If nothing else, it gives us skeptics a chuckle! http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/24/hiding-evidence-of-global-coo ling/ *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
While I can understand the "ah-ha" nature of finding that some scientists have been reluctant to release some data, I can also understand how the scientists feel. Namely, under attack and under close scrutiny lest they make a slip that gets publicized out of all proportion. This has happened to biologists talking about evolution as well. Statements get taken out of context and become "evidence" for a world-wide cover-up. However I'm still not convinced of any motive for such a cover-up. Certainly, not all the evidence can be conspiracy-oriented. Glaciers are obviously retreating. The ice on the lake I live on becomes frozen solid later every year and thaws earlier every yet. Ocean temperature data may be hidden or manipulated but that doesn't acount for the obvious movement of warmer-water fish into higher latitudes. And while it's certainly possible that ice thicknesses in Greenland and Antarctica can be hidden or secretly enhanced, the split of huge ice shelves belies any world-wide coverup of global cooling instead of warming. It's like cigarettes. In the 1950s the real hidden evidence and skewed data was among the corporations that had a monetary stake in the status quo. The scientists working for those corporations knew - but were forced to keep secret - the data showing how deadly a lifetime of using tobacco products could be. Even so, we may not have known just how bad tobacco was for us, but we certainly knew it wasn't "good" for us. And the first thing most coaches did was make student athletes quit smoking so they must've known too. "Obvious" evidence finally prevailed but there were a number of years where people who objected to having co-workers blow smoke in their face were derided. So on the basis of "follow the money" I still think most of the made-up data, disinformation, and propaganda is coming from companies that stand to lose money if the world moves to stop human influences on global warming. Like cigarettes, we may not know exactly what we're doing... but it's pretty obvious that car exhaust and all the rest can't possibly be "good" for us. And Exxon just might find that threatening. So what obvious economic advantage would the scientists have to skew data in favor of human-caused global warming? Are the solar panel and wind-power corporations behind it all and using their vast wealth to move us away from petro-chemicals? Do the huge resources of the electric car industry provide the money to pay off the scientists? Fortunately for me, global warming kicked in today and we had 50F temps with sunshine and instead of the 6-inches of solid ice I would have had 10 years ago I launched the Mariner II and went for a 4-mile paddle. :) Couple of photos on my blog, www.nwkayaking.net. Craig Jungers Moses Lake, WA www.nwkayaking.net On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Mark Sanders <marksanders_at_sandmarks.net>wrote: > If nothing else, it gives us skeptics a chuckle! > > > http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/24/hiding-evidence-of-global-coo > ling/<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/24/hiding-evidence-of-global-coo%0Aling/> *************************************************************************** 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: I would not be unduly concerned until barracuda, pompano, tarpon, and triggerfish start showing up around your dock. Brad Quoting Craig Jungers <crjungers_at_gmail.com>: > While I can understand the "ah-ha" nature of finding that some scientists > have been reluctant to release some data, I can also understand how the > scientists feel. Namely, under attack and under close scrutiny lest they > make a slip that gets publicized out of all proportion. This has happened to > biologists talking about evolution as well. Statements get taken out of > context and become "evidence" for a world-wide cover-up. > > However I'm still not convinced of any motive for such a cover-up. > Certainly, not all the evidence can be conspiracy-oriented. Glaciers are > obviously retreating. The ice on the lake I live on becomes frozen solid > later every year and thaws earlier every yet. Ocean temperature data may be > hidden or manipulated but that doesn't acount for the obvious movement of > warmer-water fish into higher latitudes. And while it's certainly possible > that ice thicknesses in Greenland and Antarctica can be hidden or secretly > enhanced, the split of huge ice shelves belies any world-wide coverup of > global cooling instead of warming. > > It's like cigarettes. In the 1950s the real hidden evidence and skewed data > was among the corporations that had a monetary stake in the status quo. The > scientists working for those corporations knew - but were forced to keep > secret - the data showing how deadly a lifetime of using tobacco products > could be. Even so, we may not have known just how bad tobacco was for us, > but we certainly knew it wasn't "good" for us. And the first thing most > coaches did was make student athletes quit smoking so they must've known > too. "Obvious" evidence finally prevailed but there were a number of years > where people who objected to having co-workers blow smoke in their face were > derided. > > So on the basis of "follow the money" I still think most of the made-up > data, disinformation, and propaganda is coming from companies that stand to > lose money if the world moves to stop human influences on global warming. > Like cigarettes, we may not know exactly what we're doing... but it's pretty > obvious that car exhaust and all the rest can't possibly be "good" for us. > And Exxon just might find that threatening. > > So what obvious economic advantage would the scientists have to skew data in > favor of human-caused global warming? Are the solar panel and wind-power > corporations behind it all and using their vast wealth to move us away from > petro-chemicals? Do the huge resources of the electric car industry provide > the money to pay off the scientists? > > Fortunately for me, global warming kicked in today and we had 50F temps with > sunshine and instead of the 6-inches of solid ice I would have had 10 years > ago I launched the Mariner II and went for a 4-mile paddle. :) Couple of > photos on my blog, www.nwkayaking.net. > > > Craig Jungers > Moses Lake, WA > www.nwkayaking.net *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
*So what obvious economic advantage would the scientists have to skew data in * > * favor of human-caused global warming? * government money...is not neutral. Any more than corporate money is neutral. Motive? How about simply government wants a power grab. Indoctrinate the gullible populace.... lie if you prefer the blunt word... You as a guv'ment scientist are told what you are to produce and you do it or loose funding (that would be the cushy job along with assorted perks and bene's). Your very livelihood depends on getting the answer correct(desired by those giving you the money) You are bought and paid for. At least in industrial, private sector research for business, and I've got my doubts with them, if they are researching, say plastic, which also comes from oil, whether it is petro oil or bio-oil, they have to produce the document and have reproducible results. For our beloved global warming scam artists, well, they just destroy the evidence that doesn't fit, refuse to release the raw data, even saying "I've spent X years gathering it, I am not going to release it to you so you can prove me wrong" yes its paraphrased, but the intent is correct. Pretty sad really > *Are the solar panel and wind-power corporations behind it all and using > their vast wealth to move us away from > petro-chemicals? Do the huge resources of the electric car industry provide > the money to pay off the scientists?* > Not sure what this is supposed to mean, but it sure isn't relevant. To date, none of these corporations, or any corporation outside of the complicit old media, are involved in this at all. I've no doubt they have used GW for marketing purposes (see below) but I doubt they have any number that the rest of us don't have and don't expect that they have helped buy the desired result. They have a product to sell, if it doesn't generate electricity, they don't sell product and they don't eat.. Global Warming may be kicking in in your tiny sampling of Moses Lake, but San Francisco is below average, as in no summer, as in two cold spells, including a day or two of frost in October. Other parts of the country report the same. The earth hasn't warmed since 1999. They even admit it in the released documents and lament that they don't understand why. now, for a bit of levity http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17102 oh sorry, this one is funny http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/24/minnesotans-global-warming-mock-climategate *************************************************************************** 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: > *So what obvious economic advantage would the scientists have to skew data > in > * > >> * favor of human-caused global warming? * > government money...is not neutral. Definitely from the aluminum foil hat school of alien prevention logic gestalt. Enough, Mike! Waaaay too many reputable scientists with different irons in the fire for GW to be some sort of arranged conspiracy. It's real. Face 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/ ***************************************************************************
Just adjusting my foil kayaking hat here... Why would a broad swath of scientists grit their teeth and wink at the AGW game ? Simple answer is that selling a sky-is-falling research grant application is made easier if you can suggest that the likely cause is human and therefore possible of 'correction'. If, by contrast, changes are caused by (let's say) solar fluctuation - then the research is a bit less worth funding, since you can do diddly squat about the cause. Research funding doesn't grow on trees and the competition for it makes Olympic run-offs look friendly. If, as well, there is a group of 'really dubious apples in the barrel' - conspiring actively to denigrate your work, to freeze you out of the very Journals you need to advance your work and your career, to replace editors that might not play the game - then there may be ways you can come to terms with your conscience as you play along with the modern form of McCarthyism. Having lived through the swing of the 'climate disaster pendulum' towards the 'next ice age' of the 70's and then the shrill claims of AG-warming, it seems inevitable that the terminology now moves towards the more widely useful 'Climate Change'. After all, fudging the data all in one direction (cooling or warming) is much harder than simply calling attention to every once-in-a-thousand year local event and presenting it as a pattern of evidence of unprecedented climate 'variability' (still human-caused, of course). It all fits so well with the needs of our modern media - long departed from any pretence at being a professional 4th estate - and now blatantly in the entertainment game. In the absence of any journalistic ethics, the 'bad news sells papers' credo has reached its logical conclusion. Report on 'unprecedented' glacier-melt without questioning the emerging human remains, talk about Polar Bears without mentioning population sizes, shiver with dread about hurricane event stats - being careful to select the 'right' span of years. Faugh! Way too many reputable scientists who are just saying 'no'. For now, I'm with them. I've survived an engineering career by working at being 'open-minded' and I'll certainly listen to good science that CO2 is the Armageddon - I just haven't seen any yet. Best Regards Paul Hayward, Auckland, New Zealand *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
> *So what obvious economic advantage would the scientists have to skew data >> >> in favor of human-caused global warming? * >> >> >> government money...is not neutral. Any more than corporate money is >> neutral. >> Motive? How about simply government wants a power grab. Indoctrinate the >> gullible populace.... lie if you prefer the blunt word... >> > > > If it were only the US scientists who are concerned then you might possibly > have a point (although I have actually been involved in conspiracies as part > of my job description and I can assure you that it's nowhere near as easy as > you make it sound). But it's people and governments all over the world. How > would you explain that unless you think that it's a world conspiracy of > governments as well. > --------------------------------------------------------------- Cap and Trade is completely w/o justification w/o the support of GW. Cap and trade, along with all the various local..(EPA and it variants around the world) justify making law to take away our freedoms based on fraudulent data. From the car you drive to the light bulb you use. EPA has announced regulations designed to deal with the non-existant problem. Centralizing Power, be it EU or UN, is the goal. When the core numbers are fraudulent, and there is no question they are, all the subsequent data generated from them, even by innocent, legitimate researchers, is going to be wrong. No need for a far reaching conspiracy, when the foundation is bad the building will collapse. It has every appearance of beginning to implode. Even Monboit is shaken by this, and his fervent, belief is where the term Moonbat came from While I have had my doubts about the conclusion all along, I didn't think we were being outright lied to. There were questions that needed answering and no one coming forward to answer them. I couldn't imagine why. I am sorry to admit that for me, and many others, the credibility of "science" has taken a serious hit, especially science that doesn't result in something that can be held, such as my earlier example of plastics. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Taking that to things I can observe. SF Bay stunk in the 70's I couldn't imagine anyone enjoying water sports on the bay then. Now the water is clearer, no bad smell, it seems the pollution controls have worked pretty well, not to mention run off (silt) from the hydraulic mining in the Sierras from the late 1800 has apparently run out. So now we have two factions of enviornmentalists at odds with each other. Those that support the relatively recent ecosystem that depended on the silt, and those that want to restore the estuaries to what they think it was prior to the hydraulic mining. Completely different ecosystems. And an ecosystem in transition as a result of our activities not related to GW, though some have made the attempt. The stink was in part sewage, treated or not, that cities dumped in the bay along with household garbage. Since that has stopped it is interesting to note that things on the shoreline have changed. It does seem there are more shorebirds poking around in the mud, but there used to be more small crabs to be seen sunning themselves on the rip rap. A neighbor at the marina tells me that even a few years ago there would be thousands of fingerlings to be seen from the docks, but they are not here now. Maybe its the cleaner water, can mean less food which equals less populations, or maybe its the shorebirds eating them all, there are a lot of them. The birds were near extinction because of our hunting them for their feathers, in the case of the egrets, more birds, eat more fish, same argument with seals and salmon. Not hard to imagine fish populations suffering from less food and more predation, even if we aren't over fishing. This study does not need the underpinnings of GW to be worthwhile. ------------------------------------------------------- As I have previously pointed out, everything under the sun is caused by GW, yesterday it was war in Africa. for your memories http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm unfortunately, the owner hasn't updated since July 08. Take some unknown, explain how things happen, and have an open debate and I will be happy to listen. Tie it into GW and I couldn't care less. It is based on a lie.. Thanks, Paul Hayward, for a clearer explanation of how government money is tainted. Mike San Rafael observing my local conditions for 56 years, and it is getting cooler where I live. *************************************************************************** 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 and I share concerns about cap and trade, inasmuch as it does not address the fundamental problem: only by consuming less combustion-based energy can we actually reduce global production of CO2. That is a root cause of global warming by any of the generally-accepted models of climate change. Unlike Mike, I think the models are probably pretty good. There is a fundamental reason to look askance at climate models: Models of climate change can not be "tested" by manipulating environmental variables at will to see what the climate does. Geologic processes likewise are modeled using theories which can only look at what nature hands us. That is why geology and atmospheric science necessarily require "looking back" to predict what might happen in the future, and can not be tested by the usual 'hypothesis and experiment process.' Can you imagine the uproar if scientists said to the global community: "Oh, by the way, we are going to put a huge amount of acid into the oceans this month to see how changing the pH affects it"? That means climate science will always be vulnerable to attacks from a position of ignorance such as the one Mike mounts. Like Mike, I have the advantage of longevity in observation of local conditions; unlike Mike, I have lived in an area of North America where we have sensitive indicators of a rise in average temperature: glaciers. And they are uniformly melting and disappearing (with the occasional outlier). My personal experience tells me GW is real. Like Mike, I have access to media reports of the breakup of the Northern polar icepack, to the extent that there are very serious proposals to run commercial shipping across the top of North America. Like Mike, who distrusts scientists in the know, I don't need a sophisticated analysis by any atmospheric or climate scientist to convince me that there is a systemic change in conditions responsible for that. Even if there were a cabal of atmospheric scientists passing off bad data, my eyes and memory of a couple thousand years (minimum) of conditions in the Arctic tell me a huge change in global change is afoot. Sometimes I wear a tin hat, also, but not when I can see clear evidence of large changes no one can ignore. Finale: This is my last and best shot on GW; longtime Paddlewisers may recall that ten years ago I was a vociferous GW __skeptic__; events on land and sea since that time have turned me to the opposite point of view. And, though I am a scientist, I do not get any grant money from any agency. In short, I am not a member of the alleged cabal. Additionally, if it makes a difference to any one, the couple hundred colleagues I communicate with around the world in my field are pretty much about 95% convinced GW is real, and that the well-documented rise in greenhouse gases is very likely the cause. Because a great number of them work for energy companies whose business will be impacted negatively by serious efforts to reduce global production of CO2 tells me they are a skeptical audience. If they think GW is real, it probably is. I'm done on this for Paddlewise. -- 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/ ***************************************************************************
From my perspective in the Pacific NW, the biggest threat the Bay Area faces is the accelerating sea lion invasion. All these pinnapeds in one place will surely alter the local climate and cause California to list to port (or starboard). They have already taken over the docks. What will be next? The coffee houses? And then there are the Chinese mitten crabs. The Bay Area is in grave danger. BRC From: "Mike Euritt" <mike.euritt_at_gmail.com> To: "Paddlewise Paddlewise" <paddlewise_at_paddlewise.net> Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 5:23 AM > Taking that to things I can observe. SF Bay stunk in the 70's I couldn't > imagine anyone enjoying water sports on the bay then. Now the water is > clearer, no bad smell, it seems the pollution controls have worked pretty > well, not to mention run off (silt) from the hydraulic mining in the > Sierras > from the late 1800 has apparently run out. So now we have two factions of > enviornmentalists at odds with each other. Those that support the > relatively > recent ecosystem that depended on the silt, and those that want to restore > the estuaries to what they think it was prior to the hydraulic mining. > Completely different ecosystems. And an ecosystem in transition as a > result > of our activities not related to GW, though some have made the attempt. > > The stink was in part sewage, treated or not, that cities dumped in the > bay > along with household garbage. Since that has stopped it is interesting to > note that things on the shoreline have changed. It does seem there are > more > shorebirds poking around in the mud, but there used to be more small crabs > to be seen sunning themselves on the rip rap. A neighbor at the marina > tells > me that even a few years ago there would be thousands of fingerlings to be > seen from the docks, but they are not here now. Maybe its the cleaner > water, > can mean less food which equals less populations, or maybe its the > shorebirds eating them all, there are a lot of them. The birds were near > extinction because of our hunting them for their feathers, in the case of > the egrets, more birds, eat more fish, same argument with seals and > salmon. > Not hard to imagine fish populations suffering from less food and more > predation, even if we aren't over fishing. > > This study does not need the underpinnings of GW to be worthwhile. *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Well, I ain't no scientist that's for sure, but if I use local changes to refute GW, I'm told I'm looking at it too locally, so while I'll admit other's may have noticed changes in their lifetimes that coincide with it, it seems the same practive should rule. I've always been impressed with people on this list as far as their scientific accumen, but even at that level, it seems the climate challenge is beyond even their knowlege. So we each put our belief in the scientists whom we feel have some real grasp on the subject. My problem is with people who claim the scientific skeptics are all oil industry hacks. Seems like Mike and Paul and I are the only ones here who disagree with the idea of AGW, but I don' t remember anyone here using terms that would be considered libelous or slanderous. Please do tell me if I'm wrong there, as my main problem with this whole issue is the lack of civility when dealing with the other side. That said, I would like to think the revelations from the admittedly stolen emails might make a few on the GW bandwagon at least wonder if some of the ardent supporters have let their views color their judgement. Doesn't it bother you a bit if scientists want to try to squelch the freedom of information acts in order to hide their data? But then this whole issue is rather new and it's too early to say whether the revelations coming out are real and of importance. So I remain a skeptic. Whether we're in a cooling, warming or neutral period, from what I've read I don't buy the correlation between a warming earth and CO2. Mike tried to offer his proof to his beliefs, but it all comes down to who you believe. Though I'm a skeptic, I appreciate hearing from people whose knowledge and integretiy I've come to trust from their years of posting here. I'm glad to hear Dave was once a skeptic, but changed with his experiences, perhaps I'll get there one day. But what I won't do is accept that the GW scientists all act with pure hearts and all the skeptics are hacks. When I see the amount of money now and future to be funneled from gov agencies into only one side of the debate, I see a reason to skew the debate. But if you agree with Al Gore that there should be no debate, it's all moot I will admit, I'm still just trying to figure out how many tipping points we've already passed to be too sure of anything! I'm also not sure that GW would be a bad thing in the long run. I can't imagine anyone would be complaining about it if we had permanent ice sheet covering Moses Lake!! Perhaps I'm a bit gun shy after buying into the New Ice Age of the '70's! So, sorry if I shook up the hornet's nest again, but I think the debate, even at our level, is of some worth. 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 said > Seems like Mike and Paul and I are the only ones here > who disagree with the idea of AGW Thanks Mark - I think your last post sums it up pretty well for me too. After my post, I decided I was a bit too new in the neighbourhood to raise a ruckus ;-) I'll try and stick to stuff I can back up with personal & hands-on experience - and save the religious debates for around campfires (no CO2 intended) and/or sessions with more beer to lubricate the debate. Big day tomorrow ! Driving a couple of hours to pick up a 10 year old Feathercraft K2 to give our home fleet a more mobile 'wing'. Was hoping to find a couple of single FC (that we could afford); but I only know of 8 FC in New Zealand - so they don't pop up for sale often. This was too good of a deal to pass up - and we have paddled without bloodshed in other doubles - so we will rein in our individualism and work on accentuating the pluses that a double can offer in unfamiliar & cold waters. It has spent most of its life on a Swedish yacht (before jumping ship here) and it's actually already been to both Glacier Bay and to New Caledonia - so hopefully it will remember what to do if we take it back... Best Regards Paul Hayward, Auckland, New Zealand *************************************************************************** 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 1, 2009 at 3:13 AM, Paul Hayward <pdh_at_mmcl.co.nz> wrote: > Mark said > > > Driving a couple of hours to pick up a 10 year old Feathercraft K2 to give > our home fleet a more mobile 'wing'. Was hoping to find a couple of single > FC (that we could afford); but I only know of 8 FC in New Zealand - so they > don't pop up for sale often. > > They don't pop up that often anywhere, Paul. Especially the K-2 version. I have seen perhaps 4 or 5 FC kayaks on the market over the past 4 or 5 years. I have not been looking very hard but, like many paddlers, a FC has been in the back of my mind and I've noticed them - and been tempted - when they've appeared. Congratulations!! Craig Jungers Moses Lake, WA www.nwkayaking.net *************************************************************************** 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 said > FC...don't pop up that often anywhere...Especially the K-2 version I guess I've been tracking various second-hand sites for about a year - in NZ, Australia, Europe and North America - and you are right that perhaps only a hundred FC boats a year seem to come up for re-sale. That is after weeding out the amazing number of Craig's List scams. Seems like FC are one of the more popular items for scammers - with the same pictures regularly cropping up across the US & Canada. Certainly makes it invaluable to have a 'mate' in the right city - who can toddle round and run an eye over the merchandise. There seems to be a flow of used K2s through the Alaska rental fleet and some universities - but these get snapped up fast. Then there seem to be a number of Khatsalanos being sold by people who's 'power of positive thinking' has let them down when it comes to getting comfortable with the challenge of what appears to be an expert's boat. K1's & Kahunas show up most often - I guess those are FC's most popular models. The Wisper (no 'h' in Wisper ;-) must be a truly amazing kayak. No one on-sells them and no one writes about them on the internet. Owners must all be too busy paddling them. I know Dubside has one. If I google 'Feathercraft wisper' (limiting results to the past year), I get only about 120 hits and many of those are about bird-art. Makes me keen to try one out, but I don't know of one within 10,000 km ;-( Last weekend, we took the K2 out for a brief 'can we try it before we buy it' spin (on calm water) and it confirmed what we expected it would feel like. Comfortable, not too much of a battleship, very responsive to rudder and not bad control with the rudder up (responsive to a bit of edging and a sweep stroke or two). 6 months ago, we each had a go with a K1, out in wind and surf and were mightily impressed with its capabilities. The K2 is clearly from the same stable (pun intended) and we shall be looking for a good opportunity to take it out for some adrenaline testing. Also looking for any good solutions (again pun intended) for re-coating a couple of small areas of nylon which are shedding their internal waterproof layer (old-age). The Sea-socks and spraydecks can be replaced, but there are some small areas of the fabric which form risers from the deck at the hatches. Not critical, but if you have had good results with something - I'd love to hear of it. Best Regards Paul Hayward, Auckland, New Zealand *************************************************************************** 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 1, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Paul Hayward <pdh_at_mmcl.co.nz> wrote: > > > Also looking for any good solutions (again pun intended) for re-coating a > couple of small areas of nylon which are shedding their internal waterproof > layer (old-age). The Sea-socks and spraydecks can be replaced, but there > are > some small areas of the fabric which form risers from the deck at the > hatches. Not critical, but if you have had good results with something - > I'd > love to hear of it. > > Aquaseal and a patch? I've never tried it but Aquaseal does seem relatively sturdy on my drysuit booties (which came with leaks... but for $50 I'm not complaining - they did warn me after all). You could use it as a sealant/glue perhaps? FC did come out with a new covering material not too long ago. I wonder if an email to them would give you good results. I had no idea that FCs were so prominent in the scam department. Interesting. Craig Jungers Moses Lake, WA www.nwkayaking.net *************************************************************************** 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 said I was " looking for any good solutions" and Craig kindly responded "Aquaseal and a patch?" and suggested talking with FC I have already had a (very quick) response to an email to Feathercraft - but they have no products for re-sealing that which I want to re-seal (not ones that they feel like promoting, anyway). I do completely understand that there may be many issues - to do with liabilities, nasty smells, lack of total success, etc - that might make a reputable company reluctant to advise customers to undertake some procedures. I'm certainly not upset with FC. You guys have fewer liability concerns ;-) Let me also be very clear that I am not talking about either the hull (Hypalon) or the deck (Polytech) fabrics. Both of these seem to be in very good shape. My boat is one of the (relatively rare) transitional ones with the older hull & newer deck fabrics - sewn together rather than welded as are the newer ones. I have had all that confirmed by FC (from the kayak's serial number). No, the hull & deck are in great shape. What needs a little TLC are the few bits made from a third type of fabric - a tough nylon fabric with a waterproofing layer on the back. As this reaches old age, it starts to flake off in little golden (varnish-like) flakes - not unlike dandruff ;-) I have an old LL Bean backpack which has degenerated in just the same way - so I recognised the syndrome at once. Since the rest of the backpack works well, I just put a big garbage bag inside and keep using it. Cheap of me, I know ;-) In the case of the FC spraydecks and the sea-socks, I can simply buy replacement items (if I can't successfully refurbish the flaky ones). In the case of the fore & aft hatches, about 3" of the rings (that stand up from the deck) are made from this material and it would be a bit of a major job to replace these sections of fabric. (Visualise the whole hull under a sewing machine ;-) It may not leak much - so perhaps I should trial it first - but it's really the only part of the boat that begs for some attention. Given that there are quite a few FC out here - at least as old as ours - I suspect I'm not the first to encounter the problem. So I threw it out in the hopes that somebody has a miracle cure... Best Regards Paul Hayward, Auckland, New Zealand *************************************************************************** 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 Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 7:04 PM, Mark Sanders <marksanders_at_sandmarks.net>wrote: > I'm also not sure that GW > would be a bad thing in the long run. I can't imagine anyone would be > complaining about it if we had permanent ice sheet covering Moses Lake!! > Ummm.... well that might make ice skating a major activity here... but I am pretty sure it would slow my daily paddles down quite a bit. How high are you above sea level, by the way? :P > Perhaps I'm a bit gun shy after buying into the New Ice Age of the '70's! > So, > sorry if I shook up the hornet's nest again, but I think the debate, even > at > our level, is of some worth. > > I must have missed this completely. In the 70s I was enjoying a career trying subvert various employees of other cold-war governments so it's understandable that it could have passed me by. I can tell you that the chances of multiple governments and multiple government agencies of those governments actively involved in a conspiracy to only fund studies that prove AGW are remote; to say the least. Dunno about the emails. I do know that paleontologists have been attacked for years by people who take their theses and reports and parse them into tidbits of misinformation. As for the chemistry involved, that's the easiest part to understand. There is no doubt that CO2 holds heat. So more CO2 holds more heat. More heat melts ice. More melted ice means higher sea levels. But then more fresh water could stop the ocean conveyors which would make things colder... at least where I live. This would mean I'd have to move south, of course. Can we stay at your house? :D In the short term, should I have reserved a spot at Doheny that is a bit farther from the water? :P Craig Jungers Moses Lake, WA www.nwkayaking.net *************************************************************************** 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 - 16:33:52 PDT