date Posted: September-20-2013 at 11:09am
Your numbers are out of context nonsense that is fed to people like you knowing that you will never check on them at anything other than fake news sources if at all.. and apparently you didnt even read the entire article. I would ask you where you get this crap but I already know, and even in that biased article by a "scientist" who cherry picked his studies, even then to say that a study that was done in 1979 that had no way to predict things like the implementation of the kyoto protocals, the increased use of natural gas, improvements in coal scrubber technology, greater implementation of wind power etc is somehow wrong because the world with those changes didnt warm quite as fast as the study predicted ( at least not when you grade them this particular year) is well its not something that would be done by anyone who wasn't looking to prove a specific point. and why would you be amused when someone who makes money to say something specific is seen as less trustworthy than someone who's livelyhood and reputation comes from being right and not from what they say? But no we are supposed to get all excited that the ice this year didnt recede quite as far as the record set a couple years ago - thats it we didnt set a new record every year must be them there egg heads are all just dumb, no evil they want to take our jobs thats it, unlike those nice oil men funding the real unbiased science the country More importantly I will make sure to put a trip back to Clinton in the budget next year! ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1477 - 1983 Ski Nautique 2001 1967 Mustang 302 "Decoy" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO5MkcBXBBs - Holeshot Video |
Posted By: OverMyHead
Date Posted: September-20-2013 at 11:53am
|
Joe. Do you really believe the government is only interested in being right, and not spending OUR money to promote IT'S agenda of expanding its power influence and tax revenue? If so I have some swamp land for sale. The governments of the world including ours are well invested in global warming and expecting major ROI. ------------- For thousands of years men have felt the irresistible urge to go to sea, and many of them died. Things got better after they invented boats. 1987 Ski Nautique |
Posted By: JoeinNY
Date Posted: September-20-2013 at 11:58am
Dave how many of your fox sponsored predictions have come true in the last 6 years.. but you keep going back to drink the koolaid from the same stand- you have no facts, you have no point, yet you want to sell me swamp land - keep paying those rich guys to protect you from the government you elect. They do it just cause they like you  ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1477 - 1983 Ski Nautique 2001 1967 Mustang 302 "Decoy" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO5MkcBXBBs - Holeshot Video |
Posted By: 63 Skier
Date Posted: September-20-2013 at 3:26pm
|
I've been involved in manufacturing since the late 1970's, and now am in the renewable fuel business. In the '70's and '80's, the EPA was nuts and going to put us all out of business. I embraced the changes being an environmentally conscious person at heart, and stayed ahead of the curve on changing chemical use and water treatment, and guess what? I was still in business, and the rivers are cleaner, the lakes are cleaner, the harbors along the coast are cleaner. Same with air regs, same with fuels, etc. Now I put climate change in the same category - there will be people that deny it, say it isn't happening, say it's a government conspiracy, just like I've been hearing for 30 years. In the end the policies will help all of us, and the nay-sayers will fade away. ------------- '63 American Skier - '98 Sport Nautique |
Posted By: bhectus
Date Posted: September-20-2013 at 7:23pm
|
David, the EPA is STILL nuts and one of the most corrupt government organizations we have. I have a close relative who is a biochemist with them for over 30 years, and have heard firsthand how crooked they really are. They can shut people up very quickly and very easily. ------------- '02 Ski Nautique 196 w/ 5.7 Apex bowtie - Sold '87 Barefoot - sold '97 Super Sport Nautique - originally custom built for Walt Meloon '97 Ski Nautique '83 SN 2001 |
Posted By: 63 Skier
Date Posted: September-20-2013 at 7:43pm
|
I know what you mean Bret, and have experienced it firsthand. I guess what I meant by my comment was that the end result was definitely needed, no question that at times the methods are suspect. I draw the same conclusion with climate change - I'm sure mistakes will be made, there will be problems and unfortunately we can count on some level of corruption along the way. But, I think the results are necessary and urgent, so there has to be a mechanism to force compliance. ------------- '63 American Skier - '98 Sport Nautique |
Posted By: peter1234
Date Posted: September-21-2013 at 4:14pm
|
has anyone here ever walked around the outside of the EPA building in washington d.c the overall mass of that building (i assume its not their only one) is so huge and powerful looking it is to me represents the bureaucracy and power that they can generate . Imagine the paper pushed around that organization? ------------- former skylark owner now a formula but I cant let this place go |
Posted By: OverMyHead
Date Posted: November-12-2013 at 10:13am
|
Here is a very thorough (grab a cup of coffee) article on what ethanol is doing in the name of protecting the environment. And it isn't even from FOX!! http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_289563/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=c9XqwWa7" rel="nofollow - Secret ------------- For thousands of years men have felt the irresistible urge to go to sea, and many of them died. Things got better after they invented boats. 1987 Ski Nautique |
Posted By: bhectus
Date Posted: November-12-2013 at 1:12pm
Great article. And not surprising at all. "Agriculture companies like Monsanto Co. and DuPont Pioneer, which stood to make millions off an ethanol boom, told the government those numbers were too low. They predicted that genetically modified seeds - which they produce - would send yields skyrocketing. With higher yields, farmers could produce more corn on less land, reducing the environmental effects." Ask a soybean farmer if he can even find non-genetically modified soybean seeds anymore and listen real closely what they tell you. If you've seen the movie "Food, Inc." then you probably already know the answer. It's pretty horrifying. ------------- '02 Ski Nautique 196 w/ 5.7 Apex bowtie - Sold '87 Barefoot - sold '97 Super Sport Nautique - originally custom built for Walt Meloon '97 Ski Nautique '83 SN 2001 |
Posted By: jbach
Date Posted: November-12-2013 at 1:22pm
| using food for energy is and always has been a bad idea. we have recently tilled under the last remaining 560 of 1000+ tillable acres of CRP in N.D. in favor of production crops, corn and sunflowers. has really hurt the upland birds and the hunting industry in that area. 10 years ago, that part of the state was near 100% CRP, native grassland. |
Posted By: Nautiquehunter
Date Posted: November-12-2013 at 5:37pm
| I believe the sun is hot the rain is wet the wind always blows and the government is full of $h*t. Nothing they say is even close to the truth. |
Posted By: phatsat67
Date Posted: November-12-2013 at 5:56pm
|
That's what you get when you have the swing vote in this country as the uneducated and ignorant population. They vote for an ignorant and unfit for the job man. Nothing this administration has don't has been in the interests of the people or the country. It's only been done in the interests of retaining the vote that will keep them in power. Very unfortunate thing that's happening to this country. ------------- |
Posted By: OverMyHead
Date Posted: December-13-2013 at 10:05am
|
From Greenpeace http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/12/11/downton-abbey-butler-plays-christmas-canceling-santa-in-this-scary-greenpeace-video/" rel="nofollow - Christmas-Cancelling Santa In This Scary Greenpeace Video If your science is proven, why would you have to resort to trying to terrorize kids with fiction about fiction? This is disgraceful  . But I guess the ends justifies the means, right?------------- For thousands of years men have felt the irresistible urge to go to sea, and many of them died. Things got better after they invented boats. 1987 Ski Nautique |
Posted By: OverMyHead
Date Posted: December-22-2013 at 9:09pm
|
A new look at NASA satellite data revealed that Earth set a new record for coldest temperature recorded. It happened in August 2010 when it hit -135.8 degrees. Then on July 31 of this year, it came close again: -135.3 degrees. ------------- For thousands of years men have felt the irresistible urge to go to sea, and many of them died. Things got better after they invented boats. 1987 Ski Nautique |
Posted By: john b
Date Posted: December-22-2013 at 9:21pm
Just another December day in Minnesota. ------------- 1970 Mustang "Theseus' paradox" If everyone else is doing it, you're too late! |
Posted By: OverMyHead
Date Posted: December-22-2013 at 10:37pm
Feels like it some days but I have experienced the 100 degree shift from +65 to -35 which goes from comfortable to bitterly nasty cold. I don't ever want to feel what another 100 degrees colder feels like thank you. ------------- For thousands of years men have felt the irresistible urge to go to sea, and many of them died. Things got better after they invented boats. 1987 Ski Nautique |
Posted By: JoeinNY
Date Posted: December-23-2013 at 12:57pm
Interesting factoid, out of place in a global warming denier thread though, as since that area hadn’t really been monitored in that way over any historical period it only shows that we are getting better at looking for super cold temperatures – it did make quite a few of the fake new sites in the last couple days though… I think because they were stretching to have a data point out there to balance the reality going on outside the door of many of us in places where there is a historical record. NYC had two record high days this week, Philly had one as well… I hate to feed the trolls but I had the weather on my mind this weekend as I saw the craziest swing of my short 37 years when we went from mid 30s to high 50s and back to mid 30s in well under an hour and had all the crazy wind shifts to go with it. http://www.wunderground.com/news/december-record-highs-historic-rainfall-20131223" rel="nofollow - december-record-highs-historic-rainfall ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1477 - 1983 Ski Nautique 2001 1967 Mustang 302 "Decoy" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO5MkcBXBBs - Holeshot Video |
Posted By: john b
Date Posted: December-23-2013 at 2:43pm
|
When I think of radical weather this always comes to mind. http://jaytrobec.com/index.php/state-of-extremes/radical-record-temperature-rise" rel="nofollow - Record temperature swing ------------- 1970 Mustang "Theseus' paradox" If everyone else is doing it, you're too late! |
Posted By: OverMyHead
Date Posted: December-23-2013 at 2:48pm
|
If that were today it would surely be discussed as related to global warming. So which of mans evils caused it in '43? Or was it just weather back then? ------------- For thousands of years men have felt the irresistible urge to go to sea, and many of them died. Things got better after they invented boats. 1987 Ski Nautique |
Posted By: john b
Date Posted: December-23-2013 at 3:00pm
Joe, It really muddles up the discussion when you interject empiricle evidence into one's perceived reality. A man once said "I reject your reality and substitute my own". ------------- 1970 Mustang "Theseus' paradox" If everyone else is doing it, you're too late! |