Greta Thunberg sails back to Europe on La Vagabonde

Status
Not open for further replies.

walt

.
Jun 1, 2007
3,511
Macgregor 26S Hobie TI Ridgway Colorado
Quoting CNN does not establish a credible position. Especially CNN fact checking. In that fact checking link, they say this "..So while the debate over the science is settled - the planet is warming, primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels - the political debate continues to rage...." That is clearly a matter of opinion. The science is not settled, and the debate is far from settled.
Ok.. here is the actual IPCC report where that came from https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-2/ Same as CNN
 

walt

.
Jun 1, 2007
3,511
Macgregor 26S Hobie TI Ridgway Colorado
I just googled your quoted phrase -- and came up with thousands of hits.
You must have read a few and have a favorite to share?

Please do. And it would be best if you could point to a paper in a peer reviewed journal.
Thanks for the opportunity. I will do this and provide links to back up everything. No link.. no credibility. This will take a while to put together but its interesting and worth the time.

FYI, it looks like 2019 is on track to be the second warmest year on record despite low sun activity. In this thread, I dont see anyone denying that the planet is getting warmer.. as it is. What we should discuss further is what is causing the warming (human, the sun or natural variations). Im posting both land and sat based measurements in case someone still thinks the land based date isnt valid. Here is the latest UAH satellite date including the November anomaly (plot from here Latest Global Temps « Roy Spencer, PhD)




From this link on terrestrial based temperature measurements Clive Best

2019 is also set to be the second warmest year based on the partial average for the first 10 months.
 

walt

.
Jun 1, 2007
3,511
Macgregor 26S Hobie TI Ridgway Colorado
Would such a paper make the cut in a peer-reviewed journal? Most scientific papers are scuttled if they don't serve the interests of the funding party.
Exactly. Hence, such contrary investigations are rarely funded, and an assistant professor working toward tenure will never propose such a project.
Ever heard the phrase "follow the money"? The idea is that scientist are creating fake or misleading science because they will get more funding. This deception has worked all over the world for more than three decades. Many researchers in companies, universities, government agency's, even different countries apparently have been involved in this deception and creating false science. Why.. because.. this is how they keep getting grants. Heads of universities, company leaders, government leaders all must be pretty dumb as they haven't figured out after all this time that this was happening. Ie, by creating deception and bad science, the scientist dont get fired like would happen to any of use regular folks, they keep getting more money and have managed to do this for more than three decades.

If you read that IPCC link (summed up in the CNN post), to actually keep the temperature rise under some limit (1.5C was what the IPCC was asked to look into), it means a drastic reduction in fossil fuel burning. This will pretty much kill one of the largest industries on the planet and of course have a very negative impact on the people, economies of cities, states, even counties that are dependent on the fossil fuel industry.

So.. would it be hard to believe that the fossil fuel industry has been involved in marketing campaigns to cast doubt on the science, even creating deception. A marketing campaign to discredit the science is way cheaper than actually creating the science and the fossil fuel industry has both the resource and motive to do this.

Here is an interesting article on the marketing to cast doubt on the climate change science How Big Oil Lost Control of Its Climate Misinformation Machine

My personal opinion. The idea that scientist (that compete with each other and from all over the world and over a broad range of organizations) have pulled off some grand orchestrated deception of the public is just a wild conspiracy theory.

It makes way more sense to me that the fossil fuel industry has been involved in funding a deception industry for years and years.. and it has been fairly successful.
 
Last edited:
Jun 14, 2010
2,081
Robertson & Caine 2017 Leopard 40 CT
If "campaign" means advocating for voluntary adoption of planet-friendly alternatives …. I'm all for it! But that takes a lot of time with uncertain results for sure! I remember in the 50's and 60's when all the highways everywhere used to be choked with litter. Now, I drive around in pristine environments and never see a scrap of litter anywhere! (at least in the countryside - the cities not so much). People do change their behavior when they see a benefit!
Exactly! Just like anti-litter campaigns, anti cancer campaigns, and Smoky The Bear fire prevention campaign...
Make people realize it is uncool to eat meat. There a documentary that recently came out called The Game Changers. It touches on climate change but mainly focuses on sports performance and the nutrition misconceptions promoted by current pop culture and “big ag”. currently available on Netflix (preview https://gamechangersmovie.com/ )
This appeals to the Gen x and y
 
  • Like
Likes: TomY

TomY

Alden Forum Moderator
Jun 22, 2004
2,758
Alden 38' Challenger yawl Rockport Harbor
You can believe global climate science - that has a near total consensus - or not. Minds are set on climate change pretty much everywhere today. Arguing is a waste of time (my time, anyway :) ).

For sailing, I wonder if this passage may have an affect? I've never watched a La Vagabond vid but I'm well aware of their popularity in sailing media today.

Now enter the most well known (globally), climate activist today. Millions of eyes are watching this. This is an event that the sailing industry - if such a thing still exists today - should see as a game changer.

I don't believe the average non-sailor has a clue about the reality of wind power for propulsion. It's basics or it's evolution to it's present form.

The masses around the world that are following a current movement are getting an introduction to the power of sail. Sailboats of all sizes and costs abound today.

My hope for the industry: Sailing, go back to your roots; wind power - sell it. There has never been a more appealing moment for wind power as propulsion. Travel, sport, adventure, recreation, even commerce, all carbon free (make it as carbon free as you want) .

I'm dangerously optimistic but I hope I'm right: I predict this event will have an effect.

After all, the folks on LaVagabond - stars in the obscure sailing video genre - step onto the world stage (at least for a time).

I plan to watch my first LaVag. vid soon just to meet these young promoters, so this brilliant passage worked for them.
 
Nov 6, 2006
9,884
Hunter 34 Mandeville Louisiana
I don't hear anyone talking about stopping commercial airline flights which inject millions of pounds of CO2 into the stratosphere?? (given that each turbine engine on an airliner burns a few THOUSAND pounds of kerosene per hour.. Why not a movement toward nuclear generated electricity? There seems to be a general agreement that things are warming, but the real question is what to do logically and economically to make real headway.. Indeed, there are alternatives .. bicycles instead of cars, trains instead of semi trucks for long haul; some are reasonable, some are not.. Seems like a rational study of what is actually causing the temperature uptick and then some reasoned thought about how to mitigate that in a way that is compatible with maintaining civilization (such as it is) .. is what we need at this point.. I know that there is a lot of thought that human activity is mostly to blame, but I don't think that has been quantified well enough to understand the best path forward.. I am not satisfied that human activity is mostly to blame, but I am sure that it has made a difference.. I won't cite links since these are my opinions after reading about the climatic concerns, both pro and con, over the last 25 years..
as an engineer, my training is to make decisions based on real data, and to seek a root cause that can actually be addressed.. I don't see that happening yet on this issue.
 
Jun 14, 2010
2,081
Robertson & Caine 2017 Leopard 40 CT
I plan to watch my first LaVag. vid soon just to meet these young promoters, so this brilliant passage worked for them.
They're quite a nice couple and I've been following them for a while. I look forward to seeing the episodes they'll make out of this journey.
Another one I started watching recently is Gone with the Wynns. They also do excellent editing and photography.
 
Jun 14, 2010
2,081
Robertson & Caine 2017 Leopard 40 CT
as an engineer, my training is to make decisions based on real data, and to seek a root cause that can actually be addressed.. I don't see that happening yet on this issue.
I agree - but wind and hydro and solar and nuclear all have their political lobbyist opponents (probably mostly fueled up by big oil interest$).
Edit: BTW I don't think we'll see reactors in aircraft anytime soon ;)
 
Oct 26, 2008
6,045
Catalina 320 Barnegat, NJ
My personal opinion. The idea that scientist (that compete with each other and from all over the world and over a broad range of organizations) have pulled off some grand orchestrated deception of the public is just a wild conspiracy theory.

It makes way more sense to me that the fossil fuel industry has been involved in funding a deception industry for years and years.. and it has been fairly successful.
Feeding people these obtuse scientific studies is a losing battle. I consider myself reasonably intelligent. I've had my fill of college level science courses with a degree in engineering and forestry too, actually. I can barely pick out a sentence in any of these reports that you like to post that is comprehensible. It's gibberish to me, and that's the way most reasonable people would react if they ever tried to read any of it. Maybe there are conclusions that are comprehensible, but I just can't buy any conclusion if I can't comprehend the background. It's fruitless to me. Go ahead and mock my intelligence if you must … but that's me. I just don't follow the crowd that says that "science" nails down the facts. Until I can read something comprehensible I'll just go my own way.

I think that may be part of the problem with an environmental movement that relies on the "science" to prove their point. It's just gibberish to the vast majority of people. It's just that half the people choose to believe one side of the stuff that is incomprehensible and the other half either choose not to believe it, or like me, just ignore it until there is something truly convincing. It's why the environmental movement about climate change is just exhausting to people. It's just not important. I'm not saying that we don't see tangible benefits to certain environmental regulations. I certainly see the differences today, when compared to the pollution that we witnessed decades ago.

But, I'm drawn to your temperature chart. I see 4 decades of data. Approximately 2 decades are almost entirely below a seemingly arbitrary line and 2 decades are above. That's just a ridiculously small sample, no? And it doesn't even suggest a trend. And the average fluctuation seems to be less than 1 degree F. Wow! That's alarming! What does it show? Perhaps the rise over the last 2 decades coincides with the rise of Asian industrialization (as an American, am I supposed to compensate)? Perhaps it shows nothing.

I think that it is also fruitless to blame the fossil fuel industry for a "deception industry". If I'm not paying attention to the pencil-necked academics, I'm certainly not paying attention to any "deception industry". Perhaps there is something truly evil going on, like subliminal messaging and I'm falling victim to that …. let's all have a good laugh! But really, are the people whom produce and provide the energy that drives the economy that makes us all healthy, happy and comfortable supposed to be villainized? That's absurd and that's why there is just a small, strident crowd that truly believes the oil companies are evil.

Besides, I have no doubt that these corporations can readily adapt their business models to changing technologies and sources of energy. It just so happens that fossil fuels are the most efficient and productive for their shareholders. If that's changing, so be it. That will be great. I don't believe that there is an active suppression of sustainable energy. I think that most of the arguments are over how much public money and support should be thrown into alternative energy research and development. Those are the contentious political arguments … and the dialogue won't ever be stopped. I'm not opposed to the dialogue.

Enter Greta and the sailors whom deliver her to the conferences. I may not agree with her message, but this is a much more human form of motivation. What Tom said above illustrates that there are much better forms of messaging, don't you think? I don't like their message, but I'm thrilled by the way they package it! It stimulates a much stronger urge to lean their way … not that I will :cool::cool:.
 
Last edited:

walt

.
Jun 1, 2007
3,511
Macgregor 26S Hobie TI Ridgway Colorado
I don't think climate change is an existential threat. I don't trust anybody whom says that it is. I think it is all about the power to dictate our lives and I will continue to think that way for as long as the elites continue to live the way that they do.
I dont really want to address opinions.. these discussion go down hill fast. No link, no credibility
 
Jun 14, 2010
2,081
Robertson & Caine 2017 Leopard 40 CT
If I'm not paying attention to the pencil-necked academics, I'm certainly not paying attention to any "deception industry". Perhaps there is something truly evil going on, like subliminal messaging and I'm falling victim to that …. let's all have a good laugh!
1) Yes you are, and apparently don't know it.
2) Yes there is, and it's not funny
 

walt

.
Jun 1, 2007
3,511
Macgregor 26S Hobie TI Ridgway Colorado
FYI, opinion time myself - which of course is no more valid or important than anyone else opinion.. I have been studying what is on the internet regarding climate science (ie, what all those pencil neck/ head scientists are saying :)) and its clear to me that the planet is warming (what does such a small number of only 1C mean.. well, we are experiencing it) and its human caused and we are currently on an exponentially increasing curve on what is causing the warming. I think the deception that is going on right now is the casting doubt on the science. The deception is NOT the science.

Now what to do about this? Fossil fuel is why there are nearly 8 billion people on the planet. Its fueled my lifestyle (owning a trailer sailboat and a V8 fossil fuel powered truck to tow it any time I want and as far as I want). Its powering my hot tub. Its powering my whole lifestyle. I try and lessen my impact but would be a complete hypocrite to say Im making any real sacrifice. Fossil fuel is also a major and important component of the economy. The incomes that are dependent on fossil fuel is just vast ranging from individuals, cities, states, countries.

You can not just dismantle all of that in 11 years.. or by 2050.. or whenever without what I think would be some horrible consequences. Someone may post a link with a different opinion but I think both solar and wind make an impact in reducing the problem but are probably not going to be anywhere near significant enough. If you really want to get rid of fossil fuel, you have accept another evil - nuclear. I live in the western US where a lot of the nuclear fuel would be mined and that is also just an ugly option.

My opinion. we will just experience whatever comes from uncontrolled warming. Its just too easy now for someone with an agenda to pay someone to use clever marketing, data bases and artificial intelligence to convince mass amounts of folks on whatever they want especially if the subject is complicated (like climate change). Not only that. its a global issue and everyone would need to be fairly involved and burdened.. I think that was the idea with the IPCC. I dont have faith in the planet pulling that off.

Ideally.. we would stop denying the problem, keep working on the measurement and prediction science, work to reduce the warming but without destroying the economy. We would also work to tolerate the effects of the warming.

I also think the planet had been in a long term cooling trend which would have naturally put a painful curb on population growth. To some extent, the warming from fossil fuel is better than the cooling that may have occurred if we were not increasing the blanket around the planet that is trapping energy.

I am always defending the science here.. but also dont think this is even remotely going to be solved by all switching to electric cars.

Greta's generation will get to deal with some of the impacts of our overall great lifestyle now. . She should maybe be more pissed that she is..

end of opinion.. maybe not worth .02 or the time to read it..
 
Last edited:

walt

.
Jun 1, 2007
3,511
Macgregor 26S Hobie TI Ridgway Colorado
Please do. And it would be best if you could point to a paper in a peer reviewed journal.
You can find this guy Dr. Willie Soon on a bunch of youtube videos where he is denying that humans (CO2) are causing the temperature increase and instead, its the sun. He is a popular speaker at climate change denier conventions because.. in my opinion, he is an entertaining speaker. Note the sign behind him.. which says the sun is the main driver of climate change. Not humans, not CO2.

willie_soon3.jpg


How does he make a living? From here Willie Soon
“U.S. oil and coal companies, including ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Institute, Koch Industries, and the world’s largest coal-burning utility, Southern Company, have contributed more than $1 million over the past decade to his research. According to Greenpeace, every grant Dr. Soon has received since 2002 has been from oil or coal interests
I have received scientific research grants from Exxon-Mobil Foundation, Southern Company and the Charles G. Koch Foundation for my work on various topics, including scientific research on the Sun-climate connection
He is of course also making $$ being a presenter at the denial conventions, probably also making $$ from youtube views.

Peer reviewed papers.. well.. not exactly in this case. From one paper he published
After the article was published, three of the editors of Climate Research resigned in protest, including incoming editor-in-chief Hans von Storch. Storch declared the article was seriously flawed because “the conclusions [were] not supported by the evidence presented in the paper.” In addition to the resignations, thirteen of the scientists cited in the paper published rebuttals stating that Soon and Baliunas had misinterpreted their work
I tried finding the paper on the sun causing the planet warming.. it would have cost something like $40.

A friend of mine who thinks the scientists are all lying to us sent me this youtube video with a Dr Willie Soon presentation. The video is here

For about 50 minutes, he is trashing all the actual peer reviewed science (you can pick apart pretty much everything he says) but its entertaining.

But.. at around 56 minutes into the video, he kind of quickly talks about his own research into why its the sun that caused the warming.

Someone can check the details but this is what I got from listening to the video a bunch of times at around the 56 minute mark.

He says it is extremely hard to find the solar irradiance.. hardest part of climate science is understanding clouds. Turns out I was able to find one set of data showing this
Then the plot below shows up.

willie_soon2.jpg


Take a look at the Y axis "sunshine duration (hours) over Japan". And there is a nice plot (red) showing this.

This plot from the presentation below shows the Y axis on the right now but says solar irradiance. Note that the plot of solar power is the same shape as the sunshine over Japan. Good Grief.. is this the set of data he was able to find.. Only cost 1M$$ to find this..


willie_soon1.jpg


Notice in the plots from Willie Soons talk that the temperature anomalies do follow the sun output (or actually whatever that data from cloudy days in Japan is).

Now.. you might wonder as well as I did.. Satellites have been measuring the sun output power from the late 70's. Viola.. easy peasy to get direct measurements of the sun. No clouds, no atmosphere, just a simple direct measurement. Why didnt Dr Soon think of this? The satellite measured solar radiation power which is the simple direct and accurate way to measure is in the picture below from this link New NASA Instrument Measures Sunshine on Earth



Hmm.. do you notice that the satellite measured incoming solar power does not resemble at all what Dr. Soon is trying to pass off as science. In fact, you can see the 11 year sun spot activity peaks but an overall downward trend in average solar power. This does NOT at all correlate with the plots of global temperature anomaly increases. The actual temperature anomaly plots are in post 222 a few above. so I wont post again. But there is no correlation.. in fact the sun output and the global temperature anomaly are moving in different directions.

I find Dr Soons work very poor and intentionally deceptive. In my opinion, he is a sell out and earning probably a great living doing so.

We can talk about any of the other deceptions in that video as its chock full. Go back the beginning again and look who has been funding this deception.
 
Last edited:
Jun 2, 2004
3,390
Hunter 23.5 Fort Walton Yacht Club, Florida
Why isn't Greta sailing off to China to tell them how wrong they are in putting all those nasty pollutants in the air?

China is putting out much more than the US and all of Europe.
 
Jun 14, 2010
2,081
Robertson & Caine 2017 Leopard 40 CT
Why isn't Greta sailing off to China to tell them how wrong they are in putting all those nasty pollutants in the air?

China is putting out much more than the US and all of Europe.
Maybe not so much in the future. China is dramatically cutting down on pollution and mandating factories close if they don't meet new standards (even new ones only a few years old). They are aggressively pursuing solar and other non-fossil energy development.
You can point a finger at China's environmental record but we are living in a glass house. Meanwhile our current US administration is standing apart (as climate deniers) from world leaders by withdrawing from the Climate Accord. Trump's EPA selections are embarrassing choices. Drain the swamp? How about plunder the swamp?
"President Trump's first EPA Administrator, Scott Pruitt, (oil lobbyist) resigned in July 2018, amid a series of scandals. Deputy Administrator Andrew Wheeler, a former coal industry lobbyist, started serving as acting administrator on July 9, 2018. Wheeler was confirmed as EPA Administrator on February 28, 2019."
Meanwhile - Keystone XL pipeline - massive spills estimated 383,000 gallons (as feared by "tree huggers"), EPA now permitting uranium mining near the (protected) Grand Canyon / Colorado River basin, and the new policies limiting future of the EPA's ability to use science in its policy making. really … ?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.