[Nyk Pike]

First time Pacific Dunes has closed due to weather. Don't know how to post photos or find the thread with instructions so here's a link.
 Pacific Dunes with snow  

[Tom Huckaby]

Nyke - good lord - while those pictures are pretty neat, well... a few of us are heading up there at the end of Feb and that is NOT what we want to see!

Gulp....

[Bill_McBride]

It's good to have Lou Duran back.

[Matt Kardash]

This thread made me laugh. I bet most people here don't have enough knowledge on the subject of global climate change, yet they preach like they know the facts.

To the guy who mentioned ice ages. Ice ages aren't anthropogenic; they occur naturally, roughly every 100 000 years, and are caused by Milankovich cycles.

[JNC Lyon]

I will make the same post I made in the other GW thread, just to reinforce my views.  I cannot overstate how ridiculous the idea of global warming is.  Just read Michael Crichton's book, "State of Fear" for a good argument against GW.

Global Warming as a scientific fact is pure speculation, therefore it is NOT viable as a fact.  It's been very cold throughout the Western part of the US as of late, and temperatures are around normal in the Northeast where I am.  Of course, liberals will point to this as proof of global warming because it's really "global climate change."  Shows you how credible the global warming is when you claim cold weather proves a trend of warming.  

So what effect will warming have on golf courses?  Probably nothing.  I will say, I was thrilled to play golf on both Christmas Day and New Year's Day, but I am certainly not playing any golf now.

The only reason this has become a political issue is because of the President's stance against the "fact" of global warming.  If the President said there was global warming, most liberals would dismiss it as a flawed theory, a scam.  Politics as usual.

[A.G._Crockett]

I will make the same post I made in the other GW thread, just to reinforce my views.  I cannot overstate how ridiculous the idea of global warming is.  Just read Michael Crichton's book, "State of Fear" for a good argument against GW.

Global Warming as a scientific fact is pure speculation, therefore it is NOT viable as a fact.  It's been very cold throughout the Western part of the US as of late, and temperatures are around normal in the Northeast where I am.  Of course, liberals will point to this as proof of global warming because it's really "global climate change."  Shows you how credible the global warming is when you claim cold weather proves a trend of warming.  

So what effect will warming have on golf courses?  Probably nothing.  I will say, I was thrilled to play golf on both Christmas Day and New Year's Day, but I am certainly not playing any golf now.

The only reason this has become a political issue is because of the President's stance against the "fact" of global warming.  If the President said there was global warming, most liberals would dismiss it as a flawed theory, a scam.  Politics as usual.

Actually, Bush mentioned it last night; just referred to it as "global climate change".  It's been sometime since he has denied it.  He simply says now that it is impossible to determine man's role in it, and that we won't wreck the economy to take steps to reverse it (Kyoto).  That those two statements are at least somewhat contradictory is his problem, not mine.

Also, no one with any sense contends that the weather right now is the global climate.  NASA and the Pentagon, among others such as the National Academy of Sciences with no "liberal agenda" have spoken to global warming; google it for yourself.

Finally, Crichton's book is a work of fiction.  That he makes an interesting page turner out of taking a position against anything for the purpose of selling books doesn't make it science in any way shape or form.  He wrote a book about nano creatures taking over the world, and dinosaurs brought back to life from amber.  Does that make them true?  Can't wait to see a real T-rex!

[JNC Lyon]

I know Crichton's book is fiction, but the graphs and references certainly are real!!!  All I know is the US certainly isn't seeing its effects right now, or even warming itself.

[Matt Kardash]

I will make the same post I made in the other GW thread, just to reinforce my views.  I cannot overstate how ridiculous the idea of global warming is.  Just read Michael Crichton's book, "State of Fear" for a good argument against GW.

Global Warming as a scientific fact is pure speculation, therefore it is NOT viable as a fact.  It's been very cold throughout the Western part of the US as of late, and temperatures are around normal in the Northeast where I am.  Of course, liberals will point to this as proof of global warming because it's really "global climate change."  Shows you how credible the global warming is when you claim cold weather proves a trend of warming.  

So what effect will warming have on golf courses?  Probably nothing.  I will say, I was thrilled to play golf on both Christmas Day and New Year's Day, but I am certainly not playing any golf now.

The only reason this has become a political issue is because of the President's stance against the "fact" of global warming.  If the President said there was global warming, most liberals would dismiss it as a flawed theory, a scam.  Politics as usual.

Dumbest post ever.
But then again, what do I know? I only study climate change. Thanks for telling me that climate change is a hoax. To think I might have wasted the rest of my life studying something so meaningless. Thank you for your stunning insight which is based on a work of fiction and on your personal beliefs, which are based on everything except science. Trully inspiring.

[JNC Lyon]

Matt Kardash:

Sorry, I hadn't gotten around to reading your heartwarming post yet.  Thanks for the vote of confidence, not to mention the insult to my intelligence.  I just have to remember that if you disagree with a rabid environmentalist, you are an ignorant moron who wants to kill babies.  You really made my day.

[JNC Lyon]

BTW read "The Skeptical Environmentalist," by Bjorn Lomborg for a nonfiction argument against global warming (although Crichton does have many references you might by interested in as someone who studies climate change.  But then, what do I know, I'm just an ignorant moron.

[Dan Herrmann]

I know Crichton's book is fiction, but the graphs and references certainly are real!!!  All I know is the US certainly isn't seeing its effects right now, or even warming itself.

JNC_Lyon,
I'm pretty sure any scientist will confirm that global warming has had a significiant effect on costal Alaska.  (Last I heard, Sec of State Seward had successfully purchased Alaska from Russia)

[Chris Cupit]

A.G.

Nice memory on Julian Bond.  Just curious though, would you rather be a "genial incompetent" or a busted coke sniffing adulterer?

Julian Bond??  That's like the pot calling.....er, never, mind...I guess JB never worried about throwing rocks from his glass house!!!

[Daryl "Turboe" Boe]

In those six years, a virtual consensus has gelled in the scientific community.  

I resubmit for the socalled "dumbest post ever" as someone noted above above.  

In one sentence you have shown your in depth knowledge of science.  It is impossible to have CONSENSUS in SCIENCE since they are inherently opposites.  And I am not coming down on you specifically because I hear that asinine phrase mentioned nearly nightly by uninformed media types.  But lets run through this quickly for any non-technical types out there.

I cannot be the only person on here with a scientific background, so jump in anyone and refute or confirm this.  Now lets take all the politics out of this, because they have no place in science.  Strictly speaking science is the study, measurement, and recording of FACTS (ie numerical truths).   So lets look at why you cannot have real science and consensus at the same time.  

Consensus by its definition means that because some percentage of people believe something then it should be accepted as truth.  Consensus is handy when it comes to things of belief.  Such as if 98 people out of 100 think that murdering someone in cold blood is wrong, then it would be fair to say that "The consensus is that murder is wrong".

However I don't care if 99 people out of 100 tell you that the computer that you are sitting at right now weighs 400 lbs (or Kg for our international buddies), if you put it on a scale and it only weighs 50 lbs, then it actually weighs 50 lbs, not 400.  And the consensus of the 99 people who think otherwise doesn't mean squat, even if those 99 people include computer experts or the guy at the carnival that guesses your weight.  Even if Steven Jobs and Bill Gates tell you the computer weighs 400 lb. it doesnt change the scientific fact that it actually weighs 50 lbs.  The scientific fact is what it is regardless of what anyone thinks.  

Any real scientist would know that "Consensus" inherently cannot have any place in science.  I have seen all sides of this.  I have been around research projects where a specific end result was desired to meet someone's financial goals.  When someone tries to bring consensus into scientific study you no longer have science, what you have is agenda-driven technical based malfeasance.  And that is not something that I personally want to be involved with, so I left that project.  Unfortunately that is what I see from most of the GW "Science" that is going on.  

Most of you are correct though in saying that we have lost the argument I am afraid.  But, that doenst make it any more true or based in science than it was yesterday, last year, or ten years ago.  If you want to belive in GW because of scientific facts that is fine (I chose not to believe in it for those same reasons), but please dont tell me that GW exists because of Consensus.  

The fact that 43 is starting to talk about it doesn't change the science, it only tells me that their opinion polls tell them that it is expedient to talk about it.  And besides don't all you guys say that 43 is the "Dumbest guy in the world" and most everything he ever says you think is inherently false.  Funny how now on this one issue you think the guy is an authority.  Well I wont be getting my climatological information from either 43 or Al Gore for that matter thank you very much.   So you can have your consensus if you want, but please, please don't drag science into the same sentence.

[Michael Christensen]

bravo turbo, bravo......all the politics need to be taken out of this......

[JNC Lyon]

I realize I am in error with regards to the president's current views of global warming.  That still doesn't make the idea any more valid.

[A.G._Crockett]

Turboe,
I take your point on "consensus" in science as something of a contradiction of terms.  That doesn't mean, though, that there are not generally accepted scientific principles or realities, does it?

Disclaimer: I am NOT a scientist in any way, shape, or form.  I like to read, and from what I read, it seems that there is not a lot of remaining disagreement in the scientific community about climate change.  There is more disagreement about the role of man in that change, and still more disagreement about the extent to which the changes will pose a problem in the years to come.  Even so, the amount of disagreement within the scientific community seems relatively small on all counts, and with the Pentagon and NASA included in the majority view, it is hard to go in the other direction and feel supported by the data.

As to leaving politics out of it, as Michael Christiansen advocates, that simply isn't possible.  There are economic considerations of great concern, and environmental change cannot be accomplished unilaterally, on either a personal or even a national level.  For instance, I could never again recycle glass, plastic, or paper products, or I could be the ONLY person in America to do so, and the landfill issues that we face would not change appreciably.  Whatever we do, or do NOT do, will have a political component to it, and with very serious economic implications.

As to Dubya, I don't think ANYBODY is quoting him as an authority.  It would seem significant that a conservative oilman doesn't dispute climate change anymore, though, and hasn't for some time.  Admittedly, that may be a poll-driven change of heart, but we'll never know.

I don't confuse weather with climate; it is 18 degrees right now in Atlanta, GA.  Neither that temperature, nor the 70 degrees here on New Year's Day are climate, just a weather pattern at a given moment.  That said, I'm 54 years old and have lived my entire life in the South, and I KNOW that the climate I live in now is NOT the climate that I grew up in.  Something is different, and I am willing to be convinced by EITHER side as to what that might be and what ought (or ought not) be done about it.  It just seems that the vast, vast majority of the scientific community with no specific political agenda is saying the same thing about it.  Where am I wrong?

[A.G._Crockett]

I realize I am in error with regards to the president's current views of global warming.  That still doesn't make the idea any more valid.

Or less valid...

[Chris Cupit]

As a non scientist with an admittedley libertarian outlook on most things, it would seem that we could all agree that we should be good stewards of the environment irrespective of whether or not the climate is warming (or cooling) or staying the same.

I understand there can be enormous economic implications when governments mandate anything and I understand the resentment when the mandates come and many feel that they are hastily made or made on the basis of conflicting or incomplete data.

In the meantime, as individuals, I think that just because we don't have to do something doesn't mean that we shouldn't try.  It may or may not make a bit of difference but being as responsible as we can to our environment, even if we don't have to, just seems like the thing to do.

In the meantime, the personal attacks are stupid.  I responded to A.G.'s snide remark about former President Reagan (A.G. used former politician/activist Julian Bond's words) when maybe I shouldn't have; but, my poorly illustrated point was that there aren't many of us who should feel too comfortable about calling other people names.

[A.G._Crockett]

In the meantime, the personal attacks are stupid.  I responded to A.G.'s snide remark about former President Reagan (A.G. used former politician/activist Julian Bond's words) when maybe I shouldn't have; but, my poorly illustrated point was that there aren't many of us who should feel too comfortable about calling other people names.

Chris,
I didn't mean to be snide; I was just stating a preference for one Reagan insult over another!
In any event, I took no offense, and I would value Clark Clifford's judgement more than Julian Bond's in most, if not all, other cases.  
I didn't respond to your post ONLY because I didn't know which "busted coke sniffing adulterer" we might be discussing.  In general, though, I'd opt for the busted, etc., over the incompetent IF we are talking about the Presidency.  If we're choosing my pastor or golf partner or best friend, I would probably reverse that.

[Geoffrey Childs]

Daryl

I am a scientist and I’ve published about 100 (or more) peer reviewed scientific articles and received peer reviewed research grants for the last 30 years (though not in the field of climate control). You are correct in your facts regarding consensus vs. the scientific method but you are incorrect in your interpretation with regard to the issue at hand.

SCIENTIFIC FACT- We can measure the CO2 levels over the time span that man has been part of this planet.

SCIENTIFIC FACT- Since the industrial revolution began and we obtained technology to burn fossil fuels (a tiny fraction of the total time we have inhabited the planet)  the CO2 levels in the atmosphere increased what looks to be exponentially.

SCIENTIFIC FACT- CO2 in the atmosphere acts as an insulator to keep thermal energy (heat) from escaping into space.

OBSERVED FACTS- already stated record temperatures in many locations on the planet – polar ice melting at record rates

How do we interpret these FACTS?  There is where the consensus comes in because current computer simulations of weather patterns are far from accurate or powerful enough to predict with certainty when the insulating properties of the increased CO2 levels will reach critical levels and exactly what the long term consequences might be.

Forget about politics and look at common sense reasons to act now-
-renewable energy is clean and can help to rid us of foreign oil which itself has terrible political and economic consequences.
- new industries from renewable energy could be the next Microsoft, Intel or General Electric’s and generate jobs and imports.
-pollution associated with burning oil has immense health risks that are both economic and humanitarian issues.

The facts are there to interpret and the consensus interpretation of the facts with the best simulations available say that global warming from the burning of oil and coal is a reality.  We can’t say when it will become irreversible.  Should we stay the course or should we alter our behavior as best we can?  

[Daryl "Turboe" Boe]

Turboe,
I take your point on "consensus" in science as something of a contradiction of terms.  That doesn't mean, though, that there are not generally accepted scientific principles or realities, does it?

No, quite the contrary.  For instance water (H20) has a boiling point of 100C.  But water doesn't have a boiling point of 100C because any group of scientists say it does.  It has a boiling point of 100C because when observed and measured that is the point that it boils.  

More specifically water does not boil at 100C just because Kenneth Gailey who wrote my college chemistry book says it does, it does so because that is the point at which enough energy has been introduced to cause the substance H20 to change from a liquid to a gas.  And if Mr. Gailey or anyone else said otherwise it would not change the facts.  That is how science works.

I don't know what you are trained to do, maybe accounting, maybe law, etc.  Now I am not an accountant and so I don't stick my neck out on two many issues regarding those theories, but as an unknowledgeable outsider it also would seem to be a discipline that also deals in absolutes, at least on a rudimentary level.  So I would guess that if my checking account had $11,000 in it, but several "Accountants" went on TV and said that they thought I had $1million in it, that would not change the fact that it actually had only $11,000.  I might think I have $1million in the bank, in fact my wife thinks sometimes that I act like I do, but when I go to write a check for $12,000 tomorrow, I bet someone will let me know that my belief wont cash that check.  I thought about testing that Theory last year when I went to buy a car, but the scientist in me wouldn't let me turn my back on the absolute value of what the numbers showed me.

Now Law on the other hand might seem to be a discipline where consensus or precedent is an important thing.  I don't know, I am not a lawyer.  As an outsider I would submit that in Law (or journalism for that matter) absolutes are not as common or important.  Am I right?  If I am wrong I apologize and that is why I would not stick my neck out making assertions about something that I am no better informed than some random guy off the street corner.

However when it comes to science I do know what I am talking about.  Science is based in fact.  Yes there are scientific principles and they are also based in fact.  When you have an notion or thought about something in science we call that a THEORY until it is proven scientifically it is not a fact or principle.  That is what frosts my behind is when the media plays loosy goosy with GW Theories and presents them as fact.  In science there is a big difference between THEORY and FACT.  They are very careful when you read their stories to say "Which may cause Global Warming."  or the ever popular "which some scientists believe is causing...".  That's worth about as much as the statement "Daryl Boe, which some people believe has over a million dollars in the bank".  If you don't believe that just ask me.

I don't think you are going to change my mind on the scientific facts, and I am probably not going to change your mind on the politics or consensus, so we will just have to disagree.  And I am fine with that.  That is why I hadn't looked into or posted on this thread in a while, it is just too time consuming to go back through the science of this again and again.  When the people on the other side have framed the argument so that they are innocent until proven guilty all they have to insinuate is "Well we care about the environment and you obviously don't" It is amazing that they are the ones trying to prove a theory, but by using emotion and fear they have changed the argument such that the other side needs to prove that their theory is false.

By the way its 17F here this morning in SC (and that is cold), and I have a theory that the current cooling trend we are experiencing is due to the fact that Trans-fats are being eliminated from peoples diets.  This whole Trans-fat elimination thing has really hit stride last fall, and that is just when the weather turned cold down here.  So until you can prove that it isn't the case I believe that "Transfatual Transformation" is taking place in our climate.  And I think we should reintroduce them to our diet, because I know it might be detrimental to our cardiovascular health, but this is just too important not to act immediately.  And don't try to tell me that it has something to do with the suns effect on the earth because the GW people have been telling me for years that Sun has no bearing on the earths climate, and it has to be effected by man.  And to further my theory, my "research"  shows that if we don't act soon we may all die.  In fact I believe it is almost a certainly that we will all die.  In addition my "computer modeling" shows that what will be even worse than this current cooling trend we are in now, is the subsequent warming trend that I foresee coming possibly as soon as just a few months.  If we dont reintroduce Transfats back to their previous levels I believe we will be subjected to these extremes of temperature for many years to come.  Bring back the Transfats before it is too late.

That's all the time I have to devote to non-revenue producing work at this time this morning.  

ps.   Have a nice day.

[Geoffrey Childs]

Daryl

Congratulations on your Trans-fat theories and best of luck in getting grant support to fund your research studies to prove your theory.

[RJ_Daley]

Daryl, from a citizen layman's point of view, and very non-scientifically minded person, I still have to make certain decisions in life that involve "belief" in various political and semi-scientific theories.  Even I know there are some absolute facts, and some of those absolute facts are used to form more advanced "theories" that are not absolute.  Yet, we are asked to evaluate the theories all the time to make decisions.

A few examples are that certain facts, like body counts, go into the theory that if we place even more troops in Iraq, those numbers will eventually go down, and a favorable outcome will follow.  I am asked to "vote" for various people that hold that theory, or others who do not.  They can look at the facts, of pure number crunching, and come to different conclusions, then act in a socio-political way, depending on "CREDIBILITY"!!!

Now, in this GW debate, there are opposing theories.  Some use factual inputs, like what temperature the water melts the ice (not what temp the water boils) and determine the polar ice caps are melting.  They show us space photos of the size area of various ice fields and the polar caps and tell us this is supporting evidence.  The fact is that the water is melting somewhere north of 32*.  But, the theory tells us this is significant and we better craft some policies and decisions on this.  Your lot tells us that water boils at 100* is a fact, that so what, that doesn't mean GW is a fact, and that you have a different theory on what decisions we make or what importance in terms of policy and laws we should assign your "scientific findings" based on facts.  

There are people that claim they are scientists that say creationisim and intelligent design is fact.  But, as a non-scientist citizen layman, non-scientifically minded fellow, I have to make certain decisions based on CREDIBILITY!!!  So, it will come as no surprise to you that I would vote for those on a school board that embraced the theory of evolution, because I sense it is better use of science and interpretation of facts than the ADam and Eve'ers.

Most of us are not so stupid to fall for the idea that you have 400 computer "experts" to say the PC under my desk weights 400lbs.  I don't care if you claim Bill Gates is among them.  Firstly, because you couldn't get any real experts to say something that perposterous, and most people have the inherent ability to deduce a fool from a factual person, most of the time.  

So, that consensus that seems to be forming, is evidence to most people that want a chance at a sustainable future, to make decisions based on the more credible theories that use some facts to formulate their estimates of what will happen.  

The crowd that pooh-poohs and ridicules the theoretical science on GW are loosing via consensus of a collective mind of citizens that are not scientists.  Yet, I have hope that the un-scientific minds will prevail...  

UNtil the asteroid hits.... then all bets are off!  

[Don_Mahaffey]

All I can say is this weather isn't very good for building golf courses in South Texas.
Rain 15 out of the last 17 days with high temps in the 40s and 50s.
I thought I moved to sunny South Texas, but I think I ended up somewhere near Seattle.

[Joe Hancock]

Don,

The first time I saw Port Lavaca, I immediately thought "Seattle".

 

Wal Mart Super Center.....the business hub of Port Lavaca.

15 out of 17 huh...yuck.

Joe

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()