More undercover global warming pictures.

That's because, just like evolution it's all theory. We thing we know to a great degree but who can know for sure? Those who put their trust in science put their trust in a slippery slope at best. Things we call fact yesterday are now subject to change and interpretation today.


How is it that we think ourselves to be so high and mighty that we can predict the end times either by chocking to death or starvation or any other cause. Yes we need to be respectful of what we use and return back to the earth good thinks but to think we will kill the earth is just plain stupid. To be sure, folks don't care about the earth they really care about getting dead.

That's the real deal. The earth will remain whether there are people on it or not so let's understand it's about people not the ecology. Are we going to end up dead because of our actions is the question.

Let me let you in on a little secret: WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE ANYWAYS. If you are worried about your children then don't have any. If you don't want electricity then don't use it. Just remember it's about you, so stop saying you want to save the world. You really want to save you.
Just a suggestion but since we are all going to get dead then why not search for the real mystery. What happens after and for how long.

If we just vaporize then raise hell now because it's all you have. If you'er reincarnated then you get to live another day in what ever form you believe your faith system will put you in. If you believe in God then there is an eternity to consider.
See these are way more pressing issues than global whatever they want to call it today.

disclaimer: IMHO.
 
MonacoMike said:
Your first sentence is flat out wrong. There is no fact the earth is getting warmer, rather there has been no warming in 17 years and the GW/CC claiming scientists are scrambling to find a way to prop up their failed hypothesis. You then state "in fact" that GW/CC is causing weather and that to is wrong.

I have yet to see ANY evidence of GW/CC that does not involve man-made "computer models". It is the height of scientific arrogance for any human to believe they can account for ALL variables both on and around this planet to create a computer generated forecast that would be correct. Their models of the past 30 years have failed to correctly predict the past 20 years, why should we believe they are correct about the next 150?
Click to expand...
MonacoMike said:
This has become a politicized debate, I didn't say that humans are "causing" the warming, only that it's getting warmer!
This from NOAA, unless you don't believe Government Scientists! Who are you going to believe???
I don't trust anyone who has Political "Skin" in the game.
Republicans or Democrats.

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/global-temps.shtml
Click to expand...
 
Well in our ongoing effort to find the truth.
I just checked a little South of Siberia and there is some bare ground visible.
Maybe global warming IS true....
e3019982e653d3a68e1380cdf78abf4a_zpse4f5078b.jpg


Its amazing the resources CSR will provide to get to the bottom of things.

;)
 
Last edited:
MonacoMike said:
When I ask for "believers" to provide the evidence that prompted their belief, I never get get anything substantial back...Wonder why???
MM
Click to expand...

Monaco Mike, cheez, how often do you check in to this website? Between work, family, and trying to get a work out in, I am busy so I sign in each afternoon or evening for a few mins to see what is up with SR boating. I also try to read a few newspapers on line each evening so I am up on current events. Regarding these tiki bar posts, they are what they are, and I dont plan on getting dragged in to debates with people who have already made up their mind. My guess is, the average age on this website is mid 50's. We are not going to change each others opinion on matters like this. To be honest, I like to see you guys get worked up a bit with a contrary opinion to the group think mentality that pervails here. The hard science is there, including studies by top scientists worldwide, but anyone can search the web and find a case to support a contrary opinion. Final thought, this website should consider doing away with this tiki bar BS. Other boating websites forbid it. Keep CSR about boating, and we will get along fine. If you want to blog or post on politics, religion, or another subject, there are about a million other appropriate websites out there for that. Over,and out.
 
Maybe it's because we are tired of trying to explain the basic concepts of science to people who want to pick and choose which fields of science to "believe", and treat the word "theory" as if it is the same as "hypothesis". Shouting into the wind is only fun for a while. Then it gets tedious, and if you won't accept science, there's no point trying to explain science to you.
 
Billfletcher said:
Final thought, this website should consider doing away with this tiki bar BS. Other boating websites forbid it. Keep CSR about boating, and we will get along fine. If you want to blog or post on politics, religion, or another subject, there are about a million other appropriate websites out there for that. Over,and out.
Click to expand...

Bill, I will tell you in no way shape or form am I worked up about this or similar topics, I rather enjoy sparring with folks of similar interests on these issues. It is an escape from the normal and keeps you sharp. In no way are my replies meant to be personal but rather to give a full airing and let the lurkers decide the issue. I will add that government has become so intrusive in our lives that there is no subject that is not touched by politics.

This discussion of what we discuss here has come up from time to time. The conclusion always has been that the "Tiki Bar" is just that a place to discuss the same topics you would with your dock friend over a beer and the "Holding Tank" is for purely overt political posts. The matter at hand is of great import to boaters as many GW/CC believers want to take away our right or ability to power boat among many other pursuits. This is a subject that affects all boaters should be taken seriously and is right on target on a boating site.

MM
 
Last edited:
SloBurn said:
This from NOAA, unless you don't believe Government Scientists! Who are you going to believe???
I don't trust anyone who has Political "Skin" in the game.

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/global-temps.shtml
Click to expand...

It has already been proven you cannot believe "government scientists" in the scandal involving University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, the folks pushing GW/CC on the British government and the rest of the world. They were trying to keep anyone skeptical from seeing their data and hiding their lack of data.

The word believers fits the GW/CC crowd to a T. It is similar to the "flat earth" believers of our history. The scientific community, governments, and religions of the time fervently believed the earth was flat and made it a heresy to even suggest otherwise. That sounds like today, major media outlets, and again parts of the scientific community, and governments, spurn debate, falsely claim the science is settled, threaten and blackball scientists who speak up against the claim that humans are warming the planet.

You are correct the issue has been politicized, but that was its intent all along. If you control energy, you control people and control is what governments want. If it was not this issue then they would use something else to try to gain control. If one believed in the depths of their heart and soul that burning fossil fuels was killing our planet that person should stop using fossil fuels as much as is possible. Most of the well known true believers have carbon footprints the size of 20 families each. That is not conviction, that is do as I say not as I do. To be fair there are a few folk living by their convictions but not many.

The bottom line is, no one here likely has any direct knowledge of GW/CC and has largely formed their opinions based on what they have heard or read in various media. I cannot prove a negative, it is therefore up to the believers to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that humans are affecting the earth in a negative way that will end life as we know it to get me to agree to change life as we know it to "save the earth".

MM
 
Last edited:
Theory - climate change - the idea that climate trends are out of the know norms caused by outside forces.
Hypothesis - outside forces are causing climate differences that appear to be outside of known norms.
Fact - science has not 100% proven the theory through objective study or the hypothesis through scientific testing.
Fact - governments have regulated industry on substantiated theory and incomplete testing or observation of unfounded hypothesis.

disclaimer: IMHO
 
OldSkool said:
Theory - climate change - the idea that climate trends are out of the know norms caused by outside forces.
Hypothesis - outside forces are causing climate differences that appear to be outside of known norms.
Fact - science has not 100% proven the theory through objective study or the hypothesis through scientific testing.
Fact - governments have regulated industry on substantiated theory and incomplete testing or observation of unfounded hypothesis.
disclaimer: IMHO
Click to expand...

Partisanship: The belief that 100% proof is required to support a theory that you don't agree with.

The theory of Gravity is not 100% proven, but it is the basis of modern physics.
The theory of Electromagnetism isn't 100% proven, and there are still substantial open questions about how it really works, but it still enough to use in industry and science.

There is no 100%. There is just "This theory is best supported by the evidence we have and the experiments we have performed to date." Anything else isn't science, it's dogma.

Climate science is still science. It is still based upon testable theories, even if we don't yet have the ability to model systems large enough to provide perfect predictions of our world's ecosystem. You agreeing with it isn't necessary for it to work.

The fact that you insist on 100%, on perfect predictions, is exactly the reason that arguing with you about it is pointless.
 
src said:
Partisanship: The belief that 100% proof is required to support a theory that you don't agree with.

The theory of Gravity is not 100% proven, but it is the basis of modern physics.
The theory of Electromagnetism isn't 100% proven, and there are still substantial open questions about how it really works, but it still enough to use in industry and science.

There is no 100%. There is just "This theory is best supported by the evidence we have and the experiments we have performed to date." Anything else isn't science, it's dogma.

Climate science is still science. It is still based upon testable theories, even if we don't yet have the ability to model systems large enough to provide perfect predictions of our world's ecosystem. You agreeing with it isn't necessary for it to work.

The fact that you insist on 100%, on perfect predictions, is exactly the reason that arguing with you about it is pointless.
Click to expand...

May I ask (and I am not trying to jerk you around) what your background is?
 
Four Suns said:
May I ask (and I am not trying to jerk you around) what your background is?
Click to expand...

Sorry, but what? Exactly which statement did I make that was so far from the realm of reason (and high-school level science) that it requires I provide my background? Where is the call for the "background" of those who are willing to dismiss out of hand the findings of the scientific community at large, and the vast majority of climate scientists?

That's a deflection. I usually see it when someone wants to tear down the message but can't, so they attack the speaker.

Scientific method. Look it up. That's all I defended.

People are so willing to use the fruits of science everyday, to the level that they don't even consider the decades of progress required to post a picture of their meal to InstaGram using their GPS enabled cell-phone. But the minute that the science says something that conflicts with their dogma, then they fall back on "It's just a theory", "It's not 100% proven", "There is dissent among scientists" (that one is particularly egregious, considering 97% of _climate_ scientists are in agreement over the fundamentals of the issue, and most of the "dissent" surrounds just how fast we are screwing ourselves).

But I'm not even really defending the predictions coming from climate scientists here. It's just frustrating to watch people deny science when it conflicts with their dogmatic opinions, but accept it in all other aspects of their lives.

Physics is physics. It works in pretty much every large-scale application we want to apply it to (large-scale disclaimer used due to the fact that quantum scale physics is still evolving). People of every faith rely on that in their every-day lives, but will immediately abandon it the second it shows that the universe was created 13.8 billion years ago instead of 6000.

Geology is geology, until (this is a true story that happened in my presence) someone looks at a map of the world and says "You can really see how the flood shaped the land", regardless of the fact that glaciation, rift formation and plate tectonics have been and can be observed as very real active phenomena, as opposed to a mythical "flood" event.

And now Climate Science, which has produced theories and predictions that fly in the face of the economic self-interest of many people and organizations, is attacked wholesale, just because they don't like the predicted results. I'm not saying they are dead-on accurate, or that the theories won't evolve over time, but to dismiss them for the simple reason that you don't like them, or because "It's cold where I am today", or because the local weatherman (who practices climate science the way a toddler with a set of blocks practices engineering) can't get the forecast right is just silly.

Science is still science even when it produces results you, or I, or the population at large don't like.

This isn't about my background, or yours. It boils down to just a simple question: Do you accept the scientific method as a valid process to explore and understand our world and our universe, or do you just take the fruits of the labors of those who use it while denying the very foundation of what they do based on dogmatic belief.
 
Well... You are a fool then.

Let me tell you my background. Graduate degree in computational fluid dynamics and worked at NASA for 14 years in computational modeling. Got a Exceptional Achievement Medal (google it) from NASA and a distinguished fellow from my graduate school that is an NSF center for computational modeling. Married a girl from NASA in the mid-80's who has a graduate degree in computer science and worked in the atmospheric sciences division at NASA and flew all over the world measuring gases and worked on sats that measure the earth radiation budget... I left NASA and went into private industry... and let me tell you a story. in 1993, our division head got in front of all the researchers and gave an hour long talk about how our funding was drying up and if we didn't think the "scientific results" we produced didn't have to match the politicians needs that are funding us, then we should leave. I left. My wife left. The chief science officer left. NASA became more about Equal Opportunity Employment and political science than real science.

I know physics... I know the scientific method... and I graduated high school.

So there you have it. I think the whole climate change thing is pseudo science at best and the clowns working on it amount to nothing more than engineer welfare. Tell a university they will get $10 million to prove climate change and guess what? You'll prove climate change. I know these people... This ain't news... it's reality. They can get fools like you all lathered up by showing you a couple of partial differential equations and you are off voting for the dorks.

And let me be clear. I believe we need to leave the planet in better shape than we got it. I hate pollution... but that's not what we are talking about. They'll show you nasty chemicals flowing into the river in a TV ad and then say "Climate Change" and BAM! You think carbon dioxide is a poisonous gas. The reality is we can't predict weather in 12 hours let alone 100 years.

You are fool my friend. Zero degrees Kelvin and space are mighty cold. That ball of fire called the sun controls everything we see on this planet far far more than cows farting.
 
Last edited:
Four Suns said:
Well... You are a fool then.

Let me tell you my background. Graduate degree in computational fluid dynamics and worked at NASA for 14 years in computational modeling. Got a Exceptional Achievement Medal (google it) from NASA and a distinguished fellow from my graduate school that is an NSF center for computational modeling. Married a girl from NASA in the mid-80's who has a graduate degree in computer science and worked in the atmospheric sciences division at NASA and flew all over the world measuring gases and worked on sats that measure the earth radiation budget... I left NASA and went into private industry... and let me tell you a story. in 1993, our division head got in front of all the researchers and gave an hour long talk about how our funding was drying up and if we didn't think the "scientific results" we produced didn't have to match the politicians needs that are funding us, then we should leave. I left. My wife left. The chief science officer left. NASA became more about Equal Opportunity Employment and political science than real science.

I know physics... I know the scientific method... and I graduated high school.

So there you have it. I think the whole climate change thing is pseudo science at best and the clowns working on it amount to nothing more than engineer welfare. Tell a university they will get $10 million to prove climate change and guess what? You'll prove climate change. I know these people... This ain't news... it's reality. They can get fools like you all lathered up by showing you a couple of partial differential equations and you are off voting for the dorks.

And let me be clear. I believe we need to leave the planet in better shape than we got it. I hate pollution... but that's not what we are talking about. They'll show you nasty chemicals flowing into the river in a TV ad and then say "Climate Change" and BAM! You think carbon dioxide is a poisonous gas. The reality is we can't predict weather in 12 hours let alone 100 years.

You are fool my friend. Zero degrees Kelvin and space are mighty cold. That ball of fire called the sun controls everything we see on this planet far far more than cows farting.
Click to expand...

Here, here. Well said.
 
"So there you have it. I think the whole climate change thing is pseudo science at best and the clowns working on it amount to nothing more than engineer welfare. Tell a university they will get $10 million to prove climate change and guess what? You'll prove climate change. I know these people... This ain't news... it's reality. They can get fools like you all lathered up by showing you a couple of partial differential equations and you are off voting for the "

I think the saying goes figures don't lie but liars can figure.

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
"That’s the upshot of a new study in the journal Nature Climate Change that compared 117 climate predictions made in the 1990's to the actual amount of warming. Out of 117 predictions, the study’s author told FoxNews.com, three were roughly accurate and 114 overestimated the amount of warming. On average, the predictions forecasted two times more global warming than actually occurred."

"But John Christy says that climate models have had this problem going back 35 years, to 1979, the first year for which reliable satellite temperature data exists to compare the predictions to.

"I looked at 73 climate models going back to 1979 and every single one predicted more warming than happened in the real world," Christy said."

http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate change/Climate model results/over estimate.pdf

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013...ted-global-warming-study-finds/#ixzz2enV95yA8

MM
 
src said:
This isn't about my background, or yours. It boils down to just a simple question: Do you accept the scientific method as a valid process to explore and understand our world and our universe, or do you just take the fruits of the labors of those who use it while denying the very foundation of what they do based on dogmatic belief.
Click to expand...

I was watching CNN a few weeks ago and I saw our President in some part of the desert in California talking about how he was going to fund something like $1 billion in grants to further advance and show proof man is causing climate change. Maybe I'm stupid but that doesn't strike anyone as a conflict of interest? How about $500 million to prove it and $500 million to not prove it? I mean... heck... I'll prove human beings caused Venus to get hot for $1 billion... I'll even throw in proof of alien abduction at no extra charge.... I will get a couple buddies and we will PROVE anything for $1 billion... I'll even PROVE that earthquakes are triggered by global warming (oh wait... that grant already happened).

"Climate Scientists"... ? Do they work for private industry or are they sucking on the teet of government grants. I am pretty sure that is the only way they get paid and they'll do whatever they have to so their paycheck keeps coming.

I had a son that wanted to be a weatherman many years ago. In the school science fair, he showed that blindly saying the weather forecast tomorrow is the same as the weather is today is more accurate than what NOAA predicts the weather is tomorrow.... He went into medicine instead. Meteorology is the only profession where being wrong is as acceptable as a politician lying.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
113,193
Messages
1,428,284
Members
61,104
Latest member
Three Amigos
Back
Top