Toward IMO's 2050 goal

Professional Mariner Forum
101

As I said it comes down to trust. I trust NOAA/ NASA on the issue. I know nothing about James Hansen but I do know this–he’s not NASA.

NASA/NOAA are composed of hundreds of scientists, not one, collecting and collating data. As always, you bring personalities and emotions into a matter of science. To decide I‘m not going to trust those organizations because of the quirks of one guy you single out is like saying I’m not going to trust all merchant mariners because of one Australian troll’s quirks and manias.

You make accusations about NOAA/NASA cooking data, but everything the “experts" in your article called cooking data has been thoroughly explained by NOAA/NASA. Who I trust because of years of familiarity and reliance on. Your experts I don’t know from Adam, so I don’t trust them. They don’t save the lives of my people and they don’t send rovers to Mars. They just throw rocks from the sideline.

You are never going to trust NOAA/NASA, or any other scientific agency, because of the Jughead Axiom: If two scientists agree on something they are likely wrong, and the more scientists agree on something, the more wrong they are.

There is also the Jughead Corollary which states: The fewer the number of scientists agreeing on something, the more likely that something is to be true.

The great thing about the Jughead Axiom is that it makes the idiot in the room a frikken Einstein. Which, after all, is the point.

102

Great. We agree.

But not for long.

You’ve supposedly just read two articles that specify his misdeeds, and specify the positions he held. There are even pictures of him. But you still ‘know nothing’. (We agree again)

I mention him because he pretty much started it … and you followed. Perhaps you should learn more about this climate warrior hero. He’s not hard to look up. Read more widely.

Aaaah, the more you have the more votes you get on ‘the science’ consensus.
I’m reminded of another scientist you’ve never heard of. Einstein’s view of group-think was summarized in this comment:

“In order to be a member of a flock of sheep, one must, above all, be a sheep oneself!”

And fudging it, as proven earlier.

Nope. I demonstrate that what you consider unimpeachable science by a big mob of scientists has been proven wrong because the big kahuna climate scientist of the big kahuna sciencey organisation predicted something scientifically by sometime and that sometime came along and … nothing happened. Ah well, there’s always more predictions those scientists can make … and get proven wrong. They are now more careful that they will be retired well before their disaster is due.

There’s that internet thingy. Try that. Strangely, I know about NASA/NOAA and I’m way over here.

Nope. Only American can save Americans. Nobody else matters. There are no other weather forecasts anywhere in the world. Why would you bother sending ships to foreign places?

Relevance?

Becasue Americans are … perfect in every way. So outsiders are always wrong.

Oh, but I do trust them - on weather, not climate. I told you that before.

I’m reminded of that bloke again, whatsisname.
The book Hundert Autoren Gegen Einstein (A Hundred Authors Against Einstein), a collection of various criticisms of Einstein’s theory of relativity. Published in 1931, it contains short essays from 28 authors, and published excerpts from 19 more. The balance was a list of 53 people who were also opposed to relativity for various reasons.
When asked about the book, Einstein retorted by saying “Why 100 authors? If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!”

Oh, I’ve just proved your point.

103

Yes we are not questioning that they are science group.
But you have added pollution to change the subject here, everyone agreeing we need to pollute less. USA made huge and leading changes to the world in that area with road transport with science and the changes made a huge difference.
LA 80’s to now for example.

You do know Co2 is colourless, odourless and tasteless, we humans cannot tell how much is in the atmosphere until its so low we forget to breath.

Co2 level going up, also nobody saying it isnt and yes man puts lots into the atmosphere but it is the lifeblood gas on this planet and we are part of the carbon chain.

The discussion here is that more Co2 is bad according to governments, yet the earth did very well when it was much higher than it is now.

The second jump is that its mans contribution to Co2 is causing the earths temperature to go up on a global based average over 200 years.

The third discussion is that if we reduce the measured input to zero we will stop the increase in temperature.

The last question is what do we do after all these very expensive changes to try to get to net zero carbon and the temp and the Co2 is still going up?

PS a 1000 scientists in one organisation only gets you one published opinion.
Any scientist will tell you that consensus is not science.
Is it safe to launch, well we have lots of financial pressure so lets all agree its safe ok…bang Challenger
It is safe to re enter yes sure it is our modelling says it is , bang Colombia
Sad events but those people trusted Nasa like you do I guess?

104

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Not even you believe your own bullshit. Here’s what you said in another thread, about National Geographic suggesting to rename an ocean:

If you stuck to your principles, you’d back up National Geographic against the consensus opinion. But you don’t. You back up the consensus opinion! * :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:*.

Here’s where the crackpot logic of the Jughead Axiom takes you:

If the weather models from three different national weather agencies agree that a typhoon is aimed dead-nuts at your bow, you would be less likely to take evasive action than if all three models disagreed. Because the Jughead Axiom states that the more scientists and experts agree on something, the less likely that something is to be true.

But you and I know you would run like a scalded dog if all three national weather agencies models agreed on your imminent demise. You wouldn’t waste a New York minute on spinning that little dial on the autopilot.

Bu then you would have me believe that the same scientists–of different nations-- who collect the data and make the models you trust for your weather predictions are trustworthy from 8 to 11 in the morning, when they work on weather models, but are evil, worldwide conspirators from 1 to 5 in the afternoon, when they work on climate science. This is silly, Qanon-level wackiness.

It all comes down to trust. I trust NOAA/NASA. I don’t trust guys who change their core principles with each internet thread. Do you trust the consensus opinion or not? You waffle back and forth on it.

1 Like
105

Aaaaah that was Einstein, not me.

Science does not involve ‘consensus’. I never said it did. Science is proof or rejection of a theory by comparing empirical observations of the real world with what the theory predicts. The naming of the oceans isn’t exactly science now is it? So consensus can be used, or we could just pluck ocean names out of a hat or out of someone’s butt.

Blah, blah, blah etc ad infinitum. I’m talking about ‘climate’. Here’s an example.
“If the climate models from three different national climate agencies agree that a typhoon is aimed dead-nuts at your bow at the end of this century, you would be less likely to take evasive action than if all three models disagreed.” There, fixed for you.

Don’t have one. I have a trainee steering on a traditional spoked wheel, standing unprotected rain, hail and shine on a teak deck with a compass and a good view of the sails by which he/she/them steers. Oh, and I pay careful heed to weather forecasts, and trust but verify with my own eyes.

I never said any such thing. The people who make weather forecasts don’t generally make climate predictions. Weather forecasters know that the further ahead they forecast the less accurate they will be. They get checked on their accuracy daily by millions of uneducated buffoons who have no problem picking what the forecasts got wrong. They may dabble in projecting seasonal forecasts for the next season or two, but they know they will be wrong, and besides, who bothers to check. Farmers now do their own. Australia’s BOM is notorious on these and has never got one right (pssssst, don’t tell them, their models are wrong ie the science is wrong).

Climate scientists project even further ahead into fantasyland. Remember that bloke you ‘know nothing about’? He made a public prediction. He was wrong. Strangely, people still believe he was right. People like you. NASA/NOAA (not the guys running Mars rovers - bad juju if they landed on the wrong planet) is full of 'em because they are still making predictions that are wrong. Their theories and models are wrong because they don’t predict what actually happens. They are worse because they fiddle the data to fit their models. That’s not science. It’s not even consensus.

Is that the fabled 97% consensus? In which case no. Other consensuses? Climate alarmists are overwhelmingly Lefties? Yes!

1 Like
106

Einstein was a brilliant mind. But he didn’t develop the nuclear reactor, or all the theories and models needed to build a reactor. Nothing against him, but a bunch of other scientists and engineers made the reactor. They did it working together. They got together and hashed out opinions. The disagreed on this and that, but they agreed on the way forward much of the time. When they disagreed the Director said, “We’re going this way”, and the engineers got building. There were mistakes along the way, but they worked those out, and got things done.

That’s how most great big, scientific endeavors are done. To claim otherwise is bullshit.

But the Jughead Axiom would have you believe that those same scientists got together and each said, “I’m right, you’re wrong, that’s that”. And that the Director in charge routinely picked the scientific opinion which was least supported by everyone else, because in the Jughead Axiom that’s how you decide which theory is most valid.

It’s a silly, Qanon-nutty way of looking at things, because it’s so simplistic. The idea that science can advance by agreement on data and models, and also advance because of disagreement on models, is never admitted. Because the Jughead/Qanon world is a black-and-white, good-and-evil world comic book world of heroes versus Lefties, personalities and feelings.

107

Here’s NASA’s credo, summed up: We chose to go to the Moon and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because those goals are hard, and because they serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills…

NASA routinely does things no human has ever done before. They are always pressing the envelope of the possible. The only way to do that is by failure. There is no other road. To make one great achievement you have to endure 99 failures. There is no other way. To get to the Moon, NASA had to watch dozens of rockets blow up on the launch pad, and suffer three dead astronauts. But they got to the Moon. Who else has done it?

But your theory is this: NASA is untrustworthy, because it risks failures on the way to knowledge. I find this theory silly.

I trust NOAA/NASA’s data showing the heat energy in the atmosphere is increasing rapidly, and that the reason is mostly likely rising CO2 levels. Note that these data and models are backed up by other groups of non-affiliated scientists. MAK argues the NOAA/NASA model is incorrect. But just because MAK believes in the minority opinion that hydrochloroquine cures C19 doesn’t mean I’m inclined to believe him. I’m inclined to believe the majority of scientists. We disagree. That’s OK.

I looked at the data you and Jughead offer, purporting to show NASA cooked the books. I’m not impressed. NOAA/NASA answered the opposing scientists’s accusation with reasons and data (not slander and invective). The opposing scientists did not come up with compelling data and models to counter NOAA/NASA’s answers. Hence, I trust NOAA/NASA in this matter.

108

But, WTF are those “other things?”

1 Like
109

I have, of course, only paraphrased P35, and so choose to interpret the words this way:
the other things are landing spacecraft on asteroids, operating helicopters on Mars, exploring the moons of Jupiter, helping to set up a network of climate satellites around the Earth, and all the marvels yet to come.

110

They pay off the aliens

1 Like
111

I have never said this. Just because you got blown the fuck out and had your ignorance laid bare for the entire forum to see isn’t a reason to start blatantly lying.

I said it was worth conducting trials with and it absolutely was. Those trials didn’t work out. Coincidentally the man who pioneered HCQ therapy for Covid was a recognized expert in his field, so by your logic we should believe him.

You don’t even know what the NASA/NOAA models show or you wouldn’t say ridiculous things like I don’t believe in them.

You don’t hold your positions because of trust in experts, you hold them because you’ve been propagandized to hold them.

112

If you don’t believe HCL cures C19, I apologize. That was my memory from 14 months ago.

But the fact remains that there are still people out there (not you) who believe HCL cures C19. They hold a minority view in the scientific community, and my point is that I’m not going to trust their opinion solely because they are in the minority, any more than I will trust the minority opinion on ACC’s consequences simply because it is a minority opinion.

As for your statement:

I am simply commenting on your previous post, where you state everyone switched from NOAA to Windy’s weather models because NOAA’s were of poor accuracy. Here is the quote in full:

But now I understand you believe in the accuracy of NOAA/NASAs models and data, because otherwise why would you use them? Record corrected.

As for:

…a minority opinion. You know my view on those. :grinning:

2 Likes
113

Carbon based fuels produce CO2 along with many other nasty elements. Given a choice why would anyone continue to promote carbon based fuels that pollute and also “may” contribute to global warming
Why not explore alternative energy sources?
What’s the downside? I really have never heard a reasonable fact based answer to that question.

114

Achieving the goal through a tax based strategy or a subsidy based strategy ends with the people that always seem to end up accumulating power and wealth through bureaucracy accumulating more.

There’s no downside to utilizing renewables to achieve independence from that class, and that occupies a good bit of my time off the vessel.

1 Like