"Green" expeditioin boat capsizes - then is rescued by supertanker

[Dr.Who]

If we're going cite short term weather trends as clmate, which it is not, we may as well note that we had record breaking highs last week around the mid-Atlantic area a week or so ago. For the record, we also had very little snow last Winter.

Score one for pocket

If we are going to use short term trends then since 1989 we are not warming or maybe even cooling. Perhaps due to the absence of sun spots.

If we extend the time frame out just a little bit then we have warming.

If we extend it further then cooling.

And further then warming.

In fact, by deciding how much time we want to measure we can make the trend support either position. Probably Because the real trend is cycling temperatures that are part of a feedback loop which is self regulating.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Scientists do studies to make a living. There will always be some possibility of conflict-of-interest, regardless of what side of the fence you're on.

Take a minute to imagine how you'd manage the public if you were in power and stuck with the consequences of Peak Oil. Would you just openly admit to folks that our economy was going to start contracting with no way to keep growth going or would you try to convince folks of an emergency that requires that "we all do our part to help"?

This is so obvious that it hurts.

yes I would, thats why I am good. and is your idea then ignore science studies?

 

[PLC1]

Looks like Al Gore's usual magic is still working. The silly global-warming fanatic has had lecture after lecture cancelled due to heavy snow, unseasonably cold temperatures, etc., until he finally changed the name of his supposed concern to "global climate change" instead.

Gore had nothing to do with the "carbon neutral" expedition that set out for Greenland this spring, but they seem to have suffered a similar fate to his many failed lecture attempts. During their attempt to display just how viable their "green" technology was, their boat was lashed by severe storms, capsizing three times as their carbon-neutral equipment was systematically destroyed by wind and wave.

The crowning insult came as they were rescued - by a supertanker carrying two-thirds of a million barrels of crude oil.

Well, they did accomplish one of their goals: They conclusively proved just how viable their "green" equipment was in a real-world test.)

Let's see.. Someone set out to go to Greenland in a "green" vessel that had nothing at all to do with Al Gore, and it capsized. The crew had to be rescued by a passing supertanker.

That proves that Al Gore is full of hooey and therefore global climate change is just nonsense. Of course, local weather reports back up the claim that the Earth isn't getting warmer.

How could we possibly refute that logic?

I thought the current required thought was not that global climate change wasn't happening, but that it was happening, but was not due to human activities. Isn't that the conclusion that is required of all right thinking Americans, or was that last month?

 

[Little-Acorn]

Let's see..

(weird non-sequitor deleted)

Keep looking. You may yet see.

 

[Pidgey]

yes I would, thats why I am good. and is your idea then ignore science studies?

I think you'd find it a little different if you were actually in the position. One of the number one priorities of most politicians is to avoid getting lynched. Messenger killing is a time-honored tradition.

The big difference between science and engineering is that in engineering, we actually have to produce verifiable results. Almost all applied-science design equations have places for the insertion of empirical "fudge factors". When you get used to operating in that world, you begin to more easily recognize where such uncertainties are applied everywhere else you look. I've gone through several writeups and peer-reviewed scientific articles regarding the science of AGW. Same stuff and it's rife with it.

Argo has been reporting OHC losses for years now. Most of the reason why you're not seeing very up-to-date references in AGW articles anymore is because of the embarrassing loss of energy that's been occurring, lo, these last few years. H*ll, the AGW camp has been sacrificing virgins (rare to find them, these days) in the hopes of stoking another El Nino but the GLAAM's just not accepting the New-and-Improved-Cross-Gender variety, I guess. Yes, some of this paragraph is comedic exaggeration, I understand that.

 

[PLC1]

Keep looking. You may yet see.

"wierd non sequiter" = an accurate description of the opening post.

Question: In order to be a bona fide doubter of global climate change, is it OK simply to believe that climate change isn't anthropogenic, or is it again necessary to believe that it isn't happening? Your citing of local cold weather events seems to lead us to think that it is once again necessary to believe that there is no global warming.

Your followers need to be told what to believe, of course.

And, further, just what connection is there between a "green" vessel that capsized, global climate change, and Al Gore? Talk about non sequiters!

 

[Little-Acorn]

"wierd non sequiter" = an accurate description of the opening post.

Keep trying.

And, further, just what connection is there between a "green" vessel that capsized, global climate change, and Al Gore?

That question was answered in the opening post that you pretend to have read. Good to see you're finally starting to look, though "see" is clearly a ways away for you.

 

[Little-Acorn]

"wierd non sequiter" = an accurate description of the opening post.

Keep trying.

And, further, just what connection is there between a "green" vessel that capsized, global climate change, and Al Gore?

That question was answered in the opening post, that you keep pretending to have read. Good to see you're finally starting to look, though "see" is clearly a ways away for you.

 

[Dr.Who]

Let's see.. Someone set out to go to Greenland in a "green" vessel that had nothing at all to do with Al Gore, and it capsized. The crew had to be rescued by a passing supertanker.

It just proves that people can go find stories to pick up a political point or two.

That proves that Al Gore is full of hooey and therefore global climate change is just nonsense. Of course, local weather reports back up the claim that the Earth isn't getting warmer.

AG is full of hooey but not becaus of the boat.
Global climate change happens all the time. But Anthropomorphic Global Warming is just nonsense.
And it is not the local reports that prove the earth is not getting warmer but NASA and Hanson who had to admit it has not gotten any warmer for a long time.

 

[PLC1]

It just proves that people can go find stories to pick up a political point or two.

So far, it appears you're correct.

AG is full of hooey but not becaus of the boat.
Global climate change happens all the time. But Anthropomorphic Global Warming is just nonsense.

OK, that may or may not be so, but it is at least defensible from a scientific point of view. There still is no proof that global climate change is a result of human activity. There is evidence that it is, it makes a good hypothesis, but it is far from an established theory.

And it is not the local reports that prove the earth is not getting warmer but NASA and Hanson who had to admit it has not gotten any warmer for a long time.

Now, you seem to be arguing the same point that Acorn is making: Global climate change is not happening, is a myth.

The middle part of your post is not consistent with the ending, which is confusing to the reader.

Which is it?

Global climate change happens all the time

has not gotten any warmer for a long time.

 

[Little-Acorn]

the same point that Acorn is making: Global climate change is not happening, is a myth.

You were doing pretty well with this post, until you came out with that falsehood.

That's progress, at least. You're doing some reading.

 

[PLC1]

You were doing pretty well with this post, until you came out with that falsehood.

That's progress, at least. You're doing some reading.

Are you or are you not saying that global climate change, aka global warming is a myth?

Here is some reading I did in the opening post:

The silly global-warming fanatic has had lecture after lecture cancelled due to heavy snow, unseasonably cold temperatures, etc., until he finally changed the name of his supposed concern to "global climate change" instead.

If global warming is real, then why are you using examples of cold weather to try to refute it?

Your position is:

a. Global warming is not happening.
b. Global warming is real,
c. It depends on the alignment of the stars.
d. climate change is somehow different from global warming (please explain).

 

[Dr.Who]

The middle part of your post is not consistent with the ending, which is confusing to the reader.

Which is it?

that is because you have fallen into the trap of confusing global warming with climate change.

Climate change happens all the time. Deserts become forests and warmer places get colder and cold places get warmer.

But Global Warming is a different beast. And according to NASA, the same authority that said it was warming, the measurements of the planet have not indicated that it has gotten any warmer for a while now.

In summary:

Climate change happens all the time and when you see a report that science proves that something is climate change it means nothing as far as this debate is concerned.

AGW is sill nonsense

And GW is probably cyclical and probably self-regulating as many other feedback loops in nature are.

 

[PLC1]

that is because you have fallen into the trap of confusing global warming with climate change.

Climate change happens all the time. Deserts become forests and warmer places get colder and cold places get warmer.

But Global Warming is a different beast. And according to NASA, the same authority that said it was warming, the measurements of the planet have not indicated that it has gotten any warmer for a while now.

In summary:

Climate change happens all the time and when you see a report that science proves that something is climate change it means nothing as far as this debate is concerned.

AGW is sill nonsense

And GW is probably cyclical and probably self-regulating as many other feedback loops in nature are.

Global climate change is a more accurate term than global warming. The Earth isn't getting uniformly warmer. As the average temperature of the Earth increases, it causes changes in local climates.

Global warming, which brings on climate changes, is indeed cyclical. The globe has been warming and cooling for millions of years now, usually over tens of thousands of years.

The difference between then and now is the pace of the change.

One likely cause of the accelerated change in global warming (which brings on climate changes) is the burning of fossil fuels.

At least, that's how it is being described in apolitical scientific publications. Dr. Limbaugh and Professor Hannity have different views, views that seem to change with the wind.

Now, once more:

Is the argument that global warming is a myth (easily refuted, of course), or that it is simply cyclical and not caused by human activities (unlikely, but possible, and difficult to refute?)

 

[Dr.Who]

Global climate change is a more accurate term than global warming. The Earth isn't getting uniformly warmer. As the average temperature of the Earth increases, it causes changes in local climates.

Global warming, which brings on climate changes, is indeed cyclical. The globe has been warming and cooling for millions of years now, usually over tens of thousands of years.

The difference between then and now is the pace of the change.

One likely cause of the accelerated change in global warming (which brings on climate changes) is the burning of fossil fuels.

At least, that's how it is being described in apolitical scientific publications. Dr. Limbaugh and Professor Hannity have different views, views that seem to change with the wind.

Now, once more:

Is the argument that global warming is a myth (easily refuted, of course), or that it is simply cyclical and not caused by human activities (unlikely, but possible, and difficult to refute?)

But there is no evidence that climate change is harmful to the planet as a whole. Why should we care? Sure it is bad for the area that becomes a desert but then it is equally good for the cooler climate that yields better crops.

And while it is a safe bet that the planet warms and cools (so it must warm so there must be global warming, at least sometimes) there is even less evidence that the warming (which might have ended in 1998) is causing any more climate change than is normal. There is less evidence that climate change is bad than there is for global warming being bad.

And global cooling causes climate change too. In fact climates have always been changing. What is so bad about change. Especially since we might have zero control over it. Climate change even happens when there is no annual cooling or warming.

In short the links between man made carbon emissions, then warming, then accelerated change, then negative effects, are so tenuous that in no way shape or form should politicians be considering taking any action at all.