M/S Mt. Washington Outruns Iceberg...
 

Friday's "Epic Fail"...

Protestors riding on an "iceberg float" tried to keep up with the M/S Mt. Washington, to protest at least one passenger on board. Maybe they needed a bigger boat?

From the article:

The first Lake Winnipesaukee rescue of the season?

:look:

How did I miss his?
 

Hummmm... let see, used a huge float as a tow toy, and flipped it... is anyone surprised by the outcome... Not I

Now we should note here the environmental impact of their effort... The tow boat uses gas which adds to air pollution.. the MP boat also uses gas which contributes to air pollution had to come rescue them. Air pollution contributes to global warming.. oh wait they also probably used cars to get to their protest contributing to Air pollution... And Air pollution contributes to global warming...

I think they would have been better off staying at home, not polluting the environment with their gasoline powered engines... and they would have felt better and less embarrassed then they do now....

hope they got cited for using a float as a towable
also only having one spotter for three people

maarrroooooooonnnns

Not the brightest crayon in the shed for sure.

good try
 

the message was in the right idea .
perhaps a test run was needed .

Just another demonstration of their "Do as we say, not as we do" agenda. Just ask Uncle Al Gore. I'm surprised he didn't fly to Laconia on his private jet so he could have put on a moose outfit and jumped on the iceberg. What a joke.

I was on the cruise last Friday and it was the most pathetic attempt at a protest. It was actually funny.

Seriously?
 

This is the total depth of your response? It's hypocrisy to burn any fuel if you protest greenhouse gas production? Thats ALL you got? I don't begrudge Ted Cruz signing up for Obamacare, even after he demonized it, because thats what was available to him after his wife resigned from Goldman Sachs. I don't begrudge all those retired anti-socialist tea party supporters from saying "I hate socialism and don't touch my medicare!" even though Medicare, and Social Security, are by far the most socialist policies in the country. Because...who's going to cut themselves off from what is available to them, even if they dont like it or where it came from, because it's the reality they have to deal with. Nor do I begrudge all the chickenhawks who want to fight and invade most everywhere and anywhere whose total military experience is playing with toys. Well actually I do kinda begrudge them a bit after losing my nephew in Iraq. But, thats an issue that calls for serious debate, not childish nonsense.

I've been saying this for years
 

Maybe the alarmists should read this.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...arming-crisis/

That's what I thought when I read about it, and was careful not to mention politics of any kind. Alas, the easily-offended have chimed in.

That said, the AGW discussion usually ends when asking, "What temperature would you like it to be?"

:confused:

I have nothing to add other than your Prius cancels out my truck. :D

I have decades of pay stubs that clearly show that I've PAID for both my Medicare and Social Security benefits since 1965. Being an "anti-socialist" in no way negates my right to collect on what I have already paid for.

Serious, conservative, climate alarmists...
 

Whoops...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamescon...lobal-warming/

Lol, knock it off with the global warming BS you guys, you know who you are.

Well said and thank you! Those that are self unemployed pay the employers 7.65% too!

Unfortunately Social security is a ponzi scheme that will implode unless something is done, what needs to be done is the big question, not an easy problem to fix.

.... 2010 engines replaced
 

Did you all know that back in March, 2010, the Mount got two new Caterpillar marine engines, a $750,000 value, through the federal government's "cash for clunkers" program which replaced its' two older diesel engines from the 1940's. The new Cat's use much less fuel, run much cleaner, and include a transmission that has reverse gear while the old set-up did not have a transmission.

So, the Mount basically got the two clean running Caterpillar engines for almost free through the Obama administration's cash for clunkers program that exchanged the old clunker engines for the money needed to re-power with new engines.

It is very likely the Republicans on board last Friday night, May 29, for their annual Belknap County Republican Lincoln Day Dinner, 3-hour Cruise/$75-plus, per person, stuffed chicken breast or roasted sirloin, dinner-cruise, would all be voting NO to the cash for clunkers program, because these Republicans are the party of NO!

http://www.unionleader.com/article/2...921&source=RSS
A viewer-friendly photo: Gov Scott Walker eyeballs the radar screen from the bridge of the M/S Mount Washington.

Thread pollution. Its only going to get worse, can't wait till the election is over with

For FREE!?!?!? What??? Did Caterpillar donate the engines? That would be free. No the government paid for them and where does the government get their money? "Free"...geeze, it's boggles my mind how people think that gov't money is different from your money. By the way, I thought "Cash for Clunkers" was a pretty creative program but make no mistake, we all paid for it.

Also the tickets were $50, $4 cheaper than some normal dinner cruises.

Almost free for the Mount Washington because the Mount got two new Cat engines and transmission courtesy of the March, 2010, cash for clunkers federal program.....just like many individuals got big credit for their used cars through the cash for clunkers program to purchase a new car.

According to the attached Union Leader article, the price/donation for the dinner-cruise started at $150/couple, and some rich Republicans probably chose to pay or donate more as it was a Belknap County Republican fundraiser cruise.

You keep your Crayolas in the shed?? :laugh::laugh:

Sure it is.

Invest in gold, lead, and brass. :)

Actually, if you make 80k a year, are 30years old, and were allowed to invest the 7.6% deduction in a 401k that is 6.6% matched by your employer, you would have $1.2 million in that account assuming a 5% return per year, by the time you reached 65. You could retire, use 4% of that money per year ($48,000 per year) to live off of and have double the income you get from SS. At 4% taken per year, that money should last the rest of your life plus leave a sizable estate for your heirs.

You can do the math for yourself here:

http://www.bankrate.com/calculators/...alculator.aspx

By the time I hit 65, I imagine life being something like out of the movie The Road. When all the "free .gov money" stops being mailed out, things will get very interesting.

That's what military types do!!
 

While serving we were asked to have a strategy and plans for all sorts of scenarios.

I'll bet dollars to donuts (you get to pick the donut spot) that if you look hard enough you'll find a military plan for global warming, A new ice age, a Volcano cataclysmic event, nation wide floods, health disasters, Ect... Ect....

So the military having a plan for global warming in no way supports the global warming hypothesis.


ToW

You mean the Union Leader was wrong??? Shocker! Trust me, they were $50 each, I paid for them with my non-free, post taxed, hard earned money.

I like this guy.

Climate change has occurred long before we were on the planet. Man made global warming is a hoax. Pretty simple really unless you're a scientist living off government grants.

This notion that its a hoax makes no sense. If any contained system is over populated by a species, environmental change will occur as a result of that species. If you put 100 fish in a 25 gallon fish tank, in time they will crap up the water and deplete the oxygen to a level where they cannot survive. Life can still exist in the tank, it just will not be the fish.

Getting more than you paid for?
 

Well, you sorta paid for it..http://www.forbes.com/sites/chriscon...y-for-seniors/.

You might try actually reading the article...
 

98% of the worlds climatologists should read some of these posts. They'd realize they were wrong. What the heck does NASA and NOAA know about climate?

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.

This might be my favorite post of all time. So far we've discussed:

Global Warming
Military Preparedness
Medicare
Social Security
Political Fundraising
Media Accuracy
Government Subsidized Programs
Marine Patrol Violations
Physics of keeping up with the Mount
&
Caterpillar Engines

All this because a few chuckleheads dressed like moose, climbed on an inflatable iceberg that looked more like the apollo re-entry capsule and then evidently capsized! You could make the argument that they got some discussion going but all I know is that I am LMAO.

brrrrr
 

Then why did my water pipe freeze buried six feet below ground in Laconia this Winter? This is the first time that it happened in the 14 years I've owned the place. COLDEST February on record.....Most snow fall on record in Massachusetts. Are you going to believe the Al Gore Koolaid drinkers or your own lying eyes? The facts don't add up!!

The Breeze
Wave 'cuz I'll be wavin' Back

Walter...you can't look at New England and say because it was cold and snowy here that dictates the whole world's conditions. It was the WARMEST WINTER ON RECORD. This isn't me pushing an opinion or agenda. I believe in science. So do you. If you think 98% of the worlds climatologists are idiots, including NASA, NOAA, and the rest of the scientific community, then you've chosen to ignore science. It's not something I'm willing to do. I beg you to offer peer reviewed science that says man made climate change is a hoax. I can easily find links to show you your winter observations were myopic.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summar.../global/2015/2
http://www.usatoday.com/story/weathe...lobe/24957737/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ter-on-record/

I like Pop-Tarts. Brown Sugar is my favorite.

Maybe some of those peer reviewed scientists could explain what happened to the glacial ice that extended down as far as the equator during the cryogenian period. All melted 700 million years ago. Wondor what all those world climatologists thought back then?

They probably thought the planet was supporting a much different life ecosystem than it is today.

Really, all the concern about climate change revolves around viability of an environment for humans. If you're only concerned about the Earth itself continuing to exist, regardless of habitability, then you're golden.

I don't know how any rational person can actually enjoy Pop-Tarts.

Because I personally do not enjoy Pop-Tarts I thereby conclude that you are wrong for your enjoyment of them.

This just in:
 

http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/04/no...arming-hiatus/

Now there's a surprise! :rolleye1:

Adding Pop-Tarts to my list of topics discussed in this thread.

The only surprise is that website managed to string together enough words to form coherent sentences.

I'm not saying the alleged data change by NOAA did or didn't happen, but posting a link to a "news" site known for extreme bias and shady reporting is not really "hard evidence".

That's weather, it can only be mentioned when it helps the cause. Thank you.

However this does not take under account that all the liberals and democrat socialists would then label you as "rich" and therefore you must pay your "fair share" of what you spent all your life working so hard for just to have a decent retirement. After all you didn't "earn it".

It's pure evil, but inevitably it will all crash and burn. You cannot create wealth by dividing it.

What ever happened to the Mount and the "Iceberg"? :) :)

BUT... does anyone know if the rain will hit the rhubarb?

Anything I can do to contribute to the topic at hand. :D

I think the iceberg idea creation involved either alcohol or ganja.

And maybe the non-alarmists should read articles like this...
 

Maybe the non-alarmists should read articles like this...

http://www.outsideonline.com/1930841...climate-change

Please help me make the connection with "Iceberg" & "Moose Outfits" ?



get ready to add this Pjard :D



.

show me proof
 

I want absolute proof of that number. Not some article from some newspaper or Al Gore flyer but actual PROOF that 98% agree.

It's a made up number.

The other day I was in Grnaby Mass at the Dino park. Sitting there I was thinking about how all these foot prints from "Dinosaurs" got there. I mean they lived in "tropical" climates. Then I got it. It was all those SUV's the cave folks were driving around causing the climate to be hot enough for them to live up here in the north. I mean even North Dakota has dino bones.

Then some how we had an ice age, then a hot spell, then another ice age, then another hot spell and so on. You see It IS NOT PROVEN SCIENCE. It's a science theory that needs to be debated and not put out as absolute fact. you can go back in global weather history and find plenty of times when the earth warmed and they are well BEFORE we had cars.

Now further down in this thread you revert to the Al Gore tactic of attacking those of us who "question" the validity of their claims by this statement: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt."

You should be better than this Paugus.

Now back to the Mount and Ice bergs.


ToW

You seem to think because I listen to the U.S. Academy of Science, The Royal Society, NASA and NOAA that I also embrace what some dolt politician like Al Gore says, I don't. When it comes to science, I listen to scientists. I don't get my info from FOXNEWS, MSNBC or CNN or a politician with an agenda. I do my own research. When the ultra vast majority of the scientific community agrees on something, I embrace it. The same people who put people in space and predict hurricanes are the people I listen to when it comes to climate change. I'm not a tree hugger nor do I care about what I can't change.
I'm skeptical about everything. I don't believe in ghosts, psychics, gods of any name shape or form, conspiracy theories, magnetic healing bracelets, crystals, homeopathic drugs, etc. I dismiss all of those based on science. Maybe some believe in a few of those supernatural things I listed. That would explain why they would ignore science in the arena of climate change. I am consistent.
Again, not my opinion. Not a news report. Not a political ad. Peer reviewed scientific data.

You say you were in a dinosour park. I'm sure they gave you facts about the age of the earth, when dinosaurs roamed, etc. This is based mostly using carbon dating, a scientific method. Carbon dating is pure science. Undisputed science that some still say is wrong, that humans walked along with the great lizards only 5,000 years ago when it was created by a god. (You can visit such a whacko facility in Kentucky called the Creation Museum) Do you believe carbon dating and the scientific consensus that our rock is actually 4.6 billions years old? I do. I know very little about how they carbon date things but I embrace it because the ultra vast majority of scientists agree carbon dating is accurate.

These links, which back my consensus claim, are from:
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
The US National Academy Of Science
The Royal Society

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/
https://royalsociety.org/policy/climate-change/
https://www.climate.gov/

Everyone thinks of social security as a pension program. The real problem is that it has been expanded to give benefits for many other causes that have nothing to do with pensions. Like the gas tax that is supposed to be used for roads but is raided for the general fund. It would be interesting to find out how the money is distributed, and different from what was intended when it was set up.

New topics discussed:

Dinosaurs
Carbon Dating
The Creation Musuem
The connection between icebergs and moose costumes
Gas Tax
Ganja

I can hardly keep up!

You left out rhubarb
:D

You sound exactly like the tobacco company apologists from 20 years ago. "No proof smoking causes cancer despite what 98% of doctors say", "My uncle lived to 80 smoking 2 packs a day", "I just smoked a cigarette and I didnt die" etc. Other points: continents move. In 65 million years they move A LOT. Evidence suggests a primary cause for it being warmer in prior times was, wait for it, greenhouse gases, released by volcanic activity. Fossil fuel use increases carbon in the atmosphere, carbon molecules trap heat. Both of those are provable in a good high school lab.

Not to get into a pi$$ing contest but at least 3 out of the 4 sources you site are government funded research entities. When the temperatures didn't agree with the "settled science"....magically the terminology changed from Global Warming to Climate Change. And Liberal changed to Progressive like that was supposed to make us all believers. These entities get their money from the liberal leaning enviro-nazis who want to ban all fossil fuels and have us hamstrung by their EPA regulations. Meanwhile China Russia Mexico and a whole host of other countries have never heard of catalytic converters or clean coal technology or any other emission control device. Are we the only country who has a responsibility for pollution control? Or is it just another way of income redistribution from the trust fund left do as I say not as I do. Our secretary of state flying in on a military transport plane (jet engines times 4) plus his entourage of black suburbans (at least 4 of those) for his broken leg. He's one man....how much fossil fuel did that little trip waste? I have a hard time believing ANY thing these politicians tell us because the whole bunch of them have a serious problem with the truth. Just my 2 cents

The Breeze
Wave 'cuz i'll be wavin' back

You forgot the meta-discussion about what is being discussed.

Ok, too much fun to just watch.
 

Here is a discussion that never seems to end. I posted this a bit back while I was in Ohio and there were some "different" weather patterns happening. I think it translates ok.

It's not rocket science. (well maybe) Scientists tend to confuse me. They give me a list of "facts" that I'm suppose to believe or be considered ignorant.

Fact 1: where I sit typing was once covered by over a mile of ice.

Fact 2: Where I sit, during the Silurian period, Ohio was in near equatorial weather patterns.

Fact 3: Scientists tell us that the "Ice Age" phenomena is on going and takes thousands of years to hit bottom (the coldest) and then thousands more to hit the top (warmest) Creating a gradient scale over time.

Fact 4: Scientists tell us that the universe came into being during a "Big Bang" explosion sending particles, large and small, collecting, solidifying, cooling into planets, and other celestial bodies and debris which continue an outward expansion through space and time.

Fact 5: Scientists tell us that the unique weather patterns that we have grown use to during our lives and that we know as "Ohio" weather are a direct reflection of our exposure to the Sun's rays and that winter and summer are determined by our orbit around the sun and the tilt of our poles. Neither of which they tell us are constants.

Now, I get all that. But then on top of that the tell us that it is our fault that the weather patterns are changing. And its our doing. Even though, individually, Mt. St Helen's and Vesuvius, individually in their day, put more pollutants into the atmosphere than all of mankind's creations from his emergence from the sea. (lets not even get started about Kīlauea that has been in constant eruption since 1983.) And they tell us, we have the power to fix it. Oh well, good thing I'm one of those people who believe in intelligent design. Otherwise I might lose sleep over 60 degree weather in Ohio and a greatly needed input of precipitation in desert areas (which use to be fertile wetlands) getting snow.

Is there Climate Change... Science says yes. It also says that climate has always changed. If the balance of normal weather is so dependent on the precise angles of the poles in an ever expanding big bang universe and we know that there is a constant cycle to ice ages and their converse, maybe.. Just maybe the reason that it is still warm in November and early December and that here we sit with a bit of chill in the air in June, maybe things continue, as the scientists tell us, to change. Maybe things have shifted enough to shift seasons by a month... Maybe things enough to change things again. even though in the insignificant amount of time scientists say we have been here, gives us a limited "realtime" look at temperatures and trends. Maybe if we wonder, as some have speculated that carbon dating is iffy. Maybe much of what we THINK we know about the past is iffy.

Ok, my 2 cents. I'll go back to putting my head in the sand. :)

Why I'm skeptical!
 

I have NEVR said man may not contribute to global warming. I just question the "scientific" it is settled science so called FACT that this is true. I as a scientist of sorts always question the supporting facts of a hypothesis until such time it is proven beyond any ones question that it is in fact a fact.

Here is one reason why I still question the facts:

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists have found a solution to the 15-year “pause” in global warming: They “adjusted” the hiatus in warming out of the temperature record.

New climate data by NOAA scientists doubles the warming trend since the late 1990s by adjusting pre-hiatus temperatures downward and inflating temperatures in more recent years.

“Newly corrected and updated global surface temperature data from NOAA’s [National Centers for Environmental Information] do not support the notion of a global warming ‘hiatus,'” wrote NOAA scientists in their study presenting newly adjusted climate data.

To increase the rate in warming, NOAA scientists put more weight on certain ocean buoy arrays, adjusted ship-based temperature readings upward, and slightly raised land-based temperatures as well. Scientists said adjusted ship-based temperature data “had the largest impact on trends for the 2000-2014 time period, accounting for 0.030°C of the 0.064°C trend difference.” They added that the “buoy offset correction contributed 0.014°C… to the difference, and the additional weight given to the buoys because of their greater accuracy contributed 0.012°C.”

From here: http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/04/no...arming-hiatus/


So now I ask if it is settled science "why are they now adjusting data?" "Why hasn't the settled science studies ended?"


Also we all point to studies. With the political environment of today I ask you this:

You are a scientist that wants a federal grant to prove man has not contributed significantly to global warming. You fill out all the paper work and submit it to the Feds. What do you think the chances are that you would get the grant?

I'll tell you, El-Zippo, nada, 0%. Why? cause it does not fit the politics of global warming.

Every time a person questions the science what happens. We have folks call us all sorts of stuff or try and discredit us not with solid facts but with names statements like He's a "flat earther," "You sound exactly like the tobacco company apologists from 20 years ago." or "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt."


I could go on for a long time but won't bore those not interested is true science and scientific methods.


ToW

Last Year, Earth Warmed 0.04 Degrees...
 

Ten years ago, I wrote here that, "You can't look out your kitchen window at a snowfall that disproves global warming". While that's still true, the rush to politicize something as fickle as 10,000 year-old weather and connect it with AGW has put me in the skeptics' ranks.

Today, we are in the climate transition between Ice Ages—which can be expected to increase CO2. Although geologically "recent", the Last Ice Age moved from Lake Winnipesaukee about 7,000 years before mankind appeared in the Lakes Region, I don't expect that any of us will be here to witness that ultimate return of Earth's icy climate.

Congress is studying how to suppress "Climate WrongThink".

As for the "deniers"—"Mistakes were made":

Al Gore wrongly said that the Arctic would be ice-free by 2013—but that statement, contradicted by increased sea ice— hasn't hindered the creation of the first "Carbon Billionaire" in just six years.

With $2 Billion U.S. Government dollars already spent this year, and the $4 trillion budget proposal released Monday about to be piped into the "Climate Change" debate, it is understandable that climate scientists would prefer that the debate never ends.

Annually, there'll be $4.4 Billion more reasons to "keep the faith".

:rolleye1:

My exact point
 

You are a scientist that wants a federal grant to prove man has not contributed significantly to global warming. You fill out all the paper work and submit it to the Feds. What do you think the chances are that you would get the grant?

I'll tell you, El-Zippo, nada, 0%. Why? cause it does not fit the politics of global warming.

Every time a person questions the science what happens. We have folks call us all sorts of stuff or try and discredit us not with solid facts but with names statements like He's a "flat earther," "You sound exactly like the tobacco company apologists from 20 years ago." or "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt."


I could go on for a long time but won't bore those not interested is true science and scientific methods.


ToW

Thanks ToW
This is what I was trying to get across. If it wasn't money and politically driven it would be more believable. I'm not fool for questioning someone's motives for taking more of my freedom and more of my money to advance their own political agenda.

The Breeze
Wave 'cuz I'll be wavin' back

More on Uncle Gore
 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybel...vestment-hype/

I guess one could call this another "Inconvenient Truth".

Not only that but the data had been adjusted to begin with to "compensate" for all sorts of problems with the measuring station locations. The problem is, HOW do you know if your compensating adjustments are correct? Recently an enterprising person got their hands on the raw data that NOAA uses and found that when THAT data is used there is NO global warming. Further, it seems that NOAA was inconsistent in the way the data was "adjusted" depressing older temps and increasing newer ones. Presto, warming is shown.

Now we have satellite measurements that are far superior to the NOAA ground stations. They cover all the earth and they eliminate the problems of heat islands near cities, etc. The satellite results of near-zero warming trend are fully backed by radiosonde data from balloon flights. Check out this discussion by Fred Singer. http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...goes_awol.html

At a minimum there is a significant difference that raises doubts about warming and possibly a serious problem with the NOAA data that shows warming existed in the first place. This is far from settled.

Man currently emits 120+ times more carbon than volcanos yearly.
 

There are many known influences. The orbit of the earth wobbles affecting distance from the sun over hundreds of thousands of years, rising and falling volcanic emissions, though currently man puts about 120 times more into the atmosphere than volanos do. None of those prevent the massive carbon load we add, around 30 Billion tons yrly vs around 200 million tons from volcanos, thats Billion vs million, from having an effect.

Volcanos produce a tiny fraction of all the CO2 produced naturally so comparing man's production of CO2 to that low source number is going to make man's output seem huge.

Respiration of living creatures produces 220 Billion tons of CO2. Compared to that, man's 30 Billion tons is about 14%. Not tiny but not huge either.

Now if we could just get all living creature to hold their breath, permanently, - problems solved. :D

Maybe we can turn this thread into a discussion of overpopulation ? :laugh:

Feedback spiral
 

And with additional warmth comes even more respiration of carbon. And more permafrost melt starting to release a truly epic addtional carbon load, followed by even warmer temps and even more respiration, and...well...you get the point. What we know from direct measurement over 200 years or so is that carbon dioxide is 40% higher than it was 200 years ago. With co2 still being less that 1% of total atmosphere you might be tempted to think its not a big deal. Except that tiny portion of co2 is crazy good at capturing heat. There are other gases that trap more per molecule but they have a short presence in the atmosphere. Co2 is with us for around 100 years. We are throwing fuel on the fire in a sense. Long lasting fuel.

Actually many gases have much longer lifetimes and Global warming potential vastly greater than CO2. Water vapor has a very short lifetime and potentially contributes between 1/3 to 3/4 of any warming that may or may not be occurring. Since 70% of the earth's surface is covered in water, there is a virtually unlimited source of this greenhouse gas. Water vapor effects are much greater than CO2.

Further, although CO2 has increased, temperatures have not. So the theoretical impacts of CO2 have yet to be proven in the extremely complex climate system.

You Can Trust the American Media...
 

Video at the site, to close this thread out:

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/72829

http://i61.tinypic.com/icim2v.jpg