North Pole temperature above freezing - December 30, 2015
Moderators: North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, I WAS Birddog
-
- Rank 7
- Posts: 671
- Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 7:52 pm
- Location: Ontario
Re: North Pole temperature above freezing - December 30, 201
One need only to look at the big bang theory to realize how easy it is to blindly trust the " learned professionals " and how a bastard theory has become accepted science in the minds of those who cannot see beyond their nose (oops, did I let the worms out of the box? )
Re: North Pole temperature above freezing - December 30, 201
I'm very happy with any number of more or less wrong theories about the Big Bang, cholesterol, peptic ulcers, white bread and chemtrails and pleased to remain secure in the knowledge that mankind will eventually find and fix the mistakes - because I'm not being forced to spend a fucking gazillion dollars based on the results of these theories.
Really, once Ban Ki Moon gets involved, it's all over for anyone interested in truth.
Really, once Ban Ki Moon gets involved, it's all over for anyone interested in truth.
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Re: North Pole temperature above freezing - December 30, 201
The world is already seeing the cost of global warming in monetary and human terms. None of you can see it and won't in the future. None of you have the foresight to see the economic benefits of reconfiguring to sustainable clean energy either. 130 years ago you would reject internal combustion engines as unproven science and a waste of money, and we would be riding horses to this day if decision makers were stupid enough to listen to you.
Re: North Pole temperature above freezing - December 30, 201
The only one that this makes sense to is you. Do you even think about this stuff before you type it?Rockie wrote:130 years ago you would reject internal combustion engines as unproven science and a waste of money, and we would be riding horses to this day if decision makers were stupid enough to listen to you.

People should not have to fear both the government and the criminal. It should be that the criminal fears both the people and the government.
Re: North Pole temperature above freezing - December 30, 201
But if that scenario played out, then those "stupid" decision makers' rejection of the internal combustion engine would have ironically saved the planet from global warming.Rockie wrote:130 years ago you would reject internal combustion engines as unproven science and a waste of money, and we would be riding horses to this day if decision makers were stupid enough to listen to you.

Re: North Pole temperature above freezing - December 30, 201
Is Rockie now claiming that wave power is the new internal combustion engine? Heaven help us.
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Re: North Pole temperature above freezing - December 30, 201
Do you really believe that questioning the man-made global warming theory has anything to do with willingness to accept the internal combustion engine? If we go the way of the supporters of your man-made global warming theory, we may very well be back to riding horses because you and your supporters want to get rid of the internal combustion engine.Rockie wrote:The world is already seeing the cost of global warming in monetary and human terms. None of you can see it and won't in the future. None of you have the foresight to see the economic benefits of reconfiguring to sustainable clean energy either. 130 years ago you would reject internal combustion engines as unproven science and a waste of money, and we would be riding horses to this day if decision makers were stupid enough to listen to you.
This just proves the ridiculous arguments we have for the man-made cause.
Just answer the question please...explain all those past global warming periods.
Re: North Pole temperature above freezing - December 30, 201
The province of Ontario show the economic benefits very clearly. Of course people like me said so years ago but look what happened.Rockie wrote: None of you have the foresight to see the economic benefits of reconfiguring to sustainable clean energy either.
Re: North Pole temperature above freezing - December 30, 201
Global warming or not, in 2016 we are still using 15-30% from the fuel energy to move our cars foward. How wonderful for the oil industry.
If you still don't get it that we are screwing up the planet, can't convince you.
http://www.theguardian.com/global-devel ... -companies
It is not only the fuel, generaly there are no analyses made on our previous mistakes and how to make better in the future. We are so satisified with ourselves. I saw some impressive documentaries and I am pretty sure Chinese are much more advanced than us on the whole renewable energy question.
If you still don't get it that we are screwing up the planet, can't convince you.
http://www.theguardian.com/global-devel ... -companies
It is not only the fuel, generaly there are no analyses made on our previous mistakes and how to make better in the future. We are so satisified with ourselves. I saw some impressive documentaries and I am pretty sure Chinese are much more advanced than us on the whole renewable energy question.
Re: North Pole temperature above freezing - December 30, 201
To be clear The fact that I do not believe that CO2 does not mean I am for dumping oil in oceans and rivers. Which is what that article is about. There are casualties in any activity that man undertakes. Companies that spill should be made to clean it up and look for ways not to do it in the future. The CO2 thing is a different debate.timel wrote:Global warming or not, in 2016 we are still using 15-30% from the fuel energy to move our cars foward. How wonderful for the oil industry.
If you still don't get it that we are screwing up the planet, can't convince you.
http://www.theguardian.com/global-
Maybe they should set up a KFC next to the plant.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... tests.html
People should not have to fear both the government and the criminal. It should be that the criminal fears both the people and the government.
Re: North Pole temperature above freezing - December 30, 201
You guys aren't sceptics. You're deniers because there is nothing that will convince you. Scientists themselves are the real sceptics as many of you ironically point out and to them you don't even rank as high as amateurs. They know infinitely more than you do even in how to challenge their own findings. You don't even know what to challenge their findings with beyond what the fossil industry feeds you. How could you? You don't do any research yourself and are not capable of it.
You're just that guy in the back of the airplane telling everyone around him that the pilot doesn't know what he's doing. You know...that guy.
You're just that guy in the back of the airplane telling everyone around him that the pilot doesn't know what he's doing. You know...that guy.
Re: North Pole temperature above freezing - December 30, 201
ACTUALLY I'm the guy in the back of the airplane telling everyone around me that on the evidence[/N] (smooth takeoff, on-time flight) the pilots up front do know what they're doing and we should all look forward to a hazard-free landing. Based on the evidence of course, and noting that my prediction is now out there and going to be tested in an hour's time.
The value of a theory is it makes testable predictions. For instance: please note a professor Einstein's humble comments quoted here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_ ... ical_tests
I don't see any such when it comes to climatology. Which implies the whole edifice is built on snake oil.
I am also telling everyone around me that thanks to you, the tickets are too damn expensive.
The value of a theory is it makes testable predictions. For instance: please note a professor Einstein's humble comments quoted here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_ ... ical_tests
I don't see any such when it comes to climatology. Which implies the whole edifice is built on snake oil.
I am also telling everyone around me that thanks to you, the tickets are too damn expensive.
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
-
- Rank 3
- Posts: 178
- Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 12:31 pm
- Location: YCO
Re: North Pole temperature above freezing - December 30, 201
Well, I for one am not a "climate change denier". I believe the climate is changing, because that's what climate does. But until we can explain why the planet has gone through those several (many?) warming/cooling cycles, how can we say, categorically, that this particular cycle is anthropogenic? And even if it is anthropogenic, we have no idea of the NET effects of climate change. If the climate had not changed 10,000 years ago we'd be having this debate under a mile of ice.Rockie wrote:You guys aren't sceptics. You're deniers because there is nothing that will convince you.....
I have the advantage (if you want to call it that!) of having lived continuously in one community in arctic Canada for 45-years. Remember, this is the part of the world (we were told by the "scientists") that would be most affected by climate change. And yes there have been some changes, but those changes have been barely noticeable except on a statistical level, and have had absolutely no effect on the way people here conduct their day-to-day lives.
Of course, reading the mainstream media, one might be convinced that the polar bears are on the verge of extinction (not true), that there is a wholesale melting of the permafrost taking place (not true), or that un-predictable ice conditions are raising havoc with the Inuit, who are falling through said un-predictable ice with the greatest of frequency (all of which is un-true). The most notable change here has been that certain birds and animals appear to have extended their ranges a few miles farther north, and that the tree-line (we're told) has moved north a few feet. The volume of heating fuel that I've consumed for my house (and I've kept an accurate accounting of this since 1985) has not changed significantly.
Last edited by NunavutPA-12 on Sat Jan 09, 2016 4:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: North Pole temperature above freezing - December 30, 201
I hope that those on both sides of this debate would agree on one thing - we all need to assume some sense of stewardship for our little spaceship - especially since there are now 7+ billion of us (and billions more to come) all reliant on her life support systems.
Re: North Pole temperature above freezing - December 30, 201
Where you just as scared when all the Y2K fear mongering was shoved down our throats?Rockie wrote:You guys aren't sceptics. You're deniers because there is nothing that will convince you.
Re: North Pole temperature above freezing - December 30, 201
Actually I was a little bit concerned about Y2K. I wrote a lot of software in the 80's that used 2 digit years that would have failed with rather spectacular results if it were not corrected.Where you just as scared when all the Y2K fear mongering was shoved down our throats?
My favourite example was a prison administration system in B.C. I wrote software that decided who was released on any given day for all the prisons in B.C. The math to do that was pretty simple. If incarceration date + sentence > todays date then they should be released

Guess what the software would have done on Jan 1st 2000

There were lots of other examples but most of them got sorted out slowly over the few years before.
Re: North Pole temperature above freezing - December 30, 201
That's why they invented y2ky jelly....to insert four digits where eyes only room for two.
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Re: North Pole temperature above freezing - December 30, 201
We are all exactly the same here in that none of us know a damn thing about climate science. Where we differ is some of us recognize that but still prefer public policy to be based on science even if we ourselves don't understand it. Others want public policy to ignore science because we don't understand it, and instead do nothing out of ignorance.
As much as you think you're presenting a rational counter-argument to climate science you aren't, and you couldn't possibly do so - ever. You (we) know nothing about it. You'd think a bunch of performance oriented pilots would have a better grasp of their own limitations.
As much as you think you're presenting a rational counter-argument to climate science you aren't, and you couldn't possibly do so - ever. You (we) know nothing about it. You'd think a bunch of performance oriented pilots would have a better grasp of their own limitations.
Re: North Pole temperature above freezing - December 30, 201
Some of us know more than others.
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
-
- Rank 3
- Posts: 137
- Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2014 2:20 pm
Re: North Pole temperature above freezing - December 30, 201
pelmet wrote:Just answer the question please...explain all those past global warming periods.
Last I checked, Rockie is not a climate scientist... and neither are too many people on this board (pilot life is, as far as I can see, incompatible with moonlighting as a climate scientist). That said, here's a few links that explain some of the concepts behind the science in relatively plain English. You can choose to ignore that all of those articles have multiple references to scientific publications if you'd like, but I'd (personally) recommend actually taking those to heart.NunavutPA-12 wrote:But until we can explain why the planet has gone through those several (many?) warming/cooling cycles, how can we say, categorically, that this particular cycle is anthropogenic?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Evidence_CO2.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000 ... arison.png
As for all the past warming periods, since all the evidence has generally been pretty hard to get to, a lot of it is gathered by inference... but, there's a significant amount of information as to what previous events have caused global warming or cooling, such as
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_ ... ure_record
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceou ... tion_event
Finally, as someone whose (pre-pilot) education was in the sciences... if you for a second think that the evidence is shaky for the human-induced warming, and that there aren't scientists around the world trying to poke holes in it as we argue about it, you're very confused about how science works.
PS: Unrelated, but, since it's in play now... Y2K didn't materialize because a lot of companies paid a whole lot of people to fix their software - sometimes as late as December 31st - because nothing scares people into action like the prospect of losing money! (And, because it's "behind the scenes" work that no one sees - much like dispatch at an airline - to the general public it looks like it was all hype for nothing)
If at first you don't succeed, maybe NDB approaches just aren't for you
Re: North Pole temperature above freezing - December 30, 201
Has anybody noticed that Rockie refuses to provide an explanation for repeated global warming events(intermixed with cooling events of course).
Why is that?
We all know why.
Why is that?
We all know why.
Re: North Pole temperature above freezing - December 30, 201
Well it really isn't at all hard to figure out why. I've only said about 100 times I'm not a scientist and know nothing about climate science. But I'm sure you know how to spell Google as well as the rest of us so look it up yourself. Or be even lazier and just click on the links helpfully provided just above your post. I mean come on...a little effort goes a long way.
Re: North Pole temperature above freezing - December 30, 201
A side track I know and I apologize, but the same f**king loonies that reject climate science in the US are the same ones saying background checks to buy a firearm are evil. WTF is happening here? And when did the Baboons take over the zoo?
-
- Rank 7
- Posts: 671
- Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 7:52 pm
- Location: Ontario
Re: North Pole temperature above freezing - December 30, 201
Rockie, its folks like you who need to have a little wisdom instead you are easily brainwashed by the liberal left. If a person passes a background check and then gets a gun and does evil ,,of what use was the check?? ( its been done recently) If a person fails a background check, do they 1) give up on doing evil and become a model citizen or 2) buy a gun from someone who isnt going to give them a background check. ? Do we register explosives and the ingredients to make one? Do we ask ALL would be terrorists and evil people to turn in their illegal guns to be registered? Do you know that butter knives are a deadly weapon ,, gonna need a background check to operate one safely to butter my bread !!A side track I know and I apologize, but the same f**king loonies that reject climate science in the US are the same ones saying background checks to buy a firearm are evil. WTF is happening here? And when did the Baboons take over the zoo?
As you made a remark to many folks who cannot answer in defence,
I say this to YOU Rockie, you are a
On a bumper sticker " If guns were outlawed, only outlaws would have guns"f**king loonie

-
- Rank 7
- Posts: 650
- Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 6:16 pm
Re: North Pole temperature above freezing - December 30, 201
I thought this thread was about climate change? Is the pollution from gunpowder a significant contributor to it?
On a related note, I hope that everyone who is arguing that we must do everything we can to reduce our carbon outputs has not had, nor is planning to have kids. Not having children is the best thing you can do to reduce future outputs, and anyone who chose to be a parent is a big part of the problem. A bit hypocritical to try to control other's activities when you can't resist the urge to pass on your genes and contribute to the world's problems.
On a related note, I hope that everyone who is arguing that we must do everything we can to reduce our carbon outputs has not had, nor is planning to have kids. Not having children is the best thing you can do to reduce future outputs, and anyone who chose to be a parent is a big part of the problem. A bit hypocritical to try to control other's activities when you can't resist the urge to pass on your genes and contribute to the world's problems.

"People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it." -George Bernard Shaw