Thursday, July 07, 2011

Admiral Stavridis, don't confuse the issue


Ungh. I wish otherwise smart people would have left this quasi-intellectual tic of Climate Change (nee Global Warming, nee The Coming Ice Age, nee The Population Bomb, nee Bad Air Causes Plague, nee Volcanoes Need Virgins) at the gates of East Anglia University - but alas - a critically important subject is being tied around a bad-science cult.
Admiral James Stavridis, Nato's supreme allied commander in Europe, in a foreword to a recent Whitehall Ppaper published by the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies in London, argued: "For now, the disputes in the north have been dealt with peacefully, but climate change could alter the equilibrium over the coming years in the race of temptation for exploitation of more readily accessible natural resources."

Stavridis believes military assets, such as coastguards, have an important role to play with international co-ordination in the area – but mainly for specialist assistance around commercial and other interests.

He added: "The cascading interests and broad implications stemming from the effects of climate change should cause today's global leaders to take stock, and unify their efforts to ensure the Arctic remains a zone of co-operation – rather than proceed down the icy slope towards a zone of competition, or worse a zone of conflict."
Admiral Stavridis, let me help.

Let me see, my little red pen is ... oh, here we go. Try this,
Admiral James Stavridis, Nato's supreme allied commander in Europe, in a foreword to a recent Whitehall Ppaper (sic) published by the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies in London, argued: "For now, the disputes in the north have been dealt with peacefully, but economic forces could alter the equilibrium over the coming years in the race of temptation for exploitation of more readily accessible natural resources."

Stavridis believes military assets, such as coastguards, have an important role to play with international co-ordination in the area – but mainly for specialist assistance around commercial and other interests.

He added: "The cascading interests and broad implications stemming from the effects of evolving
economic and security needs should cause today's global leaders to take stock, and unify their efforts to ensure the Arctic remains a zone of co-operation – rather than proceed down the icy slope towards a zone of competition, or worse a zone of conflict."
There - same concern - but founded on real and proven reasons. We don't have to go through the "Climate Change" genuflect to make the point. Smells too much of the Soviet Era use of "Comrade" - just used to show deference to the "correct" people with the "correct" ideas. Unseemly.

Admiral Stavridis has touched on the High North/Arctic issue before, as is good and right for NATO to do.

As resource access, economics, and changing global security systems evolve, access and ownership of the poles will continue to make this a critical area - especially as China tries to find an excuse to play. This requires the clearest, most direct intellectual discussion in order to make sure we get this right.

Throwing the questionable science and clearly political goals of the Global Warming/Climate Change cult will only discredit the very real and very dangerous national security challenge.

When the Arctic ice grows - as it will, and always has - will the Arctic be less important this century? Of course not. Say it was all climate change related will call the importance into question.

As a side-note - I can't find it, but if anyone has a link to the Whitehall Paper, please send it my way so I can see the context of his comments in full. If topic of the Paper was about "Climate Change" then ungh, Admiral Stavridis should have demurred and let someone else do it.

You know me - I am a fan of Admiral Stavridis - but people can disagree. I'm also a 80% man - so I'll just put this in the 20% pile and still smile and move on. Hmmmm .....

Instead of cursing the darkness, perhaps I should light a candle. I bet he hasn't read Watermelons: The Green Movement's True Colors yet.

89 comments:

DeltaBravo said...

<span>That amazing "red pen of logic trick" put a song in my head that I can't get out.  </span>
<span></span> 
<span>To the tune of "Candy Man" (because no one ever wrote 'Phib a song before)</span>
<span></span> 
<span>THE 'PHIBIAN CAN</span>
<span></span> 
<span>Who can take the stupid, mingle it with true
Cover it with logic and a linear review
The 'Phibian, oh the 'Phibian can
The 'Phibian can 'cause he fixes those above and makes the world make sense

Who can take the rainbows, slap 'em with a sigh
Soak 'em till they're done and shoot 'em from the sky
The 'Phibian, the 'Phibian can
The 'Phibian can 'cause he fixes those above and makes the world make sense</span>
<span>


The 'Phibian makes everything half-baked clarifying, not repetitious
Now he writes without being malicious, or feeding fools to fishes

Oh, who can take the morons, tripped up in their dream
Separate the bullshit and collect up all the cream
The 'Phibian, oh the 'Phibian can
The 'Phibian can 'cause he fixes those above and makes the world make sense

Yeah, yeah, yeah...

(Well, you get the rest....)

Now I'll go shuffle off and do what I'm supposed to be doing today.  ;)
</span>



 

CDR Salamander said...

Awww shucks.  Cool.

I think many things in life can be cured by showtunes.  

DeltaBravo said...

...or with The Red Pen of Common Sense....

AW1 Tim said...

 I;ve a suspician that the good admiral was given his talking points and told what to write. Certain star-spangled JCS types have vested interest in mouthing the political views of their boss, regardless of the truth or impact on our Navy.

 To Wit" "Diversity is job one!"

AW1 Tim said...

<span>Show tunes is good.  After all, we've got a whole Busby Berkley song & dance routine going on with LCS.  I'm surprised they don't fill that whole flight deck with girls in sailor suits tap-dancing and waving sparklers while the crew dons colored hats and forms a giant rainbow flag.</span>

Bull Snipe said...

Sal - a simple declaritive answer please.  Reasons aside, do you believe the world is warming or not?

Sean said...

I'll play....this appears to be a loaded question but I will rise to the bait....

I believe that the world is warming....I also believe that the world is cooling. Probably the smartest thing that the Global Warming crowd has done is to change their tune to Climate Change. The only problem is that the climat is ALWAYS changing!

I know that the climat is changing. Anyone with a historical bent knows this to be true. The devil is in the details as to how much it is changing and to how many decimal places. As RAH used to advise, get the facts...not the wishful thinking or the blue sky opinions, but the actual verifiable facts. And certainly not the chicken little sky is falling approach that passes for rational discourse when this topic normally gets brought up.

And piously announcing "the debate is over" is a sure sign (in my mind) that you have lost the argument and simply want to end the discussion. Three year olds do this and it is not a favorable comparison...

Do we need to know more about how our environment works and what are the factors that impact it the most? Absolutely.

Can we just do it without all the smug name calling?

(getting down off my soapbox)

The Usual Suspect said...

The issue isn't whether the world is warming or not.  The issue is whether it is anthropomorphic or part of the natural cycle of warming and cooling that has gone on since the birth of the planet.  It has been warming in some areas and cooling in others.  The dinosaurs lived during a period of global warming until there came a period of global cooling - currently attributed to an airborne layer of debris and moisture caused by an asteroid impact in the Gulf of Mexico.  We can destroy ourselves, but not the planet - we are powerful, but not that powerful.  By the way, do you still beat your wife?  Nice tactic...

Roger Fortier said...

Not the first flag officer to dabble in political correctness. Otherwise, the admiral seems sharp. 

andrewdb said...

<span>I am old enough to remember the panic in the mid-1970's over the coming Ice Age.  Temps fluctuate.  In a warming period we are likely to see the Northwest Passage free from ice (remember those guys who were looking for the Passage during the 1600's?  Remember the stories about Greenland being _green_?)  But remember too the Little Ice Age, which followed the Medieval Warming Period - which was NOT related to driving too many cars and having too many coal fired power plants.</span>

CDR Salamander said...

Belief is a very different thing than knowing.

Here is what I do know.  The Earth cools and warms.  Oceans rise and fall.  Always have, always will.

As a child, people in hair shirts and ashes walked the earth beating their backs with whips warning of the next ice age.  As an adult, the same types warned of warming.  As facts interferred with that - they changed to climate change.

Belief in climate change is like belief in day followed by night.  It always happens - it always will.  The question is what impact, if any or to any significant amount, do humans have in that.

The science is not settled.  In fact, those who warn of crisis the most have been found to be faking their data.  Their oracle, Al Gore, refuses to debate.

People who refuse to debate, fake and distort data, and generally take a fascistic attitude towards opposing opinions do not tend to have much credibility with me.

Should free people allow their economic future to be put in the hands of trans-national organizations who are accountable to no one?  All based on readily debunked and every changing cult-like theory?  Of course not.  This is all about a group trying to gain power they cannot get via concent of the governed.

This isn't about belief.  I don't care what people think, know, feel, or believe.  I believe in what people know - and no one knows if humans can do anything to change the weather of a planet that is driven by its interaction with a star, our sun.

You want to save the planet?  Focus on water quality.  Focus on sustainable refuse collection and processing.  Focus on soil preservation and low impact, high yield farming.

That is hard work - that isn't sexy - that is fact based and measurable; that is why many would rather join the global warming/climate change cargo-cult.  They don't have to do, produce, measure, or be accountable for any easily validated metric.  Facts are the enemy of dreamers.

Do I belived the world is warming?  I know the sun shall rise, and shall soon set.  The earth will warm, the earth will cool.  Seas will dry up, new seas will be created.  Continents will move.  Mountails will grown and fall - deserts will bloom as wetlands turn to dust.  As all that happens - the Earth will never know if I are you were on it to begin with.

What I believe in meaningless.  Only knowledge matters.

There, simple enough for you?

CDR Salamander said...

He is.  He is one of the best, IMAO.  Like I said, I'll put this in the 20% pile.

11B40 said...

Greetings:

Now, as a recovering altar boy (announcing his pre-altar "server" status), I appreciate a good genuflection (or appreciated as nowadays they seem a bit more difficult). Be that as it may,  such acts of faith seem to be very much the coin of the realm (as opposed to "The Widow's Mite) these days.

One of the things that has helped me cut back on my television viewing time is that ability of broadcast programs to insert their political "credos" in their stories. The Progressive (neƩ Public) Broadcasting System is especially inclined and astute in this regard, but even your basic crime drama (or drivel, if you prefer) is now similarly afflicted.

This past Independence Eve, do to a total failure on the part of my social secretary, I ended up seeing a program called "Blue Bloods" (she still thinks Tom Selleck looks like me) broadcast by our local CBS affiliate, KPIX. The gist of the story was that a homeless street person is killed by a trio of 21st Century yuppie-equivalents. The victim turns out to be a multi-tour US Marine veteran who had been awarded, among other medals, a Silver Star. The body was found by an older security guard who, unprompted, admits that when he returned from his tour in sunny Southeast Asia, had "problems" for a couple of years. The investigation of the murder so affects the detective investigating it, an Iraq veteran, that he has an emotional breakdown.

Now, when I returned from my tour of sunny Southeast Asia, it seemed to me that any Viet Nam veterans on TV were climbing up on bell towers, or some such, to do some random population control. But, nowadays, we've progressed or progressived, to where veterans are seriously damaged victims which allows not only the moral superiority reward of warm feelings of compassion toward the victimized but also, a bit more subliminally perhaps, the resurgent "This is what war will do to you" message. Join the military; Free PTSD.

Now, I certainly think you make a valid point about the good Admiral's ability to not stick to his knitting. On the other hand though, his keystroked propaganda in passing will have a rather small audience compared to a nationwide TV broadcast by a major network. And, my guess is that the audience for the latter which be much less afflicted with critical thinking skills and, thus, more vulnerable to this subliminal mind altering experience. In essence, using "victims" to victimize.

As Bob Dylan so wonderfully sings, "It ain't dark, but it's getting there."

Paddy Murphy said...

Sal:
<span></span>
<span>Can you provide some links where I can read more about the faked data you mention? There are over 83 million hits on Google on the topic. I'm not full-up-round on global warming & climate change, and find that this detail could make for some interesting reading. If possible, just websites - I'd rather not shell out a lot of cash for many books on the topic, if they're not available on Google Books or similar sites.</span>

CDR Salamander said...

Follow the first link in the post on East Anglia University.  That is a good first start.

ewok40k said...

well, as a half-full glass guy I advise to seek consolation in that regardless of reasons for the (climate) change, steady decline in polar pack ice in recent decades is indisputable - so instead of debating the why's can we proceed to what-to-do's? evaluate risks, opportunities and investments needed...

Bull Snipe said...

Sal -

What you believe is meaningless?  You do your self a mis-service.  You are the author of an influential blog.  People come here to read of your opinions.  Surely you have one on whether the earth is in a warming phase or not.

Bull Snipe said...

No need to stop.  Never started, either on my late wife or my recent bride.  This is germane because...?

Bull Snipe said...

What smug name did I call somebody?  Sal?  I suppose I could have use Commander.

Salty Gator said...

This reminds me of "The Pentagon Song."  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiEYWvW3cMY

CDR Salamander said...

BS,
You are a bit off phase here.  "Belief" has no place in science, only knowledge and inquirey.  As there is no proof that man is causing the Earth - those parts of it that are warming and not cooling - is warming and if it is that there is anything we can do besides genocide can be done to stop it.  I do not know if AGW is taking place, and neither do you.  Believe what you want, but I am not a pagan - therefor climate is not a belief based system for me.  I prefer facts.  AGW's "science" was all based on lies and skewed data.  Those facts are clear - that is why they have shifted to climate change.  About as significant as "light change."

Only ignorant natives will sacrifice their family's future on a "belief."  People will do that for faith.  Faith implies religion.  If climate change is someone's religion - then good luck to them - but don't expect me to join them in throwing virgins in volcanoes.  My faith's heritage of human sacrifice ended with Abraham a few thousand years ago, thank you.

andrewdb said...

If the science is so "settled" I suggest we halt all funding for further research on  the subject.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

andrew,

I, too, remember the coming Ice Age.  Funny, but the measures that must be immediately taken to avoid mankind's extinction then were much the same as is being touted now. 

Suppress any and all form of industrial development.

Punish Americans for driving to work or keeping their houses warm.

Give most of our hard-earned money to Third World countries, even though they hate us and will do nothing with that money except line the pockets of some dictator and buy better weapons to use against us.

Green.  It's the new Red.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Heh.  But we know that lack of funding is a cause of global warming.

Bull Snipe said...

Commander (having been taken to task for calling you Sal) -

Review the missives. I did not mention AGW.  I did not mention what man might be causing.  And pointedly, neither did Admiral Stavridis.  Your ire over this issue has drawn inferences where there were no implications.  I knew you would.

Here are some facts:
Since 1997 over sixty photographs have been repeated of seventeen different glaciers. Thirteen of those glaciers have shown marked recession and some of the more intensely studied glaciers have proved to be just 1/3 of their estimated maximum size that occurred at the end of the Little Ice Age (circa 1850). In fact, only 26 named glaciers presently exist of the 150 glaciers present in 1850.

Source:
http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/repeatphoto/

And if I can make the HTML work, from that same page:
<img></img>

To me, global warming is irrefutable.  Causes can conform to agenda.

CDR Salamander said...

BS,
Not my me - you can all me Sal, Phib, Dude - anything you want.

You, however, are starting to sound like a jerk.  "I knew you would ... "

Don't be a troll.  I attempted to answer your question - and now you want to have a theological argument with me about your religion as if that was the topic of the post.  Don't drag up the glacier thing - that is pathetic.

You are free to have your religion - but I am not going to argue with you about your god.  If you would like to talk about the substance of this post - re-read it and then come back.  Maybe then I will feel less stoooooopid for engaging with you.  Also - I have read the pro-global warming stuff - I recommend you read Watermelons.  

Irrefutable.  It is also irrefrutable that the sun will rise.  It is also irrefutable that there will be another ice age.  It is also irrefrutable that the sun will explode.  

Classic.  Religion or fetish - enjoy it, just keep it to yourself.

Sean said...

The smugness comes from the attitude the cult of Global Warming toward those that do not fall in line with the party doctrine. See comments from the folks caught faking data ... Anyone who did not fall in line was someone to be chastised in the harshest possible means.

This is scientific inquiry?

Warning bells go off whenever I hear someone telling me that something is "irrefutable". I have an engineering degree in something that was recently (historically speaking) considered impossible by all learned and right thinking people.

Global warming may very well be a problem and we may very well have to do something about it.....but faking data about it and belittling people who ask questions about it does not seem like the best way to go about convincing people that your position is "irrefutable".

YMMV

Bull Snipe said...

Sal -
You've taken up the habit of putting words in my mouth.  "Religion" did not come out of it, nor did "god".  Not even did "science."

I'm not qualified to argue AGW and never will.  I have traveled enough to opine though on whether the earth is warming.  I visited Glacier National Park, and I've visited Norway.  Not your meaning, but I didn't find them pathetic.  I found them distressing.

DeltaBravo said...

Tim, LCS screams for Pirates of Penzance treatment.  Maybe someday when I have the time...

I am the very model of a modern contract debacle
I'm unsuitable for vegetable, animal, and mineral
I know that things are bungled if I meet with fights historical
From Pentagon to littoral in order categorical

oh.... don't get me sucked in to that little diversion...  teehee.

AW1 Tim said...

  Damn.....  every time I think of "Pirates of Penzance", I think of this version:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkJdEFf_Qg4

8-)

DeltaBravo said...

Haha.  Poor 'Phib.  He never knows what his erudite scribblings will be degenerated to once he sets them down on the porch..... 

Bull Snipe said...

Sean -

Who did I belittle?  Because I find photographic evidence irrefutable vice pathetic?  Because I can't believe the Park Service would photoshop glaicers away?  Because I believe that the Arctic and Antarctic are less?  Because my degrees say warmth melts ice?  OK, but I refer you here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

It being Wikipedia, edit away.  I looked up Watermelons.  We have a case here of punidts quoting pundits.  All of Sal's insinuations aside, I have not ascribed the warming to anything.  I believe it is happening.  So does Stravidis.

Aubrey said...

Except that the odds any recession of polar pack ice will be completely reversed within 20-30 years.

Normal ups-and-downs and the vagaries of chance in a several-bilion-year-old climactic system do not make for an immediate, game-changing crisis.

Aubrey said...

Damn right URR!

Hey wait, I'm getting my climate education from a Marine?!  While my Gunnery Sergeant brother would be impressed, my Navy heart is now terrified!

Aubrey said...

"<span>"Belief" has no place in science, only knowledge and inquirey."</span>

Heresy!  Burn the Unbeliever!

Aubrey said...

Dagnabbit Andrew, I tried to "like" this 50 times....

CDR Salamander said...

I'll put my odometer against yours.   :)

I have walked the ancient beaches that are now in central Georgia.  It doesn't make me sad.  I live somewhere that was - in the last ice age - under a hundred feet + of water.  It doesn't make me sad.

I have lived in places that were once orange groves, but are not in the last 80 years because the local climate has become too cold.  It does not make me sad.

I have watched the Bald Eagle come back to the point my children see once a month what most people of my generation never saw in their youth.  That makes me happy.

The river that if you fell in during my youth you had to go to the hospital is now filled with boats swimmers and fish.  That makes me happy.

Where they were almost unheard of for my father - now my land is filled to the brim with wild turkeys.  That makes me happy.

My children do not live, as I did, under a 30-min warning until nuclear attack.  That makes me happy.

The fact that people are willing to destroy their nation while they ignore others - that makes me sad.

Aubrey said...

"<span>I have traveled enough to opine though on whether the earth is warming.  I visited Glacier National Park, and I've visited Norway."</span>

Ooooh....can I play too?!

I've visited US, Canada, Mexico, Costa Rica, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama, Ecuador, Belize, Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Montenegro, Croatia, Serbia, Hungary, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Denmark, Sweden and Japan and I have found them fun and entertaining.  No global warming, though....want to keep going?  I bet folks here could add another 50 or so countries to my total...

B(ull) S(nipe), I hate to tall you but personal feeling and anecdate aint science.  Even my history and linguistics degrees can tell you that.

CDR Salamander said...

<span>
<pre>When I was young and full of grace
and spirited, a rattlesnake.
When I was young and fever fell
My spirit, I will not tell
You're on your honor not to tell

I believe in coyotes and time as an abstract
Explain the change, the difference between
What you want and what you need, there's the key,
Your adventure for today, what do you do
Between the horns of the day?

I believe my shirt is wearing thin
And change is what I believe in

When I was young and give and take
And foolish said my fool awake
When I was young and fever fell
My spirit, I will not tell
You're on your honor, on your honor

Trust in your calling, make sure your calling's true
Think of others, the others think of you
Silly rule golden words make, practice, practice makes perfect,
Perfect is a fault, and fault lines change

I believe my humor's wearing thin
And change is what I believe in

I believe my shirt is wearing thin
And change is what I believe in

When I was young and full of grace
As spirited a rattlesnake
When I was young and fever fell
My spirit, I will not tell
You're on your honor, on your honor
I believe in example
I believe my throat hurts
Example is the checker to the key

I believe my humor's wearing thin
And I believe the poles are shifting

I believe my shirt is wearing thin
And change is what I believe in</pre>
</span>

Aubrey said...

Sean - amen brother!

Aubrey said...

err....B(ull) S(nipe)...to add to my earlier comment about "feelings" and "anecdotes" not being science you can "wikipedia is f&$%ing useless".  If you are taking Wikipedia as your science source, you are one very small step short of taking John Stewart as authoritative on, well, anything.

sid said...

After having dealt with UKMET on volcanic ash issues...And the stupidity of how criminally bad science has been  politicized as Inviolate Gospel around the Commonwealth...

I don't any more believe what comes out of East Anglia than a man in thhe moon.

Anyway as for arctic ice...while its below "historic" levels -big Devil in the the details of that definition. Do you think Columbus came up with the idea of an ice free "Northweest Passage" on his own?...its up from a 2007 low...

UltimaRatioRegis said...

As it should be....  the end is likely nigh.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Since 1997, huh?  Fourteen years out of a 4.663 billion year sample.  All of 0.0000000003%. 

Like predicting the weather for the day based on three ten-millionths of a millisecond. 

Good, solid science, right there!

sid said...

As for overall "Glow-bull Waurmmingggg"...Seems its not "REALLY" been happening since 1998 after all...

Hmmm. Imagine that.

Must be some diabolical Chinese plot.

BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN ITS NOT GONNA HAPPEN!!!...By Gaia!!!!!!

CoRev said...

Bull Snipe, you are arguing with your self.  i did not see anyone claim it was not warming.  BTW, thank goodness it is warming, because the alternative is far worse!  Will it start cooling into the next glaciations?  al;most surely!  It has happened too many times in the past to think it will not continue.

The latest reports have us being stable for the past 10-11+ years.  some current peer reports show us possibly at the peak of a warming cycle.  Most ever on who follows the Climate Science issues realize that we are at a solar minimum, PDO shift to a cooler cycle and the North Atlantic current will soon follow the PDO.  Historically they foretell a several decade cooling cycle. Just as the inverse seems to correlate with warming. 

What most skeptics do not agree with is the catastrophic predictions, most of which have happened.

Here's an interesting video explaining the Warmists' dilemma: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/07/a-mini-movie-in-blackboard-form-why-the-lefts-global-warming-agenda-is-wrong/#more-42882

CDR Salamander said...

^^^^^(above) CORRECTION: make that "before the last ice age"  During the last ice age, it would have taken my boat another 4 hours ro reach the ocean.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps an umbrella to shade the Earth from the Sun, the chief culprit.

Bull Snipe said...

My, what civil discourse we have here at Sal's place.  I get accused at the top of beating my wife.  in the middle I'm smug and belittling.  At the end, my handle cleverly becomes Bull Sh*t.

If I am the jerk Sal suspects, I'm keeping common company.

I asked Sal a YES/NO/MAYBE question.  I said I've seen retreating glaciers.  I ascribe that to global warming.  As does the USGS.

Seems not to be a criminal offense.

--Bull (BA, MA, MA, MS, ME)

DeltaBravo said...

It's 100 where I live.  No rain.  I was out digging in my garden and I found little shells.  Tiny little shells. WAAAH!  Texas used to be under water long ago.  THERE USED TO BE WATER IN MY YARD!!!!!  Water that I didn't have to pay for!   Dang!  Damn that glowball warming!  Killed the shell thingies in my yard.   I went and looked it up on the internet.  Seems Chicago used to be under 2 miles of ice.  WHO LET CHICAGO OUT?????  THAT WAS A BAD IDEA!  Damn glowball warming. 

Bring back the water and ice for the love of all that is good!    (Wishing water would come back to Texas..... ) 

Bull Snipe said...

Educate yourself:
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
http://www.contentmatters.info/content_matters/2006/04/britannica_vs_w.html

On me.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Mister Burns already tried that....

DeltaBravo said...

You forgot we also sang songs.  It's been a fun day on the porch.

Sean said...

Bull Snipe:

As another has mentioned, you are winning an argument that no one is having with you.  You asked a loaded question and seemed surprised that not everyone rushed to agree with your "irrefutable" opinion.  I went back and re-read the comments - most of them are actually quite gentle in their suggestion that while some sort of climate change might or might not be happening to the point that we might have to respond, we might want to think long and hard about the nature of our response before we over-react and potentially wreck our economy fixing something that is not as important as other topics discussed on this blog.

Bull Snipe said...

CoRev -

Thanks, I believe (bad word around here) that you are the only other to say so.
But my train of thought goes like this:

Sal takes Stravidis to task for saying "climate change" instead of "economic forces" as cause for concerns.
I infer that "climate change" is a false proposition.  It may be false as "not the cause" or it maybe false as fact.
Never-the-less, not clear.

I ask Sal, point blank, if he believes in global warming.
Sal finesses the question, so I take it Sal says "no."

If Sal had said yes, I'd ask why the rant on the admiral.
If Sal had said no, I'd ask about the "pathetic" glaciers, as I did.

Other than decreasing glaciation, I have not ascribed cause, magnitude, or doom.
I am guilty of certitude.  That seems to be not tolerated unless you are on Sal's page.

Bull Snipe said...

CoRev -

Thanks for the link.  My point, my only point, is 1:29 in.

sid said...

Bull Snipe...while you get all steamed up about warming...

I think I will get a little time on the slopes early.....

Bull Snipe said...

Sean -

I didn't ask for our reaction.  I didn't ask for cause.  I asked for an opinion.  Up or down.  Sal's in that business.  He needs a better answer than his belief is meaningless.  Is that a loaded question?  Must be, but I'll bet the proverbial paycheck Sal would be all over Mulen if those words had come out CJCS some day.

Ask me my opinion.  On anything.  I'll tell you, or I'll tell you I don't have one.  My opinion on global warming:  It's a happening thing.  I don't know why.  I haven't said why.  I don't know how bad.  I haven't said how bad.  I've only said glaciers and ice packs are going away, and that convinces me.  Not you?  Fair enough.

Doesn't always work out well.  People don't like to hear the unpopular and contrary.

I've iived long enough to have a lot of both. 

sid said...

<span>People don't like to hear the unpopular and contrary. </span>

You got that right Bull Snipe...

Especially when it comes to this whole Global WarmingeerrrChange stuff....

Oh...And for you Matrix Cyber Infowars Denizens ensconsed somewhere near the intersection of New Warrington Road and Hwy 98...

If you want to learn how to sucessfully shape a message to an overwhelmingly dominant Strategic, Operational, and Tactical advantage...

Then ponder and closely study how Google actively shapes "Gobal Climate Change"

ewok40k said...

Trend is visible for over 100 years, and though reversal can be surprising and complete within less than 50 years - we might earn quite a buck meanwhile (nevermind denying one to Saudis etc.) by exploiting that window of opportunity on arctic oil. And protecting that supply of oil could be pretty important... (what an understatement, lol)

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Up or down?  Like Chou en-lai said in 1967 about the French Revolution, "it's too early to tell".  The same blather was made of a two-decade cooling trend that took place from the mid-1950s to the mid-1970s, at a time when US industrial output dwarfs today's and before nuclear power was a substantial player.  When, if one uses the AlGoracle methodology, the opposite should hav occurred. 

"People don't like to hear the unpopular or contrary."  Do tell.  Especially when sham science is used to suck my hard-earned money out of my wallet to put in to the pockets of pseudo-scientists who are really anti-capitalist bolsheviks, who then want to take more of my money to send to the Sudan and North Korea.

Numbnuts.

sid said...

Dang...

If glow-bull waurminnnggg or chaannnge-uhh! or whatever wasn't about to turn the planet into a scene right out of Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea...

Then think of how bad this suck would be!!!!

Bull Snipe said...

"Numbnuts"

Is that your signature or what you're calling me?

CoRev said...

Bull Snipe, the implication in your questions and comments is that Global Warming is bad.  Warming has effects, smaller glaciers, less polar ice (at least in the North), and some areas of increases, (temps, moisture, dryness, etc) but not necessarily storms.  Storms require temp differences, and with warming they actually are lessened.

So your implications re: "is it warming" is to what most reacted.   Implied in the question is acceptance of most of the catastrophic predictions caused by mankind (most have not come true, namely there is a tipping point where we have run away heating) and many of which are outside any evidence of the planet.  So your question was loaded with very much baggage.  Not realizing that categorizes you.

BTW, the bulk of the argument re: AGW begins at the about the 2 minute mark.  CO2 is rising.  Temperatures are also rising.  There must be some correlation?  Well, not really.  Earth's temperatures rise and fall within an approximate 5C range with some extremes to 8C.  There is a lot of evidence that  CO2 levels have been as much as 20 times higher than today, and still no runaway temps.

Now that you are challenged you seem to be backing down and away from that catastrophic prediction baggage inherent with the Global Warming question.  That's probably a better position than what you appeared to be presenting.

Bull Snipe said...

CoRev -

There is the consideration that the time between the composing and the posting depends on the number of other composers and posters.  It is often the case that a reply ends up in a different spot than I expected.  While I knew that, I didn't appreciate its consequences.  Thank you.

I have to say I'm not backing down from that catastrophic prediction baggage, for I never posited it other then, sadly, by sequence.  That lesson is learned.  So, other than to say I have not said them, I have not used the words AGW, catastrophe, god, God, religion etc.  I would however like some one to take up my arguement and give a reason for glacial recession and ice pack decline different than warming.  I'll try sid, with some trust that he won't dismiss its occurence.

Bull Snipe said...

I take back about what I said to CoRev.  But I will offer you this link in return:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850

Ponder, plz, what melts ice.

CoRev said...

Bull Snipe says: "<span>  I would however like some one to take up my arguement and give a reason for glacial recession and ice pack decline different than warming." </span>

It's warming!!!!!!  Continuing to ask the same question is why you are being pilloried.

It's warming and that's a good thing.  Not bad!  It is without question that it will also cool.  The past decade that is what has happened.  Will it effect the glaciers and ice caps?  IF it continues, almost certainly.

Remember the Bronze-age man found in the Alps a few years ago?  It was found due to glacier contraction, and it was buried due to glacier expansion.  All this expansion and contraction is in recent history/time frames.

You continue to ignore the baggage inherent in your questions, while pretending to be agnostic.  You are trolling.

Grumpy Old Ham said...

<span>other things that affect heating/cooling such as insolation (solar flares)</span>

One of the main reasons I question the AGW/Climate Change/whatever the heck it's called today zealots is that in their rush to blame man (more specifically, Western industrialization) for global warming (ahem, climate change) they usually discount or ignore the effects of that big ol' fusion reactor parked 93 million miles away.

sid said...

<span>Ponder, plz, what melts ice.</span>

From a nautical/economic perspective...

The longest icebreaking season in the lower Great Lakes in more than a decade came to an end Thursday as the Canadian and U.S. coast guards wrapped up Operation Coal Shovel.

Seems to me, that instead of pandering to a theroy that is growing increasingly Ptolemaic by the year...the good admiral should make the case of the need for some focus and tools to effectively operate in the northern flanks of our land.

sid said...

Just how is our icebreaker fleet doing these days...?

CoRev said...

LT B, everything was fine until you made the zombie comment.   ;)

LT B said...

At least I can do something about zombies.  Rule #1:  Good Cardio.  Rule #2:  Double Tap.  If it is worth shooting, it is worth shooting twice!  Global warming?  Nope, can't do much for that. 

LT B said...

I just had an image of Fleet Week w/ a whole bunch of Sailors walking around saying, "How you doin'?"  As for our ships, I think we are incapable. 

LT B said...

Furthermore, scientists are not immune to outside influence or ego.  They have to write grants.  What interests them may not just be the scientifically best problem, but what brings in money for the gear, computers, techs, grad students, their summer salary, etc.  If the administration stocks EPA, NSF, etc w/ guys that fund one narrative, and the narrative is modeled...  well looky there!!  The model says the dinosaurs are all coming back, the cretacious period is 50 yrs away, and crops will all die and whither on the vine/tree.  I'm not saying it is all tainted, but there is some influence exerted. 

sid said...

 I'll try sid, with some trust that he won't dismiss its occurence.

I see what you are sayin' Bull Snipe.

But I can't support the blanket notion that the overall ice loss is on a straight line to oblivion. Sure, you can find glaciers that have lost ice, but there are alot of nascent indications that we may just be on the cusp of a dramatic multi-decadal climate shift too.

Both arctic...and...antarctic sea ice anomalies are actually trending up. 

Grandpa Bluewater. said...

Chris C. made some voyages north, and norse sailors made some south. Sailors will talk.
The little climatic optimum in about 1000 was a period of warming and Icelander Eric the Red took a flier on real estate development in Greenland's southern fijords (he didn't mention the big glacier inland).  Later, his son Leif the Lucky was talking (drinking?) with a buddy who got blown way west by a storm, saw some land and came back. Leif went to check it out, tried to follow in Dad's footsteps in Northern Labrador, didn't work out.
Over the next 300 years things got colder and the north atlantic got rougher as growing season got shorter and winter longer. Shipping got scarcer in Greenland and then stopped. Eventually all the Norse in Greenland starved to death one winter circa 1400. Cold snap dragged on and became the "little ice age" and Knox dragged cannon from Ft Ticonderoga down to Boston one winter to invest Boston.

Then things started warming. Again.

All this is reasonably inferred as typical interglacial epoch fluctuation.

The East Anglia cro

pk said...

the "scientists" have a new problem. the hosts for their labs are making them pay the freight for their hazardous waste and materials disposal and they have some really baaad stuff that they have to get rid of.


C

Grandpa Bluewater. said...

oops, crowd likes to hide data and the average algorithms. With 150 years of unevenly distributed and ununiformly collected data at best, it's way to early to generalize, much less run around like chicken little.

They talk about the earth's average temperature to the nearest 1/10 of a degree. Say what?

Grandpa Bluewater. said...

Leif called it "Vinland". There still aren't grapes in N. Labrador these days, so we have a ways to go before hitting the panic button.

SouthernAP said...

Lt. B,

Speaks the truth about the weather models. I remember reading a books a few years ago that had interviewed the major players of D-Day at the 50yr mark. They interviewed the RAF weather guesser and asked him that even with the tech of 1994 would he still have gone with a flip of the coin for "Go/NoGo" when talking to Ike about the weather in the Channel. This weather guesser said that even with all the tech of 1994 (radars, sats, and wx stations all over self-reporting back to computers) he still would have to flip the coin simply cause in the channel there are just too many variable for a computer to properly crunch right.

Oh and B, for the zombies it isn't the double tap but rather the wall of lead (preferably .30cal or 7.62mm for those that don't use Imperial Measurement system). So I would recommend trying to find yourself a M134 Gun. Just a thought ;)

SouthernAP said...

Coming back to this arguement and then scanning Google News this moring I ran across this article and had to laugh.  Allied Bomber Streams during WW2 caused global warming!!!!!!!

sid said...

It doesn't help that people are fed the evening weather news pablum of "SuperMagilisticDOpller!!", and in more recent years, "Superknowitallrightnowforthe nextweekCast!" (aren't those fake sweeps [falsetto]cute?!)....

And thats all they know about atmospehric science.

With rare exception...

TV weather SUCKS!

LT B said...

The stuff I used at my first university job was NASTY and poisonous in the ppm level.  But it did a great job of keeping the critters off of my gear. 

sid said...

Only the LCS bubbahs would be eligible for speed dating...

sid said...

Which begs the question...

How well will either hull perform in the ice congested Arctic?

At 40 knots?

Not that there could be a problem or anything....

LT B said...

Some TV weather, I can really get into though!

http://www.lifeofsports.com/hot_archived.php?hotarchived=25

LT B said...

I need to mount that on my pick em up!

UltimaRatioRegis said...

THEY are numbnuts.  Or hypocrites. 

And if you believe them, you risk being a numbnuts.

sid said...

Stuff you don't hear in the news these days.

Washington state has had its coldest winter in 117 years...

And in Austrailia...

Autumn 2011 was the coldest on record for mean temperatures (average of maximum and minimum temperatures, records began in 1950) and the fourth wettest on record nationally. Daytime temperatures were particularly cool across most of Australia and ranked as the second coldest on record. The western half of Western Australia was drier and warmer than normal for both daytime and overnight temperatures.


Gotta wonder what the latter portends for southern hemisphere sea ice.