fishmonkey said..
what is the point in shooting the messenger?

It makes little sheeple feel that they are in fact virtuous.

Concepcion said..
LOL - Tactic 101 - discredit the messenger and avoid any scrutiny of the evidence or the message.
Again, why are people (Hey Boomers) so threatened by a 16 year old girl? Yes, she has cut through, now time to cut her down!

It is not about her. She is being used as a shield by her manipulators to ward off attacks just like ISIS do with women and children during war. Believe it, this a war between inalienable human rights and personal freedoms against the far left/green goal of unquestionable totalitarian government of the world.

Avoiding scrutiny of the evidence is exactly what her manipulators are doing by using scripts with emotional content without which greta is lost for words.

Why would anybody feel threatened by a less than half educated teenager with serious mental issues.

"HOW DARE YOU" attack a poor innocent young girl who should be at SCHOOL on the other side of the OCEAN and be at home with my SISTER and my DOG.

How about we forget about her and get back to the science??

So in the absence of a clear decision about the reality of global warming, it's logical to look further afield for evidence that supports either side's position in the modern generations track record in managing our environment.
Which led me to this....

Henderson Island was one of the most remote and pristine places on earth, some 3000km from population centres. It is also ironically, and embarrassingly the most heavily polluted.

When in doubt, I look for clinical factual evidence. Henderson has that, in spades;

--An estimated 37.7 million debris items weighing a total of 17.6 tons are currently present on Henderson, with up to 26.8 new items/m accumulating daily.

--The density of debris was the highest reported anywhere in the world, up to 671.6 items/m2 (mean ? SD: 239.4 ? 347.3 items/m2) on the surface of the beaches

--The density of buried micro- and macrodebris items within quadrats on Henderson Island ranged from 53.1 pieces/m2 (North Beach, 10-cm depth) to 4,496.9 pieces/m2


This is near 100% the fault of our generation.
I still remember my father going to work with his lunch in a paper bag...........

plev said..
This has been on the tube for a long time:-

Thanks for posting this plev.

I recommend EVERYONE, irrespective of their point of view with respect to Climate Change, watch this video before posting ANYTHING further on this topic.

For myself, I will no longer comment on this topic.
regards to all,
Allan

Concepcion said..

cisco said..
Hmmmm.

LOL - Tactic 101 - discredit the messenger and avoid any scrutiny of the evidence or the message.

Again, why are people (Hey Boomers) so threatened by a 16 year old girl? Yes, she has cut through, now time to cut her down!

It is a fair point though , and exactly the reason I wouldn t want my children thrust into the limelight, Greta will now have to be extremely care full how she lives her life , rightly or wrongly she will have to live the values she has aligned herself with

I don't think there is anyone who denies climate change. There has always been climate change and we have natures wonders like The Norway and New Zealand Fjords which are the direct result of climate change. Plenty of other famous examples as well. What gets peoples backs up is the continuous name changes as the media, in particular, beat us up with things like climate emergency when they are just natural causes. The recent BOM youtube video does a good job and explaining our recent slight crisis.

So here are my 2 cents. Yes I am an environmental scientist.

The science is clear and not in dispute by anyone with credibility. Climate change is real and the main driver are humans. There is no conspiracy to keep environmental scientists employed. That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. I know many out of work scientists and funding is getting smaller and smaller under this government. When we think who has the vested interest, a scientist who studies for 10 years to get a PhD and then earn maybe 100k if they are lucky. In reality most scientists are not tenured so are going from contract to contract. Then we look at those people who are pushing this un peer reviewed climate denier falsehoods, they are trying to protect a multi billion dollar a year industry that is causing the problem. These "scientists" are likely on million dollar a year contracts paid for by the big oil companies. Who has the vested interest?

The corner stone of science is the peer review process. This is where any work that is to be published in a reputable scientific journal must go through extensive review by experts in that field. This is brutal I can say from experience. Only after methods, interpretation, statistics and conclusions have been pulled apart and interrogated that anything is published. Climate deniers do not use this process. Typically they use websites and climate change denier groups to publicize myths and conspiracy theories.

So quick notes on some of the things posted throughout this thread. Comparisons about sea level rise to one location are not valid. The fact that sea level rise is a combination of water level changing but also with respect to land level changing as well. In many places land is subsiding (sinking) so sea levels will change without climate factors. Climate factor scan then be on top of that. Secondly, land levels can be rising, meaning the effect of sea level increase will be countered. Lastly any comparison needs to be made considering all of these factors from multiple locations as they will react differently. its saying that there is a massive traffic jam in Sydney, then someone else saying that no there isnt because my road is clear in Parramatta. You need to take into account many locations. I agree that there is a lack of good motioning in this space which hinders good observations, but with these governments if we dont monitor the problem we cant say it is a problem.

I also agree that plastic is a massive problem, however in my opinion climate change is a much bigger issue that will result in billions of dollars needing to be spent to adapt to sea level rise, increase sin storm surges, loss of coastal infrastructure, loss fisheries productivity and so on. Then there are the human health costs with lack of water and food in some areas, We will have masses of refugees from places that will become so inhospitable due to heat, cold or lack of water or rising sea levels. Our friends in the pacific islands are already losing islands and having to move their lives and cultures to new places. This will far exceed the cost of acting on climate change.

In regards to the carbon footprint of an IMOCA 60, i believe that there are some people who are looking into that. The Bar Karate podcast discussed it a while back.

My opinon on Greta, I think she is an angry little unit. But rightly so. You will not get the message across if she was nice and lovely would she. Already she is being called every name under the sun, but she is effective. Yes she will have advisors, which person with so much attention does not, All of our CEO's politicians and people in the media do as well.

As I have posted before, we should all be thinking of climate change deniers, and those who promote inaction of climate change (see Pauline Hanson on TV last night) as the same as flat earthers and chem trail believers. Again, the science is clear and not in dispute.

Finally the video posted by plev should sum it up for everyone. It is spot on.

Ramona said..
I don't think there is anyone who denies climate change. There has always been climate change and we have natures wonders like The Norway and New Zealand Fjords which are the direct result of climate change. Plenty of other famous examples as well. What gets peoples backs up is the continuous name changes as the media, in particular, beat us up with things like climate emergency when they are just natural causes. The recent BOM youtube video does a good job and explaining our recent slight crisis.

The BOM, the same source you used, says that bushfires are made worse by human-induced climate change;

"Climate change and bushfire risk in Australia

Climate change is influencing the frequency and severity of dangerous bushfire conditions in Australia and other regions of the world, including through influencing temperature, environmental moisture, weather patterns and fuel conditions. There have been significant changes observed in recent decades towards more dangerous bushfire weather conditions for various regions of Australia.In particular, observed changes in southern and eastern Australia include more extreme conditions during summer, as well as an earlier start to the bushfire season with dangerous weather conditions occurring significantly earlier in spring than they used to. These trends towards more dangerous bushfire conditions are at least partly attributable to human-caused climate change, including through increased temperatures. Northern Australia, which sees significant fire activity during the dry season, has experienced increases in monsoonal rainfall that have increased fuel growth in recent decades, as a key factor influencing fire danger in that region.In relation to fire ignition, there is some indication that climate change could influence the risk of ignitions from dry-lightning (i.e., lightning that occurs without significant rainfall) while noting relatively large uncertainties in currently available model representations of this phenomenon. Additionally, there has recently been a number of devastating fire events in Australia associated with extreme pyroconvection (including thunderstorm development in a fire plume), with recent research indicating a long-term trend towards increased risk factors associated with pyroconvection in southeast Australia. Bushfire weather conditions in future years are projected to increase in severity for many regions of Australasia, including due to more extreme heat events, with the rate and magnitude of change increasing with greenhouse gas concentrations (and emissions)."

www.bom.gov.au/weather-services/fire-weather-centre/bushfire-weather/index.shtml

dralyagmas said..
So here are my 2 cents. Yes I am an environmental scientist.

The science is clear and not in dispute by anyone with credibility. Climate change is real and the main driver are humans. There is no conspiracy to keep environmental scientists employed. That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. I know many out of work scientists and funding is getting smaller and smaller under this government. When we think who has the vested interest, a scientist who studies for 10 years to get a PhD and then earn maybe 100k if they are lucky. In reality most scientists are not tenured so are going from contract to contract. Then we look at those people who are pushing this un peer reviewed climate denier falsehoods, they are trying to protect a multi billion dollar a year industry that is causing the problem. These "scientists" are likely on million dollar a year contracts paid for by the big oil companies. Who has the vested interest?

The corner stone of science is the peer review process. This is where any work that is to be published in a reputable scientific journal must go through extensive review by experts in that field. This is brutal I can say from experience. Only after methods, interpretation, statistics and conclusions have been pulled apart and interrogated that anything is published. Climate deniers do not use this process. Typically they use websites and climate change denier groups to publicize myths and conspiracy theories.

So quick notes on some of the things posted throughout this thread. Comparisons about sea level rise to one location are not valid. The fact that sea level rise is a combination of water level changing but also with respect to land level changing as well. In many places land is subsiding (sinking) so sea levels will change without climate factors. Climate factor scan then be on top of that. Secondly, land levels can be rising, meaning the effect of sea level increase will be countered. Lastly any comparison needs to be made considering all of these factors from multiple locations as they will react differently. its saying that there is a massive traffic jam in Sydney, then someone else saying that no there isnt because my road is clear in Parramatta. You need to take into account many locations. I agree that there is a lack of good motioning in this space which hinders good observations, but with these governments if we dont monitor the problem we cant say it is a problem.

I also agree that plastic is a massive problem, however in my opinion climate change is a much bigger issue that will result in billions of dollars needing to be spent to adapt to sea level rise, increase sin storm surges, loss of coastal infrastructure, loss fisheries productivity and so on. Then there are the human health costs with lack of water and food in some areas, We will have masses of refugees from places that will become so inhospitable due to heat, cold or lack of water or rising sea levels. Our friends in the pacific islands are already losing islands and having to move their lives and cultures to new places. This will far exceed the cost of acting on climate change.

In regards to the carbon footprint of an IMOCA 60, i believe that there are some people who are looking into that. The Bar Karate podcast discussed it a while back.

My opinon on Greta, I think she is an angry little unit. But rightly so. You will not get the message across if she was nice and lovely would she. Already she is being called every name under the sun, but she is effective. Yes she will have advisors, which person with so much attention does not, All of our CEO's politicians and people in the media do as well.

As I have posted before, we should all be thinking of climate change deniers, and those who promote inaction of climate change (see Pauline Hanson on TV last night) as the same as flat earthers and chem trail believers. Again, the science is clear and not in dispute.

Finally the video posted by plev should sum it up for everyone. It is spot on.

Science is never clear nor not in dispute. The continuing testing and questioning is the raison d'etre of science.
Your post is not about science. It is about religion, the only thought process whose adherents say cannot be questioned.
Calling people deniers is a derogatory attempt to deny them an opinion, a term no real scientist would use.
I am not a scientist. I am a former Navy aviator (with a Grad Dip in Meteorology) who spent his career having to think logically and rationally about my environment and how it affected what I did. I am also a private pilot and have therefore studied the weather and the ocean for the last nearly 50 years.
After a reasonably senior management career in the Navy I did a Masters degree in business and worked as a freelance consultant to various businesses.
I would not like to spend time at sea with people who lack the ability to think rationally and logically about such issues.
I would like to see Seabreeze get back to sailing, this topic is not working well!

"Not sure" needs separation from "couldn't give a dam"

MorningBird said..

dralyagmas said..
So here are my 2 cents. Yes I am an environmental scientist.

The science is clear and not in dispute by anyone with credibility. Climate change is real and the main driver are humans. There is no conspiracy to keep environmental scientists employed. That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. I know many out of work scientists and funding is getting smaller and smaller under this government. When we think who has the vested interest, a scientist who studies for 10 years to get a PhD and then earn maybe 100k if they are lucky. In reality most scientists are not tenured so are going from contract to contract. Then we look at those people who are pushing this un peer reviewed climate denier falsehoods, they are trying to protect a multi billion dollar a year industry that is causing the problem. These "scientists" are likely on million dollar a year contracts paid for by the big oil companies. Who has the vested interest?

The corner stone of science is the peer review process. This is where any work that is to be published in a reputable scientific journal must go through extensive review by experts in that field. This is brutal I can say from experience. Only after methods, interpretation, statistics and conclusions have been pulled apart and interrogated that anything is published. Climate deniers do not use this process. Typically they use websites and climate change denier groups to publicize myths and conspiracy theories.

So quick notes on some of the things posted throughout this thread. Comparisons about sea level rise to one location are not valid. The fact that sea level rise is a combination of water level changing but also with respect to land level changing as well. In many places land is subsiding (sinking) so sea levels will change without climate factors. Climate factor scan then be on top of that. Secondly, land levels can be rising, meaning the effect of sea level increase will be countered. Lastly any comparison needs to be made considering all of these factors from multiple locations as they will react differently. its saying that there is a massive traffic jam in Sydney, then someone else saying that no there isnt because my road is clear in Parramatta. You need to take into account many locations. I agree that there is a lack of good motioning in this space which hinders good observations, but with these governments if we dont monitor the problem we cant say it is a problem.

I also agree that plastic is a massive problem, however in my opinion climate change is a much bigger issue that will result in billions of dollars needing to be spent to adapt to sea level rise, increase sin storm surges, loss of coastal infrastructure, loss fisheries productivity and so on. Then there are the human health costs with lack of water and food in some areas, We will have masses of refugees from places that will become so inhospitable due to heat, cold or lack of water or rising sea levels. Our friends in the pacific islands are already losing islands and having to move their lives and cultures to new places. This will far exceed the cost of acting on climate change.

In regards to the carbon footprint of an IMOCA 60, i believe that there are some people who are looking into that. The Bar Karate podcast discussed it a while back.

My opinon on Greta, I think she is an angry little unit. But rightly so. You will not get the message across if she was nice and lovely would she. Already she is being called every name under the sun, but she is effective. Yes she will have advisors, which person with so much attention does not, All of our CEO's politicians and people in the media do as well.

As I have posted before, we should all be thinking of climate change deniers, and those who promote inaction of climate change (see Pauline Hanson on TV last night) as the same as flat earthers and chem trail believers. Again, the science is clear and not in dispute.

Finally the video posted by plev should sum it up for everyone. It is spot on.

Science is never clear nor not in dispute. The continuing testing and questioning is the raison d'etre of science.
Your post is not about science. It is about religion, the only thought process whose adherents say cannot be questioned.
Calling people deniers is a derogatory attempt to deny them an opinion, a term no real scientist would use.
I am not a scientist. I am a former Navy aviator (with a Grad Dip in Meteorology) who spent his career having to think logically and rationally about my environment and how it affected what I did. I am also a private pilot and have therefore studied the weather and the ocean for the last nearly 50 years.
After a reasonably senior management career in the Navy I did a Masters degree in business and worked as a freelance consultant to various businesses.
I would not like to spend time at sea with people who lack the ability to think rationally and logically about such issues.
I would like to see Seabreeze get back to sailing, this topic is not working well!

It looks to me like those that have contributed here, really care about this. As an economist, I can add to the Plev video and say action on climate change is highly unlikely to be about Economics or risk management either. so, if inaction on risk is not about the science or really the economics (renewables are actually cheaper; transition options on transport exist and are likely eg: green hydrogen, electric vehicles - with scale to be much cheaper; enteric fermentation can be managed with cheap seaweed based plant supplements; further deforestation can be halted etc) why are we still not committed to change?
i agree mb - it's a type of religion - tribal politics and conviction bias etc. We pick our side, and regardless find it difficult to shift. When confronted by a 16 year old girl, we call her a brat, naive or manipulated by some conspiratorial force.
Rather than a poll on what Sbreezers engaged in this thread believe, I'd like to hear from those that learn something, that perhaps have changed a view. I havent changed my views, but have learnt a bit. Thank you all

dralyagmas said..
The science is clear and not in dispute by anyone with credibility. Climate change is real and the main driver are humans.

I think you have blown your whole argument with those two sentences. There is no proof of either of those propositions.

this thread is a steaming potpourri of logical fallacies. despite what some people here seem to think, having a rational, logical discussion about a disputed topic is not at all straightforward, and it is something that requires knowledge and extensive practice. very few careers actually require this kind of thinking and communication, or the continuous back-and-forth with one's peers. furthermore, these are not skills that you necessarily gain with age or experience --- in fact most people tend to become less curious and flexible and more rigid as they get older.

Morning Bird, you are repeatedly using the belief that no science can be believed or trusted to defend your position. massive logical fallacy right there. not to mention the breathtaking contradiction of stating that you are not trained in science and yet at the same time claiming to have the expertise and authority to dismiss all science and the informed conclusions of people that are trained in science out of hand. and having the gall to say who or who isn't a "real scientist".

arguing that we should dismiss climate science because it is not 100% certain is also a logical fallacy. personal attacks on Greta Thunberg are clearly ad hominem attacks (one of the most commonly used logical fallacies). even if we don't like someone, or their advisors, or their behaviour, this does not logically invalidate their ideas.

arguing that Australia needn't bother too much because our direct contribution to greenhouse emissions is small by global standards is also a logical fallacy (which is fine if you are happy to live in a moral and ethical vacuum). and dismissing all news because some of it is sensationalised is another logical fallacy.

there is a good summary of logical fallacies here:
www.logicalfallacies.org

and if you really want to dig in, a master list here:
utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/engl1311/fallacies.htm

Toph said..
Morning Bird, I have been an airline pilot for over 20 years. I have also been to sea, a few times with the navy even. It is a very long bow to draw to conclude that that gives you expert knowledge on climate change. And to insinuate that dralyagmas is not a real scientist is the most offensive comment made on this topic yet.

This is also only one topic (and a very active one still) in the sailing forum that many are still happy to participate in. Simply stop reading and or participating if it is getting under your skin.

Bushdog, unfortunately this topic as seen over on the General and HW forums has no conclusion. When people get bored of it it will, like everything else of importance in the world, will just simply 'go away'.....

My statement on his science background is not at all because I consider I have any special qualifications nor questioning that he has. It is because science is never settled and anybody who claims otherwise and denounces other interpretations as deniers are not in the science field, irrelevant of degrees held
I am a person who thinks rationally and logically about all I do or experience, my background is relevant to that and is why it comes after my statement on the science question.
Your misquoting me is the most offensive comment on this post.
This subject has nothing to do with sailing.

In coming to Mackay, weather is getting horrid, I think the facts are out there, we got 47.8 in feb last year down south and have a 4 day heat wave with temps in 40s to 50s next week.it could be more than fake news.