What global warming?

[nofearengineer]

The computer models are a joke, 3D, though I am sure you already know that.

Who believes they can tell you what the climate will be like in 100 years, but somehow can not tell you what the weather will be 30 days from now?

And I would bet a lot of those climate modelers lost a lot of money in the stock market last year, right along with me. You would think they could "model" the stock market, and always buy and sell at the right time. Oddly enough, they didn't.

[1/4 stick]

Originally Posted by nofearengineer

The computer models are a joke, 3D, though I am sure you already know that.

Who believes they can tell you what the climate will be like in 100 years, but somehow can not tell you what the weather will be 30 days from now?

And I would bet a lot of those climate modelers lost a lot of money in the stock market last year, right along with me. You would think they could "model" the stock market, and always buy and sell at the right time. Oddly enough, they didn't.

We wouldn't need those models if the government would tell us what their plans for their weather/climate control and chem-trail systems were.

hahahahahaha.....

[WTL]

What I want to know is, logically, say the earth is warming, and that it is not man made.

Do the catastrophic predictions made about the effects of warmer weather then justify an attempt by the people of the world to somehow cool the earth (unnaturally) or keep it at a steady temperature? Is the objection to warming temperatures themselves, or the alleged man-made element?

[nofearengineer]

The problem really lies with the important word you left out, WTL, which is "wealthy".

Global warming is only a problem if it's caused by wealthy people; i.e. fat, white Americans.

We've all heard the old saw about Americans only being 5% of the world's population, but consuming 25% of the world's resources. The funny thing is, if we weren't buying those resources from the third world, they'd be starving and living in mud huts. Ask the average person who lives in a third world country if they think the forest and the swamps there are great. Hell no, they'll tell you. They want their prosperity too.

[1/4 stick]

Hey! I'm fat and white! Where's all my dang money!?!?

You're right nofear. I've said before I'd love to see us just shut down trade and all the help we give to other countries just to see how they fair then. Supposidly the world hates us. I don't believe that though, that's just the side the media loves to show. But I think if you ask the adverage citizen of other countries, you'd find out it's really just they're leaders that hate us; and the extremists who have been brainwashed with a crock of lies about us. I really don't think their leaders want those people to know how much help we give their countries. But that's another rant on a different subject.

[TN_Bassin]

[QUOTE=1/4 stick;286579]Hey! I'm fat and white! Where's all my dang money!?!?

Supposidly the world hates us. I don't believe that though, that's just the side the media loves to show. But I think if you ask the adverage citizen of other countries, you'd find out it's really just they're leaders that hate us; and the extremists who have been brainwashed with a crock of lies about us. [QUOTE]


Well French people really do hate all Americans. I take that back French people hate everybody.
France is probably the most unfriendly country I ever had the displeasure of touring.
Mexican people generally like americans.

[flbassman]

The earth runs in cycles. There called Milakonivtch (Sp?) cycles, and they have to do with the elliptical pattern of rotation, gravity, and a few other things I missed while looking at the girls in my science class We are currently in an ice age. Right now it is very low grade, but since the glaciation of America, this is still considered to be an ice age. As for this being pollution based, bs. When the vikings got to greenland, it was green. That was 600 years ago. Try and blame that on American cars. Then in the 1500's or so, there was a mini freeze, and they were skating on the thames in london. Niagara falls froze in the 1800s, and way back in 1881 it hit 122 in Seville spain. Go down to your local feed store and ask any of the old boys, and they'll give you hottest winters, coldest summers, and everything between. And they aren't all recent.

[Bassboss]

Originally Posted by screwballl

Another point that so many people miss:

The earth can adapt on its own... so even IF man is causing an impact, the increased CO2 causes plants to grow faster, reproduce faster and suck up more CO2 offsetting any increase we may be giving off. Look at any studies of plants and trees in NYC and downwind from NYC, they grow faster and healthier and release more oxygen then the same types found 100 miles from any pollution source. This "deforestation problem" so many whine about reduces the number of available plants and trees which causes an increase in CO2 which would send us into an ice age IF the earth did not adapt. Since it does adapt, we cut down 20 million acres of trees in Brazil, the increased CO2 causes plants to grow faster, reproduce faster and suck up more CO2. So we see the Black Hills of SD with thousands of acres of faster growing and more trees along with every other forest around the world expand and grow just slightly faster to compensate. We cut down 2 million acres and the planet compensates by causing 2 million acres to grow faster elsewhere until there is a balance.

So cut down the rain forests, the earth can compensate! It's not like the have keys to curing diseases or anything, and all the animals that may go extincted, the earth will compensate by making new species in a few hundred generations.

Originally Posted by nofearengineer

Just remember a very important Latin expression once taught to me. It doesn't really matter that it's in Latin....that just makes it sound more profound.

Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus.

This means "false in one, false in all."

Or in other words, don't take the word of someone who has been caught lying other times. These guys like Michael Mann and Phil Jones have been caught red-handed trying to cherry pick data and mislead you with their "end justifies the means" rationalization for lying. Don't take their word on another single thing.

Ya, why trust people that have been caught red handed trying to cherry pick data, or heck, just falsify it! *cough* Glenn *cough* Beck *cough**cough* Rush *cough* Lim *cough* baugh

Originally Posted by nofearengineer

The computer models are a joke, 3D, though I am sure you already know that.

Who believes they can tell you what the climate will be like in 100 years, but somehow can not tell you what the weather will be 30 days from now?

And I would bet a lot of those climate modelers lost a lot of money in the stock market last year, right along with me. You would think they could "model" the stock market, and always buy and sell at the right time. Oddly enough, they didn't.

Because you can draw data from a line graph from the last hundred year the warming rate, (or cooling, works both ways), and if you keep on fallowing the same rate or warming (and Co2 emissions), you can draw a roughly accurate prediction of what the climate will be like a 100 years. I'm no weather man, but weather on the other hard is a bit more unpredictable. It's the same kind of questions I'm sure you got in the 5th grade, Sally when he was born grew 4" in 2 years, than she grew 3" in 2 more years, in 3 more years she grew 4", how many inches will she have grown by the time she is 17.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

btw, guys, what happens on the political threads, stays on the political threads. Right?

[nofearengineer]

Originally Posted by Bassboss

Because you can draw data from a line graph from the last hundred year the warming rate, (or cooling, works both ways), and if you keep on fallowing the same rate or warming (and Co2 emissions), you can draw a roughly accurate prediction of what the climate will be like a 100 years. I'm no weather man, but weather on the other hard is a bit more unpredictable. It's the same kind of questions I'm sure you got in the 5th grade, Sally when he was born grew 4" in 2 years, than she grew 3" in 2 more years, in 3 more years she grew 4", how many inches will she have grown by the time she is 17.

Okay, at the risk of looking like a fool for trying to argue with a teenager, I'm going to do this anyway.

Bassboss, by the logic of the global warming fanatics, that girl would grow to 20 feet tall by the time she is 70 years old. That is the fallacy of "trend lines" and the mistake of the people who try to extrapolate limited data sets to form future predictions.

The truth is, we simply don't know what the climate is going to do. We know what it has done in the past, but the past is sometimes a worthless predictor of the future. Take a coin toss...let's say you flip a quarter 5 times in a row, and it comes up heads each time. Do you think you can make a prediction on the 6th toss based upon the previous 5? If so, there is some swampland in Florida I'd like to sell you.

People impose their own beliefs upon their interpretation of data all the time. It's human nature, and what keeps us out of trouble for the most part. Once we've put our hand down on a hot stove, we rarely put our hand down on a stove, even though the odds of getting burned again are very slight.

Let's take our coin toss example again. A major corporation once gave, as part of its hiring package, what I would like to call an "honesty test." They asked applicants to flip a quarter 100 times, and write down the results. They would do this in a room, with nobody watching. The results were screened, and those who had not written down either 7 heads in a row or 7 tails in a row were politely turned down. The chance of having 7 like faces in a row at least once during a 100 event series is actually 99.7%. The test was to see who would actually do as directed, without supervision, and who would simply falsify their data rather than carry out a boring, but easy task.

The reason this test works, is the general lack of knowledge of statistics and probability among most people. These same people are the ones who look at a graph and see a girl who will grow to 20' in height, or a global temperature catastrophe.

Bassboss, I know you probably don't get much of the rational side of the argument in your desmenes, and I pity you for that, but there's still hope. You will be on your own in a couple years, and since you'll be working, you'll have less time for leisure-time hubris, self-loathing, and martyrism.

[Bassboss]

Originally Posted by nofearengineer

Okay, at the risk of looking like a fool for trying to argue with a teenager, I'm going to do this anyway.

Bassboss, by the logic of the global warming fanatics, that girl would grow to 20 feet tall by the time she is 70 years old. That is the fallacy of "trend lines" and the mistake of the people who try to extrapolate limited data sets to form future predictions.

I was just making that math problem up for an example, didn't figure it to see if it made sense.

Originally Posted by nofearengineer

The truth is, we simply don't know what the climate is going to do. We know what it has done in the past, but the past is sometimes a worthless predictor of the future. Take a coin toss...let's say you flip a quarter 5 times in a row, and it comes up heads each time. Do you think you can make a prediction on the 6th toss based upon the previous 5? If so, there is some swampland in Florida I'd like to sell you.

It's a litter different, here, a bit more random don't you think? Don't compare apples and oranges. Lets keep with the apples and oranges thing. If the prim growing season for naval oranges is Nov, Dec, Jann. And it's been that way for the last 100 + years - Because of the climate! So wouldn't it be logical to assume that the prim growing season will be Nov, Dec, Jann, for the next 100 + years, if their are no other climate changing factors?

Originally Posted by nofearengineer

People impose their own beliefs upon their interpretation of data all the time. It's human nature, and what keeps us out of trouble for the most part. Once we've put our hand down on a hot stove, we rarely put our hand down on a stove, even though the odds of getting burned again are very slight.

Let's take our coin toss example again. A major corporation once gave, as part of its hiring package, what I would like to call an "honesty test." They asked applicants to flip a quarter 100 times, and write down the results. They would do this in a room, with nobody watching. The results were screened, and those who had not written down either 7 heads in a row or 7 tails in a row were politely turned down. The chance of having 7 like faces in a row at least once during a 100 event series is actually 99.7%. The test was to see who would actually do as directed, without supervision, and who would simply falsify their data rather than carry out a boring, but easy task.

The reason this test works, is the general lack of knowledge of statistics and probability among most people. These same people are the ones who look at a graph and see a girl who will grow to 20' in height, or a global temperature catastrophe.

Bassboss, I know you probably don't get much of the rational side of the argument in your desmenes, and I pity you for that, but there's still hope. You will be on your own in a couple years, and since you'll be working, you'll have less time for leisure-time hubris, self-loathing, and martyrism.

Originally Posted by nofearengineer

Okay, at the risk of looking like a fool for trying to argue with a teenager, I'm going to do this anyway.

Debating, not arguing!

[nofearengineer]

Originally Posted by Bassboss

It's a litter different, here, a bit more random don't you think? Don't compare apples and oranges. Lets keep with the apples and oranges thing. If the prim growing season for naval oranges is Nov, Dec, Jann. And it's been that way for the last 100 + years - Because of the climate! So wouldn't it be logical to assume that the prim growing season will be Nov, Dec, Jann, for the next 100 + years, if their are no other climate changing factors?

That's exactly my point, Boss. How did your prime growing season go this year? Not too well I would think, since I was buying oranges for a dime at Wally World last month. They cut them off early to keep them from freezing, so they have to charge less.

And there's the rub, to get back to your random comment. I see the severity of this Winter as a freak "random" event. The global warming crowd refuses to see anything as random, and uses this event as evidence of their position. However, the seasons themselves are not random. The orbit of the Earth around the Sun is pretty much like clockwork, though there is a little variation in its rhythm; i.e., we're a little closer to the Sun in Winter, and further away during Summer.

But the same way those runs of 7 heads or tails are inevitable, so are 50 or 100 year stretches of cold or heat. Maybe even longer. One thing I do know: we are not the ones flipping the coin on this one.

[Bassboss]

Originally Posted by nofearengineer

That's exactly my point, Boss. How did your prime growing season go this year? Not too well I would think, since I was buying oranges for a dime at Wally World last month. They cut them off early to keep them from freezing, so they have to charge less.

And there's the rub, to get back to your random comment. I see the severity of this Winter as a freak "random" event. The global warming crowd refuses to see anything as random, and uses this event as evidence of their position. However, the seasons themselves are not random. The orbit of the Earth around the Sun is pretty much like clockwork, though there is a little variation in its rhythm; i.e., we're a little closer to the Sun in Winter, and further away during Summer.

But the same way those runs of 7 heads or tails are inevitable, so are 50 or 100 year stretches of cold or heat. Maybe even longer. One thing I do know: we are not the ones flipping the coin on this one.

There we go! Global warming in action! We did gave to pick the oranges earlier this year to prevent them from getting frosted. Like I said in my first post. Global warming is improperly named. Global warming cause Extremes in weather, for example, in summer, it gets HOTer than usual, in Winter, it gets COLDer than usual.

[MississippiBoy]

You're cherry picking again...one cold winter does not a trend make. Right now, in our history, we have a certain time period that's the best for growing oranges, November, December, and January. How long has this been true? We only have a short (VERY short, in terms of the age of the earth, global climate changes, etc...) frame of reference to extrapolate from. Maybe this prime season has stayed the same for 600 years, ever since Columbus sailed the ocean blue. 600 years out of (supposedly) 6 BILLION is not a long enough time to extrapolate any kind of a trend.
Just because ONE WINTER out of 6 BILLION is cold, doesn't mean you can say the the climate is changing. Even if the last 50 or 60 were colder than usual (which they weren't), or the last 100 summers were hotter (which they weren't), there's still not enough statistical information to predict climate change.

[3dkicker]

Originally Posted by nofearengineer

The computer models are a joke, 3D, though I am sure you already know that.

I think most people don't realize that these "models" that are used are not 100% reliable and should not trust the predicted "outcomes". Those who create the models seem to forget the error in the computations when the predictions are made. And the media, when they report the predictions, don't have a clue or fail to mention that the models may be off by some %.

[nofearengineer]

Originally Posted by 3dkicker

I think most people don't realize that these "models" that are used are not 100% reliable and should not trust the predicted "outcomes". Those who create the models seem to forget the error in the computations when the predictions are made. And the media, when they report the predictions, don't have a clue or fail to mention that the models may be off by some %.

That is a great point, Capt. Mike. I will go back to my old "precision vs. accuracy" argument. What good is saying something is 4.1378" long, when your margin of error is +/- 0.1"? Anything beyond the tenths place is meaningless. And that's just a single measurement. When you multiply variables together, and each of them has its own margin of error, those margins are magnified in the product.

What I'm getting at here, is the climate is an EXTREMELY COMPLEX system, with hundreds of major variables (an almost infinite amount of minor ones). It's funny how they predict global temperature rise in degrees of 0.6, 1.2, 2.4, etc. Well, with hundreds of variables to consider, they would need to be making every single data entry down to 10-20 decimal places in order for the margin of error to not exceed the final small temp rise amount. This is a true joke to a statistician. This stuff is all being manipulated and foisted upon the uneducated to scare them into a panic.

Add that to a psychological need to feel like they're doing some to "save the planet", and you have a recipe for lemmings jumping off a cliff.

[3dkicker]

Originally Posted by nofearengineer

That is a great point, Capt. Mike.

Who? Capt. Mike? Oh no you didn't! He's a great guy and all but I'm much better looking!!!

[nofearengineer]

Oh crap, Smitty.....sorry about that. I'm home today with a fever. I am definitely not at my best today.

[3dkicker]

It's alright. No offense taken.....hopefully Capt Mike is ok with it!!!

I figured you'd have a little insight into the models. I just laugh every time I see predictions (weather or elections) that are based on computer models having a little background in stats.

[nofearengineer]

Yeah...from a statistician's point of view, it's pathetic.

I don't think you could even claim a confidence interval of 5% for most of these models.

[WTL]

People sometimes have a tendency to take current information and assume the worst.

I'll give a personal example. I'm not a hypochondriac, but I think all of us, especially those on the board are worried about cancer what with Zooker, Patrick and Lancer6 and also everything else that has happened. Cancer is a huge worry among especially fisherman, and since I have been severely burnt a few times in my younger years I always take caution to watch whats going on with my skin.

Well about a month ago I saw an unexplained mark on the palm of my hand, dark small, just under the surface of the skin. And I watched this thing, I stared at it every day, went out and looked at it in the light, went online and compared it to known examples of melanoma and other cancers.

This went on for about a month, but I told nobody. I was going to ask my brother who is a doctor about it within a few weeks. I was very worried about it.

The other night the spot just fell off. Probably just a blood blister that for whatever reason lasted. But because of the stakes, I (naturally I think) agonized over it.

So when you invoke the stakes of world destruction with something like climate change, it is human nature for people to perhaps overreact. What we want is scientific vigilance. The next step in my ordeal I suppose, upon the recommendation from my brother, would have been a biopsy. Then they test that. It was all reason for concern, but it wasnt reason for me to assume my death was imminent.

Where we are in the climate change debate is perhaps that first moment when you see an unexplained mark on your hand. Is it reason to take notice? Yes. Reason for concern? Perhaps a reasonable amount. Reason to panic? No. Reason to change everything about how you do things in general? No, I don't think so.

We need to be adults with regards to this climate change thing. That means being prudent, but also understand where we are in all of this.

[doc]

I agree with WTL. Do I think the sky is falling?... No. Do I think there is nothing to worry about and the hippies are stupid?... Not exactly. This whole debate reminds me of a bumper sticker I seen about religion one time. "if your living like their is no god, you better be right". Regardless of global warming or not, there is things we all could do,(little things) to help our environment and leave beautiful fisheries for our kids, not toxic ses-pools.

[lilmule]

Global warming is a long term study ,is in reality normally called history,what occurs now is called weather.

[screwballl]

Man made global warming is a term used by socialists who push lobbyists to force governments to take more money from the public under the guise to combat a problem that does not really exist, where the money really goes into their pockets, while still passing laws forcing companies to spend more of their hard earned profits to abandon what works for "cleaner energy".
Granted some cleaner energy is needed but they are going about it the wrong way

[Rebbasser]

Regardless of global warming or not, there is things we all could do,(little things) to help our environment and leave beautiful fisheries for our kids, not toxic ses-pools.

Doc, I doubt there is anyone on either side that would disagree with that.

You know, this thread is a good example of why this really is the best fishing forum out there. This is a great discussion, and not once has there been any name calling or hurling of insults. Just a good, respectful discussion. Well done, boys!

[MississippiBoy]

Oh, shut up, Reb...