Northwest Passage

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

You're on the money there. Have you ever noticed that the effects of increasing C02 in a gas that simulates past and future atmospheric compositions cannot be demonstrated in a lab experiment? That's significant because if AGW theory is to be believed, that should be easily accomplished.

The "greenhouse effect" seems to be another one of these commonly believed misnomers, not because it's basic (100 year-old) theory is controversial but because it can only explain -- at best -- part of the effects of added CO2 in the atmosphere (as opposed to an actual greenhouse). But that's a quickly forgotten, mere "nuance" when the planet needs saving. Besides, numbers like 40% and 100ppm increases "sound" awfully bad. But what are they being compared to?

It's kinda like SailOar's recent list of purported climate "aberrations." It sounds terrible, and it might very well be. But it always seems to need another sentence or two explaining why these observations are different from what's always gone on so we can then more rationally assume human causes.

I guess if it was all as obvious & simple as it is to its devoted followers, there wouldn't be all those physicists and other scientists outside climate science -- with no stake in the outcome -- going on record with their doubts. But SailOar says it's likely they've all now recanted, so that settles that.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Exile

The "greenhouse effect" seems to be another one of these commonly believed misnomers, not because it's basic (100 year-old) theory is controversial but because it can only explain -- at best -- part of the effects of added CO2 in the atmosphere (as opposed to an actual greenhouse). But that's a quickly forgotten, mere "nuance" when the planet needs saving. Besides, numbers like 40% and 100ppm increases "sound" awfully bad. But what are they being compared to?

It's kinda like SailOar's recent list of purported climate "aberrations." It sounds terrible, and it might very well be. But it always seems to need another sentence or two explaining why these observations are different from what's always gone on so we can then more rationally assume human causes.

Most of these "aberrations" have been described in scientific reports that I or someone else have posted about in past CF threads.

I guess if it was all as obvious & simple as it is to its devoted followers, there wouldn't be all those physicists and other scientists outside climate science -- with no stake in the outcome -- going on record with their doubts. But SailOar says it's likely they've all now recanted, so that settles that.

I didn't say that any of them have recanted (I have no idea, one way or another), but I did speculate as to why there now seems far fewer scientists (especially those with germane experience) willing to publicly state their opposition to AGW. My hypothesis is that it is because the bulk of the ongoing scientific investigations supports AGW.

Originally Posted by Exile

The problem I have is your [Lake-Effect's] intolerance for what others may believe.

There are plenty of intolerant people on CF. One wonders what pathology you have that impels you to single out L-E for a regular dose of your sanctimonious righteous indignation?

[newhaul]

Name calling has now started
And the thread will be closed soon.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

How about microplastics? Haven't seen much intensity from you over on that eco-thread. Kinda odd since unlike CC, there's no question who's causing it, or that it is doing harm, or that it is sure to worsen. But also unlike CC, it seems there are realistic remedies which are in reach.

Your question already contains the answer. Maybe it's also because the CF microplastics debate isn't populated with partisan jerks parroting propaganda generated by Big Plastic?

But maybe that's the problem -- too much common ground means there's nobody to get angry at? Nobody to accuse of not caring, of moral inferiority, of being poor examples of mankind? How about those who believe that banning plastic straws at Starbucks is a foolish policy since any public awareness that may be achieved would be outweighed by the loss of support from too many people who share the same goals, but have lost patience & confidence with knee-jerk environmental policies that do little more than make people feel good?

Reminds me of the knee-jerk reactions to the campaigns to ban plastic straws, from right-wing zealots conditioned to p1ss on any suggestion if it comes from ecological activists.


walk-back in 3...2...1...

I'd say there are respectable arguments for banning straws on both sides that are worth considering, but are those who desire the same ends but disagree with your preferred means also worthy of your anger & scorn?

[big eye roll]

... they may be looking for something like religion or a close substitute to absolve them of their guilt. And like religion, absolute, unquestioning devotion to mainstream CC theory requires little if any personal sacrifice, or even inconvenience, to have oneself "absolved." Just getting other people to "believe" like you do -- whether they're reducing their carbon footprint or not -- is apparently enough.

Hey, it's not me doing handsprings to try to prove that a scientific consensus isn't a scientific consensus.

Besides, numbers like 40% "sound" awfully bad. But what are they being compared to?

Uh, "increased by 40%" contains its own frame of reference. If increasing CO2 by 40% is meaningless to you, you have a weaker grasp of math and science than I have assumed.

Originally Posted by SailOar

There are plenty of intolerant people on CF. One wonders what pathology [Exile has] that impels [him] to single out L-E for a regular dose of [his] sanctimonious righteous indignation?

I made the initial mistake, years back, in assuming that Exile would be swayed by a solid argument. I've been pretty crabby about it since then, and he reciprocates.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Name calling has now started
And the thread will be closed soon.

if you hurry, you can get a few good ones in.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Name calling has now started
And the thread will be closed soon.

That started quite some time ago.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Most of these "aberrations" have been described in scientific reports that I or someone else have posted about in past CF threads.

Yes. Posted about repeatedly, with compelling photographs I should add. But rarely if ever accompanied by any sort of analysis establishing a link between the aberrant/alarming/etc. event and the "A" in AGW. More like the "A" is left out and it skips right to GW. But some/most/?? of the science agrees that we're also likely in a natural warming cycle, so the GW part is already established, is it not? Maybe I'm wrong and this needs correction, but what I'm hearing anyway is lots of talk about fossil fuel emissions causing a significant increase in atmospheric CO2. Check. Even more talk about increases in various levels [insert descriptor] of warming as a result of the increased CO2 and the "greenhouse effect." Another check. So we (arguably) have established AGW, but the only way to know if the A part is an actual material cause of the event is if the event is in fact reasonably aberrant. And the only way to establish aberrance is to compare it with historical events, preferably before the age of fossil fuel emissions. Over & over again . . . what is so difficult to understand or so threatening about questions such as this?

I didn't say that any of them have recanted (I have no idea, one way or another), but I did speculate as to why there now seems far fewer scientists (especially those with germane experience) willing to publicly state their opposition to AGW. My hypothesis is that it is because the bulk of the ongoing scientific investigations supports AGW.

No, you don't have any idea, that's been established. And your hypothesis might be more sound if almost everyone in the climate science field wasn't focused on proving the A in AGW as opposed to also looking at other reasons why most agree we are experiencing GW. It also explains, hypothetically, why there are seemingly more skeptical scientists outside the field than within. For all we know -- and you know -- there are more outside scientists questioning the apparently growing conformity within the field.

There are plenty of intolerant people on CF. One wonders what pathology you have that impels you to single out L-E for a regular dose of sanctimonious righteous indignation?

Sorry. Sanctimonious righteous indignation is definitely not my m.o. But if pathology is tonight's preferred choice of personal slight, Singularity already has me pegged :

"So we all have OCD to some degree. It's otherwise what keeps us alive longer. But you need to (I think) recognize...in the context of the above examples....that you will get nowhere discussing the "probability vs reality nexus" with people who have no insight into their numeracy cognitive distortion. Recall that one definition of crazy is doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result."

But when smart people are pointing out things about me that I wasn't completely aware of or didn't adequately understand, I don't take it as insulting but view it more like a gift.

As for L-E, he's a real standout and is more talented than most at instigating more negative responses than most. Funny how that works. In fact, some might say that only a "crazy" person would expect a different result from such behavior.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SailOar

That started quite some time ago.

Wow. It must have taken awhile for you to go all the way back to page 5 and only then when when Newhaul had the gumption to tell someone they weren't as smart as they thought they were. He must REALLY have been peeved!

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by Exile

The "greenhouse effect" seems to be another one of these commonly believed misnomers, not because it's basic (100 year-old) theory is controversial but because it can only explain -- at best -- part of the effects of added CO2 in the atmosphere (as opposed to an actual greenhouse). But that's a quickly forgotten, mere "nuance" when the planet needs saving. Besides, numbers like 40% and 100ppm increases "sound" awfully bad. But what are they being compared to?



It's kinda like SailOar's recent list of purported climate "aberrations." It sounds terrible, and it might very well be. But it always seems to need another sentence or two explaining why these observations are different from what's always gone on so we can then more rationally assume human causes.



I guess if it was all as obvious & simple as it is to its devoted followers, there wouldn't be all those physicists and other scientists outside climate science -- with no stake in the outcome -- going on record with their doubts. But SailOar says it's likely they've all now recanted, so that settles that.

I have tried with science, so let’s try something else.

Why do you think that numerous websites have sprung up harping on how wonderful higher CO2 will be, or how the warmer world will be better, or we will adapt? It is because the folks trying to derail solutions see that “denying” higher levels of CO2 or denying higher temperatures realize it doesn’t hold water so they are trying to get people to accept the new reality isn’t going to be so bad.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Your question already contains the answer. Maybe it's also because the CF microplastics debate isn't populated with partisan jerks parroting propaganda generated by Big Plastic?

I'm not aware of propaganda from Big Plastic. I've had the opinion from the get-go that such containers were extremely wasteful and a bad idea environmentally, and so have declined to use them. It's disconcerting to constantly be having to pick them up from the waters surrounding the marina. (Besides, the Mexican soda in glass bottles taste better ). But I know, in your mind the only reason why anyone would think plastic straw bans were counter-productive if not silly is because they're partisan jerks conservatives that have been unduly influenced by Big Plastic propaganda. Really L-E, there's no need to parse your true prejudices, biases & hatreds at this point. We all know.

Reminds me of the knee-jerk reactions to the campaigns to ban plastic straws, from right-wing zealots conditioned to p1ss on any suggestion if it comes from ecological activists.

Or more moderate people who share the same goals but have less short-sighted and more credible ways of reaching them. Btw, is there now a university degree in "Ecological Activism?"

walk-back in 3...2...1...
[big eye roll]


I never said the argument that banning plastic straws raising public awareness wasn't well-intended. I just think that, in the long run, it would alienate more people than it would attract. Eco-activists have a well-deserved record of unintended consequences and not thinking issues all the way through. Maybe they need more Ph.D programs.

Hey, it's not me doing handsprings to try to prove that a scientific consensus isn't a scientific consensus.

No, just doing handsprings in not acknowledging that the science is not as settled as you want it to be, along with ignoring unintended (but obvious) economic consequences.




Uh, "increased by 40%" contains its own frame of reference. If increasing CO2 by 40% is meaningless to you, you have a weaker grasp of math and science than I have assumed.

You just reinforced my point. It actually means very little on its own.



I made the initial mistake, years back, in assuming that Exile would be swayed by a solid argument. I've been pretty crabby about it since then, and he reciprocates.

Oh but you're wrong. Exile HAS been swayed by solid arguments in the years since then. Thanks in no small part to the arguments I've read here, I have become much LESS willing to give the dominant MMGW theories the benefit of the doubt than I used to be. But it if it makes you feel any better, I still believe there's no way to reach an ultimate conclusion. Reducing fossil fuel consumption & emissions does make a lot of sense to me and to most, however, and I can safely say I'm at the lower end when it comes to consumption (but can't compete with Newhaul). So looking at it rationally it really shouldn't matter to you guys what I "believe," and you should have long since been enjoying your nachos. Or does it, as I suspect, still really matter?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

I have tried with science, so let’s try something else.

Why do you think that numerous websites have sprung up harping on how wonderful higher CO2 will be, or how the warmer world will be better, or we will adapt? It is because the folks trying to derail solutions see that “denying” higher levels of CO2 or denying higher temperatures realize it doesn’t hold water so they are trying to get people to accept the new reality isn’t going to be so bad.

Too many variables with that one Allen. I'd go back to the science if I were you rather than speculating about motivations for new websites (PayPal anyone?). Maybe you can start with two questions from Reefmagnet you never answered (here and in prior threads).

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

I have tried with science, so let’s try something else.

Why do you think that numerous websites have sprung up harping on how wonderful higher CO2 will be, or how the warmer world will be better, or we will adapt? It is because the folks trying to derail solutions see that “denying” higher levels of CO2 or denying higher temperatures realize it doesn’t hold water so they are trying to get people to accept the new reality isn’t going to be so bad.

Or conversely the sites talking about the crop failures that go along with the gsm and its related weather events . Which do and will include cooling temperatures.
Even as the co2 which is greening the planet continues to rise.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

That started quite some time ago.

really that's what you call name calling out of desperation like others do on here .
http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2924234
Just to remind everyone what I actually said

really you are not as smart as you want people to believe are you .

The entire arctic ocean was frozen over the winter. So I would say that it is not extinct.

This is aside from as jack would say not germane to the substance of the thread which according to the title the NWP which as of the first of July still frozen solidly with fast ice according to environment Canada

I posted the charts .

https://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/cgi-bin/...wrap=1&lang=en

https://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/cgi-bin/...wrap=1&lang=en

Lets at least try to stay on point.

Someone anyone where did I resort to blatant name calling due to an inability to refute their statements???

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by newhaul

..snip
Someone anyone where did I resort to blatant name calling due to an inability to refute their statements???

Some people just have so sensitive skin that they get a rash even when thinking about it. Taking a day out and rolling in the dirt really makes one feel better afterwards

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Exile

Yes. Posted about repeatedly, with compelling photographs I should add. But rarely if ever accompanied by any sort of analysis establishing a link between the aberrant/alarming/etc. event and the "A" in AGW. More like the "A" is left out and it skips right to GW. But some/most/?? of the science agrees that we're also likely in a natural warming cycle, so the GW part is already established, is it not? Maybe I'm wrong and this needs correction,....

Yes, you are definitely wrong. The "A" question was asked and answered years ago. That you still think it is the burning question of the hour (nice little pun, don't you think?) is why it is more accurate to call you a denier or an ignoramus rather than a skeptic -- and you're not an ignoramus.

but what I'm hearing anyway is lots of talk about fossil fuel emissions causing a significant increase in atmospheric CO2. Check. Even more talk about increases in various levels [insert descriptor] of warming as a result of the increased CO2 and the "greenhouse effect." Another check. So we (arguably) have established AGW, but the only way to know if the A part is an actual material cause of the event is if the event is in fact reasonably aberrant. And the only way to establish aberrance is to compare it with historical events, preferably before the age of fossil fuel emissions. Over & over again . . . what is so difficult to understand or so threatening about questions such as this?....

Yes, and that's been done. "Over & over again"