Say what you want about "global warming" but the change in climate (when it finally filters down to weather) is sometimes more obvious than you'd think. We have owned the Lake House for almost 10 years and in all that time the lake in front of the house (an arm of Moses Lake in central Washington) has frozen consistently from mid-November until mid-March. There have been a few days of variation, of course, but that was our "rule of thumb". Usually bits of it freeze over and thaw and then more freezes over and then thaws and finally some huge storm with very low temperatures freezes the entire thing and it stays that way until spring. Today, for the first time since I've been here, the lake froze over - finally - 30 days after it usually does. What it took was a blast of cold air from Canada (it's always *your* fault) which brought temps down to 15F here (predicted to be 6F so I feel lucky). The blast also brought snow to the mountains around us (to the great relief of the ski areas) which had been sunny and snow-free (even on the peaks!) right through Thanksgiving. In fact, the weekend after Thanksgiving we drove across Snoqualmie Pass (which, today, will be closed from time to time to clear snow, ice, and wrecked vehicles) in temperatures of 55 degrees at the summit. As an amateur meteorologist (I'm a glider pilot, after all) I know that "climate" and "weather" are not just different words for the same thing. Weather is always changeable but climate change is only measured over a long period of time. But even in my lifetime (65 years and counting - but counting a lot more slowly than before) I have seen the evidence of climate - not just weather - changes. For example... in my youth I would go downhill skiing at Crystal Mountain (SE of Seattle) the weekend after Halloween. I did this year after year until I took a job with the Feds and had to move. It was rock-hopping on old skis but they had at least one lift running. Now, to get downhill skiing in early November you'd have to drive to Mt. Baker or Mt. Rainier; both snow covered year around; and no ski lifts. There was a ski area called "Mount Pilchuck" due east of Everett, WA that flourished in the 70s but, by the 90s, was closed and the ski lifts removed due to poor snow years. Today you'd have no chance of opening a ski area on Mt. Pilchuck. Cross country ski passes in Washington are good from November 15th... which in 2008 meant no good because only a couple of the trails had any snow at all... let alone enough to groom for good skating or kick-skiing. So, while one winter of late freeze-over hardly qualifies as global warming, the accumulation of all these factors that even I with my ludicrously short lifespan can document brings climate change front and center. It's not just a scientific phenomenon any more. It's become real. Real in a way the antarctic hole in the ionosphere (remember that?) could never have been. To coin a phrase: Really real. You might be asking yourself, "what's the point of all this?" Fair enough. The point is that as paddlers we live outside more than most of our neighbors. In fact we are often obsessed with being outside. "Recreating" is what they call it in brochures and web ads. I've never thought I was doing that. To me it's just been part of living. Many of us have migrated from other sports. Sailing. Skiing. Mountain and rock climbing. White water kayaking. Bicycling. Soccer. Baseball. Tennis. I followed this sports trail with changes in direction as my body aged or became damaged. Most of us have spent a lifetime outdoors; sometimes both for work as well as for play. Because we live our lives outside so much we've all got stories about how our climate - not just our weather - has changed over our lifetimes. Paddlers have also always been aware of the environment. It's unavoidable that we notice changes both positive and negative. I'm aware that there are much fewer clear-cuts in the forests than there were when I was a ski instructor at Snoqualmie Pass in the 1970s. But I'm know that there is virtually no underwater life (mussels, barnacles, etc.) at Deception Pass State Park (where more capable paddlers than I am braved high winds to race throught the constricted waterway that gives the Park its name). My journeys along the waterways are punctuated by encounters with seals, sea lions and eagles now; there were virtually none of these in the Puget Sound of the 1970s when I began sea kayaking. I know you're as aware of all that as I am. But our culture is only now thinking seriously of the consequences of climate change and there are still people who are in deep denial. To them it's all weather. We're all worried about what they now call our "carbon footprint" and have been for years, if not decades. But since we now have a President-elect who seems to share our concerns, I'm thinking that it's time for us to be more out-front about how we feel about the environment. Every fall a local school has presentations based around the letters of the alphabet. When the letter "K" rolls around they call me and I put two kayaks on the grass, dress up in a drysuit, don my PFD (oh, they want us to call it a "lifevest" again) and a helmet and stand there like an idiot as the kids file out of the building and across the playground. Well the kids don't think I look like an idiot. I have books with photographs of inuit paddlers towing whale carcasses, charts of the San Juan Islands, paddle floats, pumps (the kids always like the pumps) and me. Standing there on the grass of a grade school in a desert dressed for the ocean I answer questions from the kids about why I wear a helmet, they want to know about the drysuit when the water temperature of the lakes they swim in is 75 or 80 F, and we talk about having fun outside. And how a kayak has such a small effect on the environment. It's like hiking but you don't leave a footprint. Once the ripples of your wake have disappeared, no one will know you've been there. We talk about how we can minimize our effects on the earth and water. Sharing our experiences is more important now than ever. Craig Jungers Moses Lake, WA *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
I want to know why I have no acorns on my deck this fall. None. Not one. And I'm not alone. Concerning helmets, kayaking and kids I took a friends 10 year old son out for a little surf training. He was full throttle ready to go until I put on my helmet and handed him his. He told me quietly helmets were stupid. He's a good kid. I quietly told him firemen and army guys wear helmets. He looked a bit glum and let me snap the neck strap closed. I set him up to surf in a small wave but he ended up broaching and flipped right on his head. I asked him about that helmet. He got the point. We tend to learn best through hands on experience. Our carbon footprints may teach us some hands on experience. It may teach the next one hundred generations a lot of hands on experience. Jim et al *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
James Farrelly wrote: > Concerning helmets, kayaking and kids I took a friends 10 year old son > out for a little surf training. He was full throttle ready to go until I > put on my helmet and handed him his. He told me quietly helmets were > stupid. He's a good kid. I quietly told him firemen and army guys wear > helmets. He looked a bit glum and let me snap the neck strap closed. I > set him up to surf in a small wave but he ended up broaching and flipped > right on his head. I asked him about that helmet. He got the point. We > tend to learn best through "hands on experience." More like "head in the sand" learning, Jim ... and a good, cheap lesson for him! [grin] BTW, Craig's reminiscence of days of yore in the mountains near Seattle jives with my recollection. Little did we know how lucky we were to have all that early snow ... and lots of it! That snow affects mundane thigns like irrigation and crops failure, also. I'm curious, though, if my ass is spreading, does that mean I have a larger carbon footprint? I'll go away now. -- Dave Kruger Astoria, OR *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Here's where I sit on this: Al Gore notwithstanding, the overwhelming majority of real, working scientists involved in the issue agree that it's very likely that mankind is not helping. And, in general, they don't seem to have a stake in the matter. ****************************************************************** I'd like to know which promotors have no stake, since they all draw a paycheck (note quote below) Consensus of people paid to come to a conclusion is hardly meaningful. Scandal surrounds the list of consensus scientist who have had to sue to get their names off the list Government money buys the results it wants, same as industry money buys what it wants. Your lake may be frozen a month late, but Louisiana has a cold snap earliest in reliable recorded history, since 1850, so what do you make of that? I won't even mention the northern states being colder. Try this http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecor d_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6 UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims Study: Half of warming due to Sun! Sea Levels Fail to Rise? - Warming Fears in 'Dustbin of History' excerpted: Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly.As a scientist I remain skeptical. - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years. But the High Profit Al Gore said this past weekend that in 5 years the ice will be gone. We can wait it out and find out if this is all true. His 'carbon footprint' and his desire to sell 'carbon offsets' is proof enough to me what he really believes in: his fame and personal fortune. Note he did not win a Pulitzer in science. In the mean time, I am in favor of cleaning up our messes, but I am not in favor of ruining the economy for a pie-in-the-sky idea that lacks merit on the face of it. This idea is all ready costing California a bundle. With the new Prez, we can expect more consequences. for your amusement"Southern California may see sub-freezing temperatures Los Angeles Times, by Andrew Blankstein from a denier, making some interesting points that need to be answered by the promotors: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/12/the_real_climate_deniers.html *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
The problem with science is that it doesn't pay much attention to politics. If the earth is round, then it's round. No amount of public relations is going to change that; although public relations can change the way people think. Nevertheless, 99% of the people can believe the earth is flat but if it's really round then it's round and that's that. Unfortunately, for some reason the "climate change" issue has become politicized with sides chosen up and weapons drawn. The political fight has no bearing on whether or not man actually has made climate change worse. If we have and don't change anything then we face some serious problems. If we haven't and do change then nothing bad happens. The debate has been exacerbated because there is no "proof" that humans have had any part in climate change. People with a background in science understand that there is precious little "proof" in anything scientific. This, combined with the egos involved, often make non-scientists think that the "eggheads" really have no idea what they are talking about. But as Kruger mentions, most people with a background in science have come around to the idea that, at the very least, humans are not helping. And if the data are correct, we are a significant factor. Do humans have some negative role to play in climate change? That seems obvious. It's like the question, "Does smoking kill you?" Some think it does and others think it doesn't. But no one thinks it's good for you. The natural cycles of climate change are the background noise in the debate. No one can deny that the earth has gone through many of these and perhaps we're going through a natural one now. But chemically speaking the junk we are putting into the environment cannot be doing anything but exacerbating the problem. So far all of the physical evidence (ice cores, etc.) indicate that this is an extremely serious situation. If your boat is sinking arguing about whose fault it is doesn't make a lot of sense. Pick something up and start bailing. As for driving thousands of miles to kayak... there is no doubt that this is not free from a significant carbon footprint. But it's not as significant as driving a motorhome thousands of miles for a vacation piloting a 4wheel Polaris around on the sand dunes. Driving to kayak - even in a kayak that is fiberglass - is still less of an imprint than driving to Disneyland. It's good that people are thinking about this issue. No one is without imperfection but one can hope most can at least discern that there is a problem. Craig Jungers Moses Lake, WA *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Yes it is strange how some scientific issues become politicized except it ignores the fact that one of the main proponents of GW is not a scientist, but a politician. His movie, with it's acknowledged hyperbole is shown in high schools as fact. The scientific community holding the opposite view hasn't had the opportunity to provide their contrary evidence to the amount that GW has received. Most of us aren't scientists, so I don't have a problem with people who accept the views of the scientist that differ with mine, but your post shows one of the problems with the issue. Your post allowing for GW got posted and as far as I can tell, mine opposed didn't!! At least I haven't received it. Only one side is getting heard because people like Gore say the issue is settled-a first for any science!!! It is another argument to say whether there is no consequence to trying to limit the amout of CO2 if it turns out not to be a contributor to GW. We're talking about spending trillion and trillions of dollars that could be better spent if CO2 is just a harmless gas that we all expel! In my view, CO2 is the newest spotted owl, a false excuse for the environmental folks to impose their will on society. Only time will tell Mark -----Original Message----- Unfortunately, for some reason the "climate change" issue has become politicized with sides chosen up and weapons drawn. The political fight has no bearing on whether or not man actually has made climate change worse. If we have and don't change anything then we face some serious problems. If we haven't and do change then nothing bad happens. The debate has been exacerbated because there is no "proof" that humans have had any part in climate change. People with a background in science understand that there is precious little "proof" in anything scientific. This, combined with the egos involved, often make non-scientists think that the "eggheads" really have no idea what they are talking about. But as Kruger mentions, most people with a background in science have come around to the idea that, at the very least, humans are not helping. And if the data are correct, we are a significant factor. Do humans have some negative role to play in climate change? That seems obvious. It's like the question, "Does smoking kill you?" Some think it does and others think it doesn't. But no one thinks it's good for you. The natural cycles of climate change are the background noise in the debate. No one can deny that the earth has gone through many of these and perhaps we're going through a natural one now. But chemically speaking the junk we are putting into the environment cannot be doing anything but exacerbating the problem. So far all of the physical evidence (ice cores, etc.) indicate that this is an extremely serious situation. If your boat is sinking arguing about whose fault it is doesn't make a lot of sense. Pick something up and start bailing. As for driving thousands of miles to kayak... there is no doubt that this is not free from a significant carbon footprint. But it's not as significant as driving a motorhome thousands of miles for a vacation piloting a 4wheel Polaris around on the sand dunes. Driving to kayak - even in a kayak that is fiberglass - is still less of an imprint than driving to Disneyland. It's good that people are thinking about this issue. No one is without imperfection but one can hope most can at least discern that there is a problem. Craig Jungers Moses Lake, WA *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
[ I haven't seen my first reply on this topic come across the list yet. Curious, but I've noticed substantial delays before. ] On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 12:46:04PM -0800, Mark Sanders wrote: > Yes it is strange how some scientific issues become politicized except it > ignores the fact that one of the main proponents of GW is not a scientist, > but a politician. Gore may be the most well-known outside the scientific community, but he is not one of the principle exponents of the theory. Surely nobody is so naive as to think that the scientific community is persuadable by mere politicians -- whether they agree or disagree with the scientific community's consensus or disparate views? We have defied far more powerful figures. Aside #1: I'm almost reluctant to use the word "theory", as many non-scientists do not know what it means. As a result, some of them disparage scientific constructs as "mere theories" when it is politically or personally convenient for them to do so -- most notably, at the moment, when the theories in question are "evolution" or "global warming", since the former runs contrary to assorted primitive superstitions and the latter often runs contrary to their financial self-interest. I occasionally find it instructive to remind them that we also have a "theory" of gravity -- and that the empirical evidence available to support that particular theory is considerably *less* than that substantiating evolution or anthropomorphic causes for global warming. I usually accompany that reminder with an invitation to contest the validity of the theory of gravity, beginning on the roof of the nearest tall structure. Oddly enough, none yet have decided to express their disagreement in a truly sincere manner. Aside #2: as a scientist, I often find it remarkable that people who would not know a partial differential equation if it were tattooed on their forehead find it appropriate to weigh in on such matters. Anyone who does not at minimum speak the language of advanced mathematics is unqualified to take part in the debate *since that is the language it is conducted in*. They can no more do so than I could debate the precise original wording of Homerian epics -- which were of course first written down in a language I can't read. But pressing on: there is no real disagreement that climate is changing. (Any more than there is real disagreement over evolution. The only "controversy" is that speciously fabricated by reactionary winguts, and these fundamentally dishonest, self-serving people -- more briefly, morons -- may safely be ignored. Note that this propaganda takes disparate forms, including the thoroughly-debunked Prius-worse-than-a-Hummer myth, the last-decade-has-been-colder tripe, and the statistically naive group of arguments involving forcing functions.) There's also no real disagreement over the proximate cause: it's us. Remaining serious debate focuses solely on (a) how bad it will get (b) how quickly and (c) whether we can do anything about it. One of the disturbing things in re (a) and (b) is that is that a number of model predictions which were felt to be unduly pessimistic have turned out to be too optimistic. A partial look at this (at the layman's level) may be found here: The cold truth about climate change http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/02/27/global_warming_deniers/index.html But I recommend that -- if you're able -- that you go to the original research papers and read those. They're couched in the cautious language of science, of course, but the implications, particularly in those on ice sheet thinning and retreat, are alarming. I once again return to the same quote I used yesterday: The greatest shortcoming of the human race is man's inability to understand the exponential function. --- Albert A. Bartlett For an excellent exposition on this point, see Robert Heinlein's 1952 essay "Where To?". For a large-scale demonstration, continue to live on this planet for the next several decades. And I'll add this quote, which is also one of my favorites and quite apropos to the discussion: The first step is to measure whatever can be easily measured. That is okay as far as it goes. The second step is to disregard that which can't be measured or give it an arbitrary quantitative value. This is artificial and misleading. The third step is to presume that what can't be measured easily really isn't very important. This is blindness. The fourth step is to say that what can't be easily measured doesn't exist. This is suicide. --- social scientist Daniel Yankelovich describes the "McNamara fallacy". ---Rsk *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 7:36 AM, Rich Kulawiec <rsk_at_rockandwater.net> wrote: > > Aside #2: as a scientist, I often find it remarkable that people who > would not know a partial differential equation if it were tattooed > on their forehead find it appropriate to weigh in on such matters. > As an engineer I can still do partial differential equations... providing that we agree that the definition of "partial" should be "about halfway through" a differential equation. After that my eyes glaze over. Craig Jungers Moses Lake, WA PS: Now admit it... how many advanced mathematics jokes have you heard? *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Craig Jungers wrote: > PS: Now admit it... how many advanced mathematics jokes have you heard? My engineering student niece wears a t-shirt that says "Don't Drink and Derive." Steve -- Steve Cramer Athens, GA http://www.savvypaddler.com *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 12:00:22 -0800, Craig Jungers wrote: >The political fight has no bearing on whether or not man actually has made climate change worse. If we have and don't change anything then we face some serious problems. If we haven't and do change then nothing bad happens. Craig, I think your last sentence is the part about this whole brouhaha that fails to pass muster with a lot of sensible folks. The idea that "nothing bad happens" belies a willful ignoring of human nature: people will never willingly give up greater liberty, prosperity, comfort, etc., (pick one) for the unfounded hope that such sacrifice will effect meaningful change. A lot of authors put this better than I can, one example here: http://snipurl.com/8jz26 Me? I'm too busy hacking my way out to the main road after a devastating ice storm in the area. We just had 25 degF combined with about 3" liquid rainfall over about a 6-hour period. Warming that ain't and I'm hard pressed to find any sort of enjoyable outdoor recreational activity that takes advantage of such conditions ;] 73 --allan SEVT *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
I'm not sure if I've been gored by the bull in general or just bulled by the Gore specifically, but for me, I'll continue reduce, reuse, and recycle. Ride bikes, buy less stuff, and inform my political vote. Earth's problems will take cooperation, creativity, consensus building, convincing hard science free from agenda, and careful utalization of remaining resources. If this is soley up to polititians to carry forward, there may be little hope for the planet. The Winter of the Earth's Discontent. Doug Lloyd > On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 8:47 AM, Mark Sanders <sandmarks_at_ca.rr.com> wrote: > >> As one of the heretics who disavows Al Gore sainthood, I'm not sure >> sharing >> our experiences has any merit beyond the joy of reminiscing. I fall in >> the >> category of the "Deniers", > > > Here's where I sit on this: Al Gore notwithstanding, the overwhelming > majority of real, working scientists involved in the issue agree that it's > very likely that mankind is not helping. And, in general, they don't seem > to > have a stake in the matter. > > Could all these guys be wrong? Well, sure. But if they're wrong and we > clean > things up anyway what does it hurt? Fresher air? Nicer weather? Maybe > fewer > hurricanes and more polar bears? An entirely new set of industries and > businesses? And maybe the Mark Sanders Cap-and-Trade Center. On the other > hand, if *you're* wrong but your side prevails then we leave this earth in > a > much worse mess than we have any right to. > > So I figure, what the heck. Let's try to get to zero impact. That way > there > won't be any debate. If it gets warmer then it's entirely natural. If it > gets colder then so-be-it. > > Craig Jungers > Moses Lake, WA *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
I'll continue reduce, reuse, and recycle. Ride bikes, buy less stuff, and inform my political vote. As an interesting side to this very statement, which I wholeheartedly support, do not buy into a lot of the green hype. A prius for one great example, is a harder hit on the enviornment and your wallet than the hated Hummer. The prius batteries require a full circumnavigation to be made dirtying the environment where the nickle is mined in Canada, then transported to europe to be processed into metal, then the material is again transported via ship to Japan for making into batteries. The batteries have a shorter lifespan than the engine of the Hummer, and the hummer has the potential of going well past 100000 miles, where the Prius an other hybrids must have the now hazardous waste batteries safely disposed of. There are other problems with the hybrids, basically making someone else back yard very dirty, while allowing the US consumer to think they are saving the earth. The curly light bulb being forced on us, and yes they are all over my house, create a hazardous waste stream that didn't exist before. Just heard in the last few days that with the falling economy, recycling is one of the first new industries faltering, there is no market for the plastic, which apparently takes some special machinery to recycle, and the collection is now piling up dockside. I've personally seen this more than a decade ago when the local recycle plant had bundles of plastic bottles, cubes about 8' sq, stacking up as a display for all to see. It could be shipped anywhere for less than the value of the plastic and they could no longer put it in the landfill. So it doesn't surprise me that it is happening again. Tris time around though, plastic should be thinner and should break down faster, so hopefully less of a long term problem. Google it, if you care, I've found all this information online, and occasional even in print Mike San Rafael *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 06:16:41AM -0800, Mike Euritt wrote: > A prius for one great example, is a harder hit on the enviornment > and your wallet than the hated Hummer. This is, of course, pure garbage -- the result of a spurious "study" by a *marketing* company and not the conclusion of an actual scientific endeavor. Actual scientific studies done by actual scientists at MIT, Argonne and CMU trash this largely-fabricated nonsense. For a thorough debunking of this Internet-propagated myth, see (among many others): Prius vs. Hummer: Exploding the Myth http://www.thecarconnection.com/article/1010861_prius-versus-hummer-exploding-the-myth Mr. Green's Web-Only Mailbag: Prius vs. Hummer http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200711/mrgreen_mailbag.asp#headaches Pacific Institute Case Study: Prius vs. Hummer http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_of_science/case_studies/hummer_vs_prius.pdf On the general topic of global warming/climate change, there's a timely piece here: It's getting warm out there! http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/12/28/1103/2921/710/677631 which observes, in part: "Remember just a few days ago when the entire Flat Earth Society Conservative Establishment was gleefully cheering on the "heavy" snow to hit Las Vegas and other unlikely parts of the country? You know how each and every last one of them prattled forth about how this wintertime snowfall proved that global warming was a hoax? Well, you don't hear much from any them now that a rash of high temperatures is sweeping the country from the midwest to the southeast and threatening to unleash widespread flooding, do you? Not a peep on Drudge Report, the assignment editor for the Anti-Science Society of America. Not a word from the other wingnuts." ---Rsk *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
I have always been impressed with the knowledge of people connected with Paddlewise. I certainly don't claim to have the mathematical or scientific skills of many of the other posters I read here. For some reason, I still seem to feel capable of forming an opinion. Now Rich seems to have a lot of scientific knowledge and he says of the CNW study: This is, of course, pure garbage -- the result of a spurious "study" by a *marketing* company and not the conclusion of an actual scientific endeavor. Actual scientific studies done by actual scientists at MIT, Argonne and CMU trash this largely-fabricated nonsense. While the study itself starts our saying CNW: ... a well-established reputation for industry forecasting, made claims last year that that hybrid vehicles used more energy in their lifetime, from creation to disposal, than many SUVs. And ends saying: While its methodology may remain unclear, the report does include some useful and eye-opening information that few car shoppers had likely even thought about. Hopefully this controversy will spur shoppers to demand more information about the vehicles they drive other than emissions and mpg and consider the big-picture impact. I, being a person on the right often think of my left leaning friends as well meaning, but wrong, while I think many of the people on the left consider the right as downright meanspirited! Anyone claiming to be against the idea of global warming is called a "denier" automatically considered to be part of an oil industry conspiracy. Peter O says: "Thanks to Dave, Craig and all for their support of the need for scientific rigour", as if the people holding a different view think less of the scientific method. Dave says he used to be a skeptic (yes Dave, tell us how you felt trying to buck the system!), but now says the global climate changes have changed his mind. BUT we've already acknowledged the climate is changing it is the REASON that's up for debate. I accept that he has accepted the belief of the scientist involved that CO2 is the reason; I have not I agree its not useful to look at one cold winter to debunk global warming, but tell me, how many times have you heard of one incident, Hurricane Katrina, used as proof of it's existence? For every record cold temperature listed lately, I can tell you of two that been reported in the last many years to substantiate GW. I know Craig to be intelligent and he says I can trust the scientists, but I don't trust the UN or many other sources. Even NASA's GISS seems to have problems coming up with the truth and although Rich complains of CNW providing their methodology, how about this with the GISS: McIntyre also cast doubts on NASA's methods of collecting data and on its transparency, claiming that the old data should have been kept up on the Web site for comparison, and NASA should have alerted the public to the changes. Furthermore, he says, he had asked repeatedly to see the "source code" NASA uses to calculate its numbers, and had been repeatedly denied. Just lately NASA had to rescind it statement of October being the hottest in a gazillion years when they admitted they'd calculated the last months temps twice. I will admit I have little confidence in James Hansen of NASA although I did just read this quote from him: "It's the fact that money talks in Washington..." On which side are the billions and billions of government dollars on??? Mark *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Mark, Glad for your opinion(s). What you say below seems reasonable - at least, for and to someone(s) not convinced global warming is overtly human-caused. I'd only add that you should keep your mind open in lieu of scientific consensus at this time. Hopefully you can keep an open mind, you know, being a chocolate brain and all... Certainly, as North Americans, we live a fairly self-indulgent lifestyle. Add to this the collective political and nationalistic arrogance the rest of the world sees us as having; leaving me contemplating the merit of any opinions any of us have to offer at this point in time. In any case, have a great New Year you big lug. Thanks for the paddling updates - at least we still get some on topic posts. I'll have to forego the New Year's Day Paddle here in Victoria BC as I'm down with wrist tendonitis. Please keep up your stories to get me through - and those iced in probably appreciate them too. I've got a bunch of Rev Bob's stuff to that I gander at every so often too. AS for the World, I have to force my optimism every day. Our future? I truly think there are forces beyond our control that will be our ultimate demise as a species. Changing planetary tilt, etc. As for the planet, I think the oceans will be here for billions of years yet to come. I take solace in that belief every time I do get out on the water as at least there is something with some permanence in the universe - though that is relative too (percieved permanance being something that brings me psychological peace of mind for some reason). For those with a conservative religious bent, there's supposed to be a new heaven and a new earth one day. Hey, there better still be an ocean, that's all I can say. The ocean is really the one thing that makes the planet and this world special. Oh yeah, the waves, wind, and currents make it all so fun - way too much fun some days... Doug L >I have always been impressed with the knowledge of people connected with > Paddlewise. I certainly don't claim to have the mathematical or scientific > skills of many of the other posters I read here. For some reason, I still > seem to feel capable of forming an opinion. *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
As one of the heretics who disavows Al Gore sainthood, I'm not sure sharing our experiences has any merit beyond the joy of reminiscing. I fall in the category of the "Deniers", but I'm not going to argue that the changes you've experience over your years aren't real. As accurate as our observations may be of the climate changes over our lifetimes, they say nothing of the main point in the Global Warming/Climate Change problem-whether it man made or not. I don't believe it is, although I admit I'm not a scientist, but these guys are and seem to believe the question is not nearly as settled as Al Gore and PE Obama want us to believe. http://tinyurl.com/5laabm Weather and climate change, I agree, they have throughout time; seems a bit silly to think we can keep the world from changing. The cap and trade schemes that our world leaders want to impose seem like a bunch of crap barely able to mitigate Al Gores jetsetting. So there I am messing up all the consensus, but I think Craig already knew where I'd come down on this! From what I've read the change in CO2 from what 300 to 385 PARTS PER MILLION isn't going to end the world as we know it. But I could be wrong-could you? Mark -----Original Message----- I know you're as aware of all that as I am. But our culture is only now thinking seriously of the consequences of climate change and there are still people who are in deep denial. To them it's all weather. We're all worried about what they now call our "carbon footprint" and have been for years, if not decades. But since we now have a President-elect who seems to share our concerns, I'm thinking that it's time for us to be more out-front about how we feel about the environment. Sharing our experiences is more important now than ever. Craig Jungers Moses Lake, WA *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 8:47 AM, Mark Sanders <sandmarks_at_ca.rr.com> wrote: > As one of the heretics who disavows Al Gore sainthood, I'm not sure sharing > our experiences has any merit beyond the joy of reminiscing. I fall in the > category of the "Deniers", Here's where I sit on this: Al Gore notwithstanding, the overwhelming majority of real, working scientists involved in the issue agree that it's very likely that mankind is not helping. And, in general, they don't seem to have a stake in the matter. Could all these guys be wrong? Well, sure. But if they're wrong and we clean things up anyway what does it hurt? Fresher air? Nicer weather? Maybe fewer hurricanes and more polar bears? An entirely new set of industries and businesses? And maybe the Mark Sanders Cap-and-Trade Center. On the other hand, if *you're* wrong but your side prevails then we leave this earth in a much worse mess than we have any right to. So I figure, what the heck. Let's try to get to zero impact. That way there won't be any debate. If it gets warmer then it's entirely natural. If it gets colder then so-be-it. Craig Jungers Moses Lake, WA *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Craig Jungers wrote: > On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 8:47 AM, Mark Sanders <sandmarks_at_ca.rr.com> wrote: > >> As one of the heretics who disavows Al Gore sainthood, I'm not sure sharing >> our experiences has any merit beyond the joy of reminiscing. I fall in the >> category of the "Deniers", As Craig eloquently delineated, there is a large body of evidence and a huge core of the atmospheric science community which suggests global warming from human activities is real. Like Mark, I have been a skeptic on this thesis for many years; unlike Mark, I have become convinced of its validity, over the past couple years, a change brought on by the accelerated rate of real change in climate (from whatever source). And, no, I have not viewed Gore's polemic. Gore's "sainthood" is immaterial to this issue. Hate to disagree with the tambourine man, but I gotta. Some may recall a pungent and horribly drawn-out discussion we had on this years ago and that I was outspoken on the side of skepticism. I am no longer a skeptic. I am also not going to contribute further to the debate here. -- Dave Kruger Astoria, OR *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
[For some reason, my longer posts to Paddlewise recently have not appeared, although shorter ones come through quickly. Is this common? This one was sent out yesterday and still has not appeared.] Rich Kulawiec wrote: > [ I haven't seen my first reply on this topic come across the list yet. > Curious, but I've noticed substantial delays before. ] > > Mark Sanders wrote: >> Yes it is strange how some scientific issues become politicized except >> it ignores the fact that one of the main proponents of GW is not a >> scientist, but a politician. > > Gore may be the most well-known outside the scientific community, but he > is not one of the principle exponents of the theory. Surely nobody is > so naive as to think that the scientific community is persuadable by > mere politicians -- whether they agree or disagree with the scientific > community's consensus or disparate views? We have defied far more > powerful figures. I said I would not contribute further to this debate. However, Rich K has pungently and eloquently enunciated a strong endorsement of the informed _scientific_ consensus on whether the global warming we are experiencing is likely exacerbated by human-generated "greenhouse gases." That said, Rich's treatment will thrill the converted, befuddle those on the fence, and enrage and frustrate folks who rail against analysis and conclusions which use tools they can not understand or appreciate. Repeat: "understand or appreciate." In a nutshell, that is the reason I find these exchanges so frustrating. Like Rich, I have an extensive scientific background, in organic chemistry (not earth science, although I have followed closely the global warming debate from about 1975 or so). In addition, I taught introductory chemistry for science majors and for non-science majors for some 30 years, most of it in a community college. It is the latter which confronted me with the very deep, intrinsic mistrust and denial many, many of us connect with scientific analyses whose results we do not like. The root cause is that we feel threatened by stuff like that. Why? Because challenging it demands mastery of thinking and tools akin to witchcraft (partial differential equations ... certainly these parched stepchildren of the sphere of Leibnitz, Newton, and Euler border on mysticism!) ... or tools which are at least indistinguishable from witchcraft by folks who can not appreciate them or work with them ... we have a GInorMOUS gap between the science of climate predictions, its practitioners, and the rest of us. In short, the convincing evidence and analysis is the very stuff which p*sses off the public and turns them into "deniers". Sadly, we will all have to deal with the consequences of global warming, a process accelerated by denial. When the tide begins to rise ever higher and higher, forcing rich folks out of their low-lying mansions on Balboa Island in Newport, CA, they will buy it. But, it will be too late. The ice caps will be significantly melted, raising sea level and inundating precious, productive agricultural zones, leading to famine in countries now barely able to produce the food needed by their existing populations. It won't be good here, either, folks, as areas which have been blessed with the rainfall needed to grow crops get "shifted" by global climate change into regimes farmers can not use to raise the crops they are familiar with. Now, I truly am done. -- Dave Kruger Astoria, OR *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Integrate cabin d cabin Answer (natural) Log Cabin JP >As an engineer I can still do partial differential equations... providing >that we agree that the definition of "partial" should be "about halfway >through" a differential equation. After that my eyes glaze over. > >PS: Now admit it... how many advanced mathematics jokes have you heard? >*************************************************************************** *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
On Dec 18, 2008, at 10:02 AM, Joe P. wrote: > Integrate cabin d cabin > > Answer (natural) Log Cabin > > JP > >> >> PS: Now admit it... how many (funny) advanced mathematics jokes >> have you heard? >> ********************************************************************* >> ****** > Fixed that for you. Now the physicists, they are the crack ups. Ask them to tell you about the time they forgot to figure in the counter swing of the building and the hilarity that ensued in the TA lounge... Jim who is busy avoiding cleaning the basement. *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Integrate (1/cabin) d cabin get (natural) log cabin BRC Quoting "Joe P." <jpylka_at_earthlink.net>: > Integrate cabin d cabin > > Answer (natural) Log Cabin > > JP > >> As an engineer I can still do partial differential equations... providing >> that we agree that the definition of "partial" should be "about halfway >> through" a differential equation. After that my eyes glaze over. >> >> PS: Now admit it... how many advanced mathematics jokes have you heard? *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Hi All, Nothing like Christmas to bring out mental wandering. Sometimes I wonder if we are not a parasitic species and it is our role in the great scheme of things to alter the global landscape and environment to make way for a different species as yet undefined. Like a virus we may kill the host (by kill I mean make it useless to our species) but make it suitable for some other species. We haven't been here long but we have been effective at making changes. I suppose one could argue that, because we think we should expect something else but one could also argue that, because we think we are more effective at what we are doing. Maybe I am spending too staring out the window at the ocean. Cheers John Winters *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
John Winters wrote: > Hi All, > > Nothing like Christmas to bring out mental wandering. I would think Professor Inverbon might have some erudition to deliver on the warming of the globe, although perhaps it would focus on the globe of a brandy snifter! [grin] -- Dave Kruger Astoria, OR *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Dave Kruger wrote: > John Winters wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> Nothing like Christmas to bring out mental wandering. > > > I would think Professor Inverbon might have some erudition to deliver > on the warming of the globe, although perhaps it would focus on the > globe of a brandy snifter! [grin] I don't know if this is a reprieve or a call to stock the brandy shelf/shelves, but it's headed Professor Inverbon's way (I thought Canada was always white at Christmas).... Will Canada see its first white Christmas since '71? http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081221/winter_storm_081221/20081221?hub=CTVNewsAt11 Take heart, there may be hope.... Environment Canada senior climatologist David Phillips told CTV Newsnet "Already in many places in eastern Canada, we're ahead of the record from last year," he said. "But, you know, we have a long, long way to go. I'm thinking that, hey, there's not enough left in nature to give us another one of those years." Glad I'm in So CA - ok, so it's snowing and raining here, too (*_at_*!!X), but we've got Palm trees with surf! :-p Cheers and salud. Jackie *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Professor Inverbon / John Winters retired and moved north to Canada. What's in a name, eh? Brad Quoting Jackie Myers <jackie_at_muddypuppies.com>: > Dave Kruger wrote: > >> John Winters wrote: >> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> Nothing like Christmas to bring out mental wandering. *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
John Winters wrote: >>>>>>>>.......Sometimes I wonder if we are not a parasitic species and it is our role in the great scheme of things to alter the global landscape and environment to make way for a different species as yet undefined. Like a virus we may kill the host (by kill I mean make it useless to our species) but make it suitable for some other species..........<<<<<<<<<<<< John, the above reminded me of some construction site fence "art" I saw back in 1969 or 1970. Men had recently landed on the moon. I was enjoying the art on the 4 by 8 plywood panels that made the fence around the construction site. I'll never forget the one that was my favorite. It was a moonscape with a lunar-lander type object descending on to it. This lunar-lander looked like the then newly discovered shape of a virus. Since all the life we know about could be considered parasitic on the earth, maybe the earth has just developed a fever to rid itself of us. George Carlin isn't worried about mother earth, he figures she will shake us off like a bad case of fleas. Craig Jungers wrote: >>>>>...So I figure, what the heck. Let's try to get to zero impact. That way therewon't be any debate. If it gets warmer then it's entirely natural. If itgets colder then so-be-it......<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Considering that humans are natural and that all we do is therefore also "natural" then even if global warming is all our fault, and the earth burns to a cinder because of us, it is still a natural ocurance. Good luck trying for zero impact though. The fundemented, like James Watt (Reagan's first Interior secretary), want the world to end as quickly as possible, and if even if they are not actively trying to help speed up the process they believe it will happen soon anyway so why should they worry about the environment or their children's future (other than to make sure they are equipped get to heaven). They breed faster than environmentalists do too. I just read that Utah is America's fastest growing state. Unlike most of the runner-ups they didn't do it through immigration. When I was a substitute postman all the regulars were required to have a nuclear disaster plan in their official notebook. My favorite was: "Run to the top of the nearest hill and watch the fireball". Chuck Sutherland wrote:>>>>>>>>......Do you believe we (the World) will run out of sufficient oil to run our lives. What will happen when China and India, never mind the rest of the world, catch up to us in oil useage?..........<<<<<<<<<<< Maybe when we get all the fuel burned up the earth's fever will finally break. It looks like the worldwide depression we are sinking into will slow down the burning some for awhile though. I no longer drive to work. It looks like many more will be joining me soon. I haven't driven at all for over a week now. Of course, "Seattle cooling" has had something to do with that. I used to think my family was cheap. Now I say we were just green before it became fashionable. *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 06:16:41AM -0800, Mike Euritt wrote: > A prius for one great example, is a harder hit on the enviornment > and your wallet than the hated Hummer. This is, of course, pure garbage -- the result of a spurious "study" by a *marketing* company and not the conclusion of an actual scientific endeavor. Actual scientific studies done by actual scientists at MIT, Argonne and CMU trash this largely-fabricated nonsense. ****************** I was prepared to let this one die. After a previous poster mentioned that the Prius/Humvee was a myth, I went online looking for proof either way. I clearly do not know the truth of the Humvee/Prius matter, but the company who wrote the article in question responds to the debunk: http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/Response2%20Slate%20March%202008 .pdf to get it going, an excerpt: 1. We never asked anyone to duplicate the study. It stands on its own. We are more than happy to provide data points to assist another research organization perform its own study. No such requests have been received by us. ************************************** So no one who has debunked his article has done the research he has done to write the article, at least they've not asked for his data points. So, how can the debunks be valid since they don't know what he used to come to his conclusions. I consistently find the use of the word "discredited" is left speak for covering the ears and screaming loudly "I don't want to hear what you are saying." I've been suckered in the past with "science supported" doom and gloom, most recently Y2K, but remember clearly predictions of dead oceans in the 80's accompanied by catastrophic ocean rising, repeated in the 90's, global cooling of the 60's, Hole in the Ozone. Believe if you like, but the record of the doomsday prophets being correct is 0. I look at the weather map and see lots of cold everywhere, much of it erlier than normal and colder than normal. Which is, of course, absolute proof of GW... DailyKos as science? Give me a break, Wouldn't expect to find science on Redstate either. now back to kayaking *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 09:18:31AM -0800, Mike Euritt quotes: > 1. We never asked anyone to duplicate the study. Which is as far as you need to go. One of the first things that real scientists do is publish their research in peer-reviewed journals so that others can duplicate the work. Most good scientists will actually try to have colleagues in the field replicate their work BEFORE publication, especially if they have reason to be skeptical about their own results. Sometimes this results in confirmation; sometimes this results in the uncovering of experimental errors that lead in turn to reconsideration of the underlying hypothesis that gave rise to the experiment in the first place. It is considered essential to the peer review process that all work be replicable -- and work which can't be, or hasn't been, is rightly viewed with considerable skepticism. So keep firmly in mind that this is a *marketing* company, which was paid to fabricate the results that its client wanted. (And if you take the time to read the rather obviously superior work done by the scientists and given the in URLs I furnished, you'll see that the marketers didn't even do a very good job making things up. One would think that people who are paid to lie professionally would be somewhat better at it.) ---Rsk p.s. Incidentally, I read DailyKos *and* RedState, among many others. But I also evaluate articles in my fields -- science, mathematics, engineering, computing -- independently, which I think I'm qualified to do based on multiple degrees and decades of experience. I care far less about which web site I find material on, and far more about its intrinsic merits or lack thereof. Besides, it's usually not that difficult -- in the case of work published in refereed journals -- to work backwards to the original source material and read *that*, thus bypassing the political/economic/social/etc. filters imposed by commentators. As some useful starting points, let me suggest: http://www.aip.org/ http://arxiv.org/ http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/ http://www.badscience.net/ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/ http://www.eurekalert.org/ http://hubblesite.org/ http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/ http://www.coe.berkeley.edu/labnotes/ http://scienceblogs.com/moleculeoftheday/ http://www.nature.com/ http://www.newscientist.com/ http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/ http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/ http://planetary.org/blog http://www.plos.org/ http://richarddawkins.net/ http://www.sciencemag.org/ http://www.sciencedaily.com/ http://sciencematters.berkeley.edu/index.php http://scienceweek.com/ http://scienceblogs.com/ http://www.sciam.com/ http://www.seedmagazine.com/ http://www.skeptic.com/ http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/ http://www.technologyreview.com/ http://www.longnow.org/ *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
"I look around me and see cold on the weather map..." Why limit specious comparison anecdotes to car models when global weather patterns and geologic historical records are visible from the chair on my back yard deck? Why not compare the purchase and average annual operation of a Prius to that of a dishwasher, or a digital photographic darkroom, or a Lear Jet, or a suburban, strip mall StarBucks? It's a pointless piece of PowerPoint sophistry. But why limit global climate crisis to ad hominem attacks, tu quoque one-liners, and the pathetic propositional logic of singular personal 'observation'? I'm sure 45 seconds and a Google Search will allow me to prove the Holocaust never took place, the U.S. never landed on the moon, and we're not draining the Ogallala Aquifer dry by subsidizing Kansas 'wheat farmers' to grow yellow dent corn so that we can all enjoy our 99 cent Happy Meal Cheese Burgers. Wait, I'll need another 45 seconds to first line my hat with tin foil..... The 'planet' is not in danger of demise. The ability of the planet to sustain critical mass of certain life forms, including human beings, is in direct doubt and the subject of serious, juried-by-peers, scientific inquiry. The recent thread involving proliferation of plastics (and not JUST in shopping bags) is sad commentary on the state of discourse in this and other forums. Plastics degrade. The Pacific Gyre is now 'home' to a mass of discarded plastic refuse so large it provides ample subject of serious scientific inquiry. The sea turtle and other creatures do indeed die or become injured by these items. But that's anthropomorphic pathos by the time it becomes 'news'. The steady degrading of plastics enters the oceanic ecosystem and so becomes part of our food chain. So enjoy those mutagens, carcinogens, and pathogens with every swallow while you read about the sea turtle and remark how that grocery sack is just a fact of modern life and death. Natural systems don't give a rat's ass if you're left, right, in the middle or undecided. Weather isn't personal. It just is and it has zero investment in our sustained existence as a species. On the other hand, I would argue that humans do have a vested interest in our sustainability as a species. Humans may 'hunt' tornados...but the reverse is impossible and suggests the sort of ego capable of sustaining only Stephan Segal.... But human endeavor does influence the closed system that is our planetary ecosystem. And the preponderance of serious, juried, peer-reviewed, and rigorous scientific inquiry does effectively and conclusively argue that human activity has influenced a measurable rise in climate temperatures; that this influence appears to be compounding at an exponential rate; and that present social, geo-political, and economic models map a future trajectory that is bleak, if direct intervention is not undertaken to slow, halt, or reverse these trends. Paul Ehrlich argued that population growth was a 'bomb'...then 'technology' 'fixed' that problem by finding ways to provide ample protein sources to sustain larger demands upon food sources. And so Ehrlich's argument was subsequently dismissed. But what people did not consider was what would happen when that same expanding population began to 'consume' more than protein. You know, like, infrastructure and appliances and life-style consumables. If you're going to deny the present global climate crisis, please do me the favor of reading Stephen Johnson's wonderful book, The Ghost Map. It's about a famous public health debate that took place during one of Victorian London's cholera outbreaks. And the salient point here is that the conventional wisdom of the Miasmatists, that blamed all disease on smell and the conditions that created ill-odors, embellished their positions of advocacy and authority on sensate observation raised to moralistic reasoning. And in their 'wisdom', they turned the entire Thames into one large cesspool. It was the scientific inquiry of Snow and others that was subversive and persistent. And correct. -Will *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 9:18 AM, Mike Euritt <sixteenfeet_at_sbcglobal.net>wrote: > > 1. We never asked anyone to duplicate the > study. It stands on its own. We are more > than happy to provide data points to > assist another research organization perform its > own study. No such requests > have been received by us. I just read their original "study", entitled "Dust to Dust". In their debunk they mention that they don't find people who say things like "I don't know where to start" very credible. So I have to start this by saying, "I don't know where to start". So I'll just pick a place. This might take a few posts. While they may have been happy to provide "data points" there are at least two good reasons why no one asked for them. The first reason is because their data points were useless without their methodology. You cannot repeat an experiment without knowing what the experiment was and CNWMR refuses to release their methodology on the grounds that they are a "for profit" company and it's proprietary. So it's like providing a series of numbers: Kia Optima, 25, 12, 19500; Kia Sorento, 32,14,25200, etc. Why would we bother to ask for those? And, anyway, if all those "data points" aren't in those pages of spreadsheets I'll eat my hat. The second reason no one asked was because the "study" was flawed in the most basic way. You've no doubt heard people talk about computers by saying "GIGO". This means "garbage in, garbage out and it refers to the fact that computers - and spreadsheets in particular - are susceptable to false assumptions and that those false assumptions turn any real data into garbage. This "study" is crammed to the brim with assumptions which would be virtually impossible to prove. It's taking statistical analysis to the most absurd level possible. > > So no one > who has debunked his article has done the research he has done to write the > article, at least they've not asked for his data points. So, how can the > debunks be valid since they don't know what he used to come to his > conclusions. This is the problem with trying to explain science to people who have grown up listening to scientists use jargon on television. Everyone thinks they understand them. Virtually no one who isn't a scientist or engineer really does. If you've ever tried to turn up the "pressure" on your hose to water more of your lawn then you fall into that group. I consistently find the use of the word "discredited" is left > speak for covering the ears and screaming loudly "I don't want to hear what > you are saying." Funny, but that's what we think *you* are saying. Just goes to show ya. The GIGO in the Prius/Hummer "study" is their original assumptions about the life span of the many vehicles they included. This number forms the basis of every "data point" they are so willing to share. Of course, it's right there in the study so why bother to ask? Now, you'd think that any "study" labeled "Dust to Dust" would start with the mining of the ore and end with the vehicle turning into... well... dust. You'd be wrong in this case. They assigned every vehicle a lifespan in miles. The problem with this is that if that assumption is wrong; if the total miles of "useful life" of the vehicles they've assigned to them is wrong, then their entire study is wrong because every single piece of information they present in their "study" is based on the assumption of how many miles a vehicle will last during its lifetime. How do we know that these assumptions are correct? Well, cuz they tell us they are but the won't tell us why they know. So how can we disprove them? This is not the only assumption they make. No, indeed. They also have a "data point" for how much money an owner will spend on maintenance over the "lifetime" of every vehicle. And more assumptions for how much fuel it will consume, how many tires it will go through, and.... well you get the idea. It just so happens that I have had 5 vehicles over the past decade that were listed in the "study". For each and every one of them the "data points" were wrong. They had the "lifetime" wrong, the "maintenance" amount wrong, the fuel mileage not just wrong but not even close - and I'm not talking EPA fuel mileages here... I'm talking about the fuel consumption they claim to have that surpasses that of the EPA. And, once again, they won't tell us why they know these are correct. Here are some specifics: They claim the Hummer H1 has an "average estimated lifetime" of 379,000 miles; the Hummer H2 has 197,000 and the Toyota Prius has only got 109,000 miles of life. Also according to them my Kia Optima is about to die because I have 148,000 miles on a car that will live only 161,000. Both of the Isuzu Troopers we've owned died tragically well before their estimated useful life of 209,000 miles. Go through the "study" and find cars you know about and see how they compare.. They also claim that Prius cars come equipped with tires that only go 25% as far as tires on other vehicles and then assume that the owner will only buy the same crappy tires over and over again. This, not surprisingly, skews the maintenance costs of a Prius up to $22,000 over the life (109,000 miles) of the vehicle. My Kia Optima has cost me only about $1,000 and it's almost to the end of its estimated (by them) life. But they claim it should cost me $9,900. Where does this figure come from? They won't tell us. It's proprietary. The Hummer H2 will only cost $16,000 in maintenance but remember that this number is for the "life" of the vehicle which is 379,000 miles. That's only $1.99 a mile. Pretty cheap on a per mile basis. But the Prius, on the other hand, will cost $22,000 for only 109,000 miles... that's a whopping $4.95 per mile just in maintenance costs. I'm thinking that those numbers might be a little off. I could go on, but what's the point? If you've read the "study" (and I'm guessing you haven't because almost no one could get through what must have been 400 pages of spreadsheets) you'll understand. If you've only read media reports about the study then you'll believe whatever they've told you. In essence, and speaking as an engineer, this "study" is worthless. It's GIGO taken to an exponential level. If you believe this... then I have a bridge in New York I'll sell to you, cheap. Craig Jungers Moses Lake, WA *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 9:18 AM, Mike Euritt <sixteenfeet_at_sbcglobal.net>wrote: > > I've been suckered in the past with "science supported" > doom and gloom, most recently Y2K, but remember clearly predictions of dead > oceans in the 80's accompanied by catastrophic ocean rising, repeated in > the > 90's, global cooling of the 60's, Hole in the Ozone. Believe if you like, > but > the record of the doomsday prophets being correct is 0. I look at the > weather > map and see lots of cold everywhere, much of it erlier than normal and > colder > than normal. Which is, of course, absolute proof of GW... > Ok... now let's deal with this because I think your thoughts reflect the thinking of a lot of people. We'll take Y2K first because ... uh... you mentioned it first I guess. And also because I happen to be in the ranks of people who work with computers. Oh, wait. Everyone works with computers. Jeez... I keep forgetting that. First, a little reminder of what Y2K was all about. Back in the old days of computers there were a lot of flat-file databases written in a computer language called COBOL. This was so long ago that the year 2000 was comfortably far off in the future and, like thousands of high school teachers who put "19_ _" for the date on mimeographed test papers, computer programmers, to save memory space, assumed every date would be prefixed by the number "19". Of course, when the clock struck midnight on December 31st, 1999 this would no longer be true. Thus the year 2001 would be "01" and all these databases would crash. As it happens, this assumption was pretty much true. Databases with only two places in the year field would probably have problems. So there was a huge scramble to patch them and tons of retired Cobol programmers who had been told they were useless drags on society were called back to duty to work on it. The best part was that they got paid well for it and they no longer had to wear ties. :) The media who are mostly (as far as I can figure out) art history majors with a minor in Kwakiutl basket weaving). got wind of this and assumed that it meant that every computer would crash and the Internet (and thus the world) would come to an end. Too bad that routers, which make up the backbone of the Internet, don't much care what the date is. They may be terribly concerned about the hours and minutes but the year..... not so much. But Cisco - which runs the Internet - patched them anyway. Were there computers that had problems with the Y2K bug? Sure... lots of them. But none you noticed. The ones that mattered got patched up and put back on line. Just wait until 2030 when the Unix Y2K bug hits. Then you'll be sorry. :) Craig Jungers Moses Lake, WA PS: Yet another post to cover the ozone hole and climate versus weather and then, we all hope, stick a fork in me... I'll be done. *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 9:18 AM, Mike Euritt <sixteenfeet_at_sbcglobal.net>wrote: > > I've been suckered in the past with "science supported" > doom and gloom, most recently Y2K, but remember clearly predictions of dead > oceans in the 80's accompanied by catastrophic ocean rising, repeated in > the > 90's, global cooling of the 60's, Hole in the Ozone. Believe if you like, > but > the record of the doomsday prophets being correct is 0. I look at the > weather > map and see lots of cold everywhere, much of it erlier than normal and > colder > than normal. Which is, of course, absolute proof of GW... > Ok.... let's ignore the dead oceans (this was Jacque Cousteau, after all) and the global cooling and cut right into the Hole in the Ozone layer. This is actually an example of how scientists saved the world. I'm pretty sure. At any rate, let's recap. Someone discovered that the Ozone Layer (which stops most UV radiation from the sun from killing all ife on the earth) had a hole in it.Luckily enough it was over places that didn't much matter; like Australia, New Zealand and Antarctica, so we had lots of time to figure out what the heck was going on before the hole spread to the important bits. It turned out that the hole was caused by chemical reactions (Kruger can probably explain this in terms no one else can understand) triggered by the use of a type of chemicals called "chloroflourocarbons" which was conveniently translated into CFCs for the rest of us. It turned out that CFCs were in lots of useful things like refrigerators, air conditioners and heat pumps, cleaning agents (we thought they were non-reactive.... the joke was on us) and every single spray can of whatever needed to be sprayed out. Well we stopped using CFCs. You probably didn't even notice. As it happens, CFCs were really not that critical and a whole 'nother industry was born. If you go to the auto parts store to recharge your air conditioner now you get a coolant that is not a CFC but a substitute. And the ozone hole closed up. Now we can go back to sending the undesirables of society back to those places without fear of litigation for undue meany-ness. And the world was saved. Oh ya... cold weather and Global Warming..... ok... one more post. Craig Jungers Moses Lake, WA *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 9:18 AM, Mike Euritt <sixteenfeet_at_sbcglobal.net>wrote: > > I've been suckered in the past with "science supported" > doom and gloom, most recently Y2K, but remember clearly predictions of dead > oceans in the 80's accompanied by catastrophic ocean rising, repeated in > the > 90's, global cooling of the 60's, Hole in the Ozone. Believe if you like, > but > the record of the doomsday prophets being correct is 0. I look at the > weather > map and see lots of cold everywhere, much of it erlier than normal and > colder > than normal. Which is, of course, absolute proof of GW... > > For some strange reason many people think scientists are not very bright. This actually flies in the face of the evidence, given that I'm typing on a device invented by scientists and using a medium invented by scientists to transmit it to you who will read it on.... well you get the idea. Maybe we just tend to think that the things that are here are "proven" and the rest of the stuff scientists prattle on about are only theories. I have a shock for you, there is really very little "proof" about how anything works; it's almost all theory. Yet we manage to figure out enough to make computers, airplanes, and televisions sets. Even the word "proof" itself is not used much in science. And when it is used it's used in a very precisely controlled way. Scientists talk a lot about "evidence" but about proof.... well, not so much. So we can't "prove" that there are "holes" in a substrate of silicon that "move" and that this facilitates the travel of "electrons" so that current "flows" and your computer turns on. Those are all, believe it or not, unproven. Just a theory. But the theory works so well... it's been refined so often... that we can actually make things work using it. Let's jump from one thing you can't see but can feel and experience (electricity) to another thing you can't see but you can experience: Weather. Today at my house the temperature was 26F when I got up and then it warmed up to about 37F causing a lot of snow to melt and become slushy. This is weather. The earth tends to be colder in winter and warmer in summer where I live. Nothing much is going to change that. What will change is how much colder or warmer it will get over a period of years. That's "climate". A few years back some scientists were examining ice cores in Greenland that go back a long time. I'm pretty old but these were even older than me. These were old enough to indicate several different climate changes. And they discovered that when the climate changes it undergoes a series of abrupt fluctuations between hotter and colder in very short time periods. They called it "weather chatter"; like when your teeth chatter in the cold. It's almost like the climate can't make up its mind whether to make things warmer or colder so it does both in very short time bursts. One day it will be 24F and the next day 64F. Does any of this sound familiar to you? When it gets very cold in Chicago on Thursday and then warm enough to throw frisbies for the dog in the park on Saturday that is not the way things used to work. That sounds to me very much like weather chatter. Oh... one other thing those guys in Greenland learned. It gets a lot worse. I mean a LOT worse. And a lot faster. Scientists don't "believe" in climate change in the same way that someone might "believe" in God. The belief is tempered by the understanding that there could be some new bits of evidence that would change things. To non-scientists, schooled in the way things ought to be, this is a weakness. After all, how can you "believe" in something that can change tomorrow? But to scientists it's a huge strength. In fact, this is the very underpinning of science itself. To misunderstand this is to misunderstand the entire thing. So you don't have to "believe" in global warming if you think that a cold winter "proves" that it's wrong. Science won't much care. Like someone said here today, the climate doesn't give a fig newton whether we live or die... but we better pay attention. Craig Jungers Moses Lake, WA *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Craig has been working very hard here, trying to convince folks that science is a good tool to use for helping to decide public policy, at least in areas where science has evidence and conclusions that politicians (and the public) might heed. He and I have corresponded back channel on this, and he remains convinced that expostulations here will convince someone (anyone??) of a point of view about "global warming" different from what they already hold dear to their hearts. I'm not so sure about that. I spent over 30 years inculcating an appreciation of the benefits and limits of scientific analysis, as part of instruction in introductory chemistry classes at the college level. Looking back, and reflecting on what my students later showed for my efforts, I am very much less than sanguine about the effectiveness of debates such as the one occurring here. In my experience, until a person has had several "dope slap" reality slams illustrating that an idea they believe in is dead wrong, dead wrong, they will not let go of that idea. Over time, if a person has this happen enough times, they get pretty good at not fooling themselves ... and are able to detect "crap" when it is passed off as fact or analysis by others. The value of listening to scientists on things like global warming is that the culture and training of scientists ensures that they have ample chance to develop very good crap detectors. (Guys like Al Gore ... not so much! But, I think the thrust of what Gore promotes is more or less correct, if you avoid all the cow patties he lays around for a listener to step in!) I think the thrust of Craig's elocutions is perhaps this: place your trust in folks with solid training in an area if you have none in that area; look askance at all others who are not credentialed or willing to submit their data and analysis to scientific scrutiny. Here is a comparison: Few of us would attempt brain surgery on someone else without training; none of us would dial up "brain surgery" on the internet and use the information in the first 10 sites Google brings up to pop a skull and dig right in. Yet, many of us are content to cherry pick facts and analyses off a Google search to fit a point of view we like or embrace in a huge, difficult arena such as climate change. That is seriously wrong. In fact, it is probably a form of neurotic behavior. We do not need that kind of "debate" on a serious issue like global warming. -- Dave Kruger Astoria, OR *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
I have a theory based on observation here and on several other forums I lurk in. I think a lot of people - especially in the Northern Hemisphere - are having an early form of cabin fever. That 'fever' is causing temperatures to rise early on in the season. We still have a lot of winter in front of us. As soon as my new Level Six mitts arrive I am definitely going to go kayaking. Paul Montgomery paul_at_paddleandoar.com http://paddleandoar.com *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Mike Euritt wrote: [Dave wrote:] > Craig has been working very hard here, trying to convince folks that > science is a good tool to use for helping to decide public policy, at least > in areas where science has evidence and conclusions that politicians (and > the public) might heed. > Hi Dave, in the interest of friendly discussion > > /I do not, and am unlikely to believe until what is reported makes > simple sense. [snip] Mike, You are good to offer up a countering point of view on this; in fact arguments countering the idea that GW is a reality are the sort of thing which has been going on in serious climatological circles for at least 35 years I know of. Early on, there was absolutely no consensus or agreement amongst knowledgeable, well-trained people on whether global warming was real or not, let alone the proposition that the rise in so-called greenhouse gases from human activities was a significant cause of GW. That is no longer true. The debate amongst climatologists quickly went past what you or I might label "simple sense" because of the complexity of the problem. I do not think any of us who are untrained in the field are going to comprehend how good the models are, or their limits. That is why I suspect many of us have been so reluctant to jump on this bandwagon. Longtime Paddlewisers may recall some acrimonious exchanges between Kevin (last name is gone from my memory) and me ... he taking the position GW was real, and me that it was not. That was about 5-7 years ago, IIRC. The system-wide changes in surface seawater changes, especially in the Arctic, as well as a growing consensus amongst climatologists, have convinced me that Kevin was right and I was wrong. I do not listen to Gore on this. Gore is a well-meaning man but has no credentials or training in this area. He is not a leader to the scientific community, simply a politician making hay on it. When hardshelled curmudgeons (yeah, that's me) with long experience observing the rise and fall of scientific "fads" change their minds on something like this, it really is time to pay attention. We have a problem. We need to take measured, reasonable steps to deal with it. -- Dave Kruger Astoria, OR *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Gee Guys...I'm from the left coast and having a difficult time connecting all these recent posts to paddling and the Paddlewise net.Help me connect the dots; Hummers, Winter, Prius, Climate Change, kayak, paddling, Paddlewise...Anyway i'm off tomorrow for a hike...and you?Well wishes of the season and safe paddling.j on the left coast of California *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
I think Dave and Craig make some excellent points. Another piece of evidence of climate change is that sea level has risen about 8" in the last 100 years. Since the amount of water on Earth hasn't changed since the planet was formed, how can you explain that. Steve Holtzman Sent from my Wireless Crackberry er..... BlackBerry *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
PLEASE, OH PLEASE !! Let's not get into a thread on the subject of global warming here on Paddlewise. Yes, there is a relationship to water sports in general, but let's keep Paddlewise focused on topics more directly related to our boats, techniques, gear, and experiences, etc. than on such heated and debatable issues. Ol' Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rich Kulawiec" <rsk_at_rockandwater.net> Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] Winter in a time of Climate Change > On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 06:16:41AM -0800, Mike Euritt wrote: >> A prius for one great example, is a harder hit on the enviornment >> and your wallet than the hated Hummer. *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
> [Dave wrote:] ............. > arguments countering the idea that GW is a reality are the sort of thing > which has been going on in serious climatological circles for at least 35 > years I know of. Early on, there was absolutely no consensus or agreement > amongst knowledgeable, well-trained people on whether global warming was > real or not, let alone the proposition that the rise in so-called > greenhouse gases from human activities was a significant cause of GW. That > is no longer true. > > The debate amongst climatologists quickly went past what you or I might > label "simple sense" because of the complexity of the problem. I do not > think any of us who are untrained in the field are going to comprehend how > good the models are, or their limits. Models? I didn't follow this discussion closely (sorry), same as numerous recent models posted on the web since there is already enough facts to convince me personally in the reality of GW. Incidentally, there was documentary aired yesterday on my "box" - An Inconvenient Ttruth, so I watched it, as New Year holidays, like other people noted, become increasingly boring as years go by ;-)... Oscar prize film, but this in itself impressed me less than facts - statistics - going back thousands of years. Simple graphs, easy to understand for anybody with grade 12 education - Ice Age cycles in Europe, population tripled in the last 60 years, CO2 emissions - both per capita in different countries and per each country (China is #2, but guess who is #1), major contributing factors (not only notorious cars of "our" world, but also burning forests of the third world - this is how they clear land for farming and construction. There is no need to apply models - we already have enough historical data to see the trend. Applying models for plotting probable scenarios (and the film does this) only makes it more scary. If the narrator itself is boring , just skip him, check the graphs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XMn_Ry3z6M *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Ah, but which one has a bigger footprint - a Hummer or a Great White Shark? :-) DL > PLEASE, OH PLEASE !! > > Let's not get into a thread on the subject of global warming here on > Paddlewise. Yes, there is a relationship to water sports in general, > but let's keep Paddlewise focused on subjects more directly related to our > boats, techniques, gear, and experiences, etc. than on such heated and > debatable issues. > > Ol' Dave *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:33:50 PDT