• Announcements

    • UnderDawg

      A Few Simple Rules   05/22/2017

      Sailing Anarchy is a very lightly moderated site. This is by design, to afford a more free atmosphere for discussion. There are plenty of sailing forums you can go to where swearing isn't allowed, confrontation is squelched and, and you can have a moderator finger-wag at you for your attitude. SA tries to avoid that and allow for more adult behavior without moderators editing your posts and whacking knuckles with rulers. We don't have a long list of published "thou shalt nots" either, and this is by design. Too many absolute rules paints us into too many corners. So check the Terms of Service - there IS language there about certain types of behavior that is not permitted. We interpret that lightly and permit a lot of latitude, but we DO reserve the right to take action when something is too extreme to tolerate (too racist, graphic, violent, misogynistic, etc.). Yes, that is subjective, but it allows us discretion. Avoiding a laundry list of rules allows for freedom; don't abuse it. However there ARE a few basic rules that will earn you a suspension, and apparently a brief refresher is in order. 1) Allegations of pedophilia - there is no tolerance for this. So if you make allegations, jokes, innuendo or suggestions about child molestation, child pornography, abuse or inappropriate behavior with minors etc. about someone on this board you will get a time out. This is pretty much automatic; this behavior can have real world effect and is not acceptable. Obviously the subject is not banned when discussion of it is apropos, e.g. talking about an item in the news for instance. But allegations or references directed at or about another poster is verboten. 2) Outing people - providing real world identifiable information about users on the forums who prefer to remain anonymous. Yes, some of us post with our real names - not a problem to use them. However many do NOT, and if you find out someone's name keep it to yourself, first or last. This also goes for other identifying information too - employer information etc. You don't need too many pieces of data to figure out who someone really is these days. Depending on severity you might get anything from a scolding to a suspension - so don't do it. I know it can be confusing sometimes for newcomers, as SA has been around almost twenty years and there are some people that throw their real names around and their current Display Name may not match the name they have out in the public. But if in doubt, you don't want to accidentally out some one so use caution, even if it's a personal friend of yours in real life. 3) Posting While Suspended - If you've earned a timeout (these are fairly rare and hard to get), please observe the suspension. If you create a new account (a "Sock Puppet") and return to the forums to post with it before your suspension is up you WILL get more time added to your original suspension and lose your Socks. This behavior may result a permanent ban, since it shows you have zero respect for the few rules we have and the moderating team that is tasked with supporting them. Check the Terms of Service you agreed to; they apply to the individual agreeing, not the account you created, so don't try to Sea Lawyer us if you get caught. Just don't do it. Those are the three that will almost certainly get you into some trouble. IF YOU SEE SOMEONE DO ONE OF THESE THINGS, please do the following: Refrain from quoting the offending text, it makes the thread cleanup a pain in the rear Press the Report button; it is by far the best way to notify Admins as we will get e-mails. Calling out for Admins in the middle of threads, sending us PM's, etc. - there is no guarantee we will get those in a timely fashion. There are multiple Moderators in multiple time zones around the world, and anyone one of us can handle the Report and all of us will be notified about it. But if you PM one Mod directly and he's off line, the problem will get dealt with much more slowly. Other behaviors that you might want to think twice before doing include: Intentionally disrupting threads and discussions repeatedly. Off topic/content free trolling in threads to disrupt dialog Stalking users around the forums with the intent to disrupt content and discussion Repeated posting of overly graphic or scatological porn content. There are plenty web sites for you to get your freak on, don't do it here. And a brief note to Newbies... No, we will not ban people or censor them for dropping F-bombs on you, using foul language, etc. so please don't report it when one of our members gives you a greeting you may find shocking. We do our best not to censor content here and playing swearword police is not in our job descriptions. Sailing Anarchy is more like a bar than a classroom, so handle it like you would meeting someone a little coarse - don't look for the teacher. Thanks.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Bull Gator

Confirmed - Global Warming caused by humans

30 posts in this topic

Yeah, I fuking hate the cold.

 

Go The Coal!.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Human respiration is the culprit..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Accepting for the sake of argument that this is true, how do you square this troubling concern with continued support of an economic system that requires infinite future expontial growth in human population (and consumption!) in order to sustain the current generation? Such is the nature of Ponzis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is news? We were told the science was settled 15 years ago.

 

Given that the IPCC report from 2000 reaches the same conclusions, only with less certainty, yes, the science is pretty settled.

 

That won't stop fools from sticking their heads back in the sand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's all you meat eaters dumping methane into the atmosphere. and farting cows. Don't forget the cows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is news? We were told the science was settled 15 years ago.

Given that the IPCC report from 2000 reaches the same conclusions, only with less certainty, yes, the science is pretty settled.

 

That won't stop fools from sticking their heads back in the sand.

Yes, "settled science" which to date as failed to comport with observed reality. The scientific reaction to such a circumstance is skepticism. The belief in a theory that fails to predict what is observed is faith based.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is news? We were told the science was settled 15 years ago.

 

Given that the IPCC report from 2000 reaches the same conclusions, only with less certainty, yes, the science is pretty settled.

 

That won't stop fools from sticking their heads back in the sand.

 

"Likelihood may be based on statistical or modeling
analyses, elicitation of expert views, or other quantitative
analyses. The categories defined in this table can be
considered to have “fuzzy” boundaries. A statement that
an outcome is “likely” means that the probability of this
outcome can range from ≥66% (fuzzy boundaries implied)"
"Characterize key findings regarding a variable (e.g., a
measured, simulated, or derived quantity or its change)
using calibrated uncertainty language that conveys the
most information to the reader"
It ends with this final admonition, BOLD type in copy.
"In summary, communicate uncertainty carefully, using
calibrated language for key findings, and provide traceable
accounts describing your evaluations of evidence and
agreement in your chapter."
Ironic that they are only concerned with taking care with "Uncertainty" yet in the body of the text They say
"These notes define a common approach and calibrated language that can be used broadly for developing expert
judgments and for evaluating and communicating the degree of certainty in findings of the
assessment process.
and
"The AR5 will rely on two metrics for communicating the degree of certainty in key findings:

• Confidence in the validity of a finding, based on the type, amount, quality, and consistency of
evidence (e.g., mechanistic understanding, theory, data, models, expert judgment) and the
degree of agreement. Confidence is expressed qualitatively.

• Quantified measures of uncertainty in a finding expressed probabilistically (based on statistical
analysis of observations or model results, or expert judgment)."
After reading the "Guidance Note for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report
on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties" I find no scientific, mathematical or statistical method for assigning these likelihoods. Just fuzzy euphemisms for "sell" the product. I would postulate that the lead authors of the Fifth AR are baptized followers of the Church of Warming and as such can not relied upon to offer unbiased "Expert Judgement". Why use the following Dumbo Jumbo and not just the calculated uncertainties from the science? I think I know why.... "High Agreement Limited Evidence" That sums up the IPCC in nutshell.
2enp7gk.jpg
This ridiculous guidance has all the same scientific rigor and validity as
advisory_system_yellow.gif

 

 

Link to Guidance report

 

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-material/uncertainty-guidance-note.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I missed this gem in the Guidance Note for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties IPCC Cross-Working Group Meeting on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties Jasper Ridge, CA, USA 6-7 July 2010

 

169pbwm.jpg

“About as likely as not” should not be used to express a lack of knowledge
So a 50/50 chance you are wrong should not be used to reflect a lack of knowledge about the outcome ..... UN FRICKEN BELEIEVABLE
Get out there and sell it baby...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

This is news? We were told the science was settled 15 years ago.

Given that the IPCC report from 2000 reaches the same conclusions, only with less certainty, yes, the science is pretty settled.

 

That won't stop fools from sticking their heads back in the sand.

Yes, "settled science" which to date as failed to comport with observed reality. The scientific reaction to such a circumstance is skepticism. The belief in a theory that fails to predict what is observed is faith based.

 

But the theory does predict what is observed. That there is unexplained decadal variability around the long term trend in no way invalidates the general theory that GHGs are the primary source of warming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

monsoon, on 28 Sept 2013 - 09:24, said:

 

Dog, on 27 Sept 2013 - 17:23, said:

 

monsoon, on 27 Sept 2013 - 16:03, said:

 

Dog, on 27 Sept 2013 - 07:47, said:

This is news? We were told the science was settled 15 years ago.

Given that the IPCC report from 2000 reaches the same conclusions, only with less certainty, yes, the science is pretty settled.

 

That won't stop fools from sticking their heads back in the sand.

Yes, "settled science" which to date as failed to comport with observed reality. The scientific reaction to such a circumstance is skepticism. The belief in a theory that fails to predict what is observed is faith based.

But the theory does predict what is observed. That there is unexplained decadal variability around the long term trend in no way invalidates the general theory that GHGs are the primary source of warming.

You don’t know that what we are observing is decadal variability or that the long term trend is still operative or, if it is, to what degree is it influenced by AGW. You described it yourself as unexplained. You may be right, it may be a temporary pause or it may be the beginning of a natural cooling phase but all we do know for sure is that the predictions made based on AGW theory were wrong. That’s not proof that the theory is baseless but it certainly justifies skepticism and suggests that there is more factors in play than we considered.

It is the people who simply dismiss the inconvenient discrepancy between what has been predicted and what has been observed who have their heads in the sand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Scientists and politicians from 195 countries spent the past week debating every word in the summary, often into the early hours of the morning, including a 5am finish yesterday.

 

Well there you go. I wonder how many of the politicians involved might have motivations which are not purely scientific-- who see a pot of gold at the end of the climate change rainbow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Scientists and politicians from 195 countries spent the past week debating every word in the summary, often into the early hours of the morning, including a 5am finish yesterday.

 

Well there you go. I wonder how many of the politicians involved might have motivations which are not purely scientific-- who see a pot of gold at the end of the climate change rainbow.

Well there you go, those facts are obviously biased. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Scientists and politicians from 195 countries spent the past week debating every word in the summary, often into the early hours of the morning, including a 5am finish yesterday.

 

Well there you go. I wonder how many of the politicians involved might have motivations which are not purely scientific-- who see a pot of gold at the end of the climate change rainbow.

 

On the other hand, the motivations of the fossil fuel industry, and the lobbyists and politicians they support, are purely academic, no doubt...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Scientists and politicians from 195 countries spent the past week debating every word in the summary, often into the early hours of the morning, including a 5am finish yesterday.

 

Well there you go. I wonder how many of the politicians involved might have motivations which are not purely scientific-- who see a pot of gold at the end of the climate change rainbow.

Well there you go, those facts are obviously biased. :ph34r:

 

How many of the ones still there at 5AM were the scientists?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Scientists and politicians from 195 countries spent the past week debating every word in the summary, often into the early hours of the morning, including a 5am finish yesterday.

 

Well there you go. I wonder how many of the politicians involved might have motivations which are not purely scientific-- who see a pot of gold at the end of the climate change rainbow.

 

On the other hand, the motivations of the fossil fuel industry, and the lobbyists and politicians they support, are purely academic, no doubt...

 

I had no idea that the fuel industry lobbyists had a seat at the table when the report was drafted.

 

It will be interesting to see a full list of the people who drafted the document, what their titles are, and their countries of origin.

 

I'll wager that the majority of politicians who helped craft the report had motivations that had nothing to do with science. Simply having politicians in the group makes the report suspect bull shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Scientists and politicians from 195 countries spent the past week debating every word in the summary, often into the early hours of the morning, including a 5am finish yesterday.

 

Well there you go. I wonder how many of the politicians involved might have motivations which are not purely scientific-- who see a pot of gold at the end of the climate change rainbow.

 

On the other hand, the motivations of the fossil fuel industry, and the lobbyists and politicians they support, are purely academic, no doubt...

 

I'll speak for myself. Other than a few 100K invested in Exon I'm not connected with any fossil fuel industry and I'm perfectly happy to invest that elsewhere.

 

I'd be the first to buy a practical EV. I'm pretty close with my Prius. I'll even conceded that CO2 may be warning the planet. What I won't budge on is my firm belief that there is no proposed solution on any table that isn't worse than the problem.

 

I get it ... amor terrae homines odiunt... here is an example...

 

'No children, happy to go extinct', tweets weatherman after grim climate-change report made him cry (now he's considering a vasectomy)

  • Eric Holthaus, who used to do weather for Wall Street Journal, was reacting to Friday's findings from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
  • Scientists found in the report that it was 'extremely likely' that humans are causing warming trends
  • Holthaus said he has decided not to have children in order to leave a lighter carbon footprint, and has considered having a vasectomy
  • He tweeted on Friday 'no children, happy to go extinct'
  • The weatherman also said he is committed to stop flying as 'it's not worth the climate'

People are the problem they are parasites destroying the earth and the planet would be better off without man.

 

I happen to disagree.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are the glaciers back yet

 

 

Yup and the IPCC apologized for lying about them. Sort of. The IPCC doesn't have enough integrity to admit they lied or apologize, It was after all just one paragraph in a 938 page document. Ah ha ha ha Settled Science My Ass... By their own admission they substitute "Opinion" for calculated uncertainty. Using a "Likelihood Scale with finite percentages" that has no statistical, scientific or mathematical formulation or basis.

 

Science by vote. Hey I vote the atomic number of Hydrogen should be 11. Thank God physics isn't resolved with a vote or we would be deadlocked. 30% say Bohr is or will be right, 30% wrong or will be wrong and 30% are weenies, like some others I know, who won't commit.

 

2v9ojyf.jpg

 

 

 

The IPCC is the least scientific organ on the face of the earth after Chuckles

 

 

IPCC statement on the melting of Himalayan glaciers
The Synthesis Report, the concluding document of the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (page 49) stated: “Climate change is expected to
exacerbate current stresses on water resources from population growth and economic and land-use
change, including urbanisation. On a regional scale, mountain snow pack, glaciers and small ice
caps play a crucial role in freshwater availability. Widespread mass losses from glaciers and
reductions in snow cover over recent decades are projected to accelerate throughout the 21st
century, reducing water availability, hydropower potential, and changing seasonality of flows in
regions supplied by meltwater from major mountain ranges (e.g. Hindu-Kush, Himalaya, Andes),
where more than one-sixth of the world population currently lives.”
This conclusion is robust, appropriate, and entirely consistent with the underlying science and the
broader IPCC assessment.
It has, however, recently come to our attention that a paragraph in the 938-page Working Group II
contribution to the underlying assessment refers to poorly substantiated estimates of rate of
recession and date for the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers. In drafting the paragraph in
question, the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures,
were not applied properly.
The Chair, Vice-Chairs, and Co-chairs of the IPCC regret the poor application of well-established
IPCC procedures in this instance. This episode demonstrates that the quality of the assessment
depends on absolute adherence to the IPCC standards, including thorough review of “the quality
and validity of each source before incorporating results from the source into an IPCC Report”. We
reaffirm our strong commitment to ensuring this level of performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are the glaciers back yet??

Did the sun come up this morning?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gaytor, take the lead on this travesty. Do your part in the reduction of Global Warming Greenhouse gas CO2, stop breathing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites