jeb

I'm sure you can't, since it is quite obviously not a subject anyone has a firm grasp on at this point in time. Which is why research is needed. Obviously they have been wrong about C02, so hopefully they can incorporate the failures into their research and learn from it. Science is not about consensus. It's about building hypothesis and then proving them right or wrong. So far, they have proven themselves wrong in this branch of science. But if you disagree, again I ask you to show me the evidence that the rise in this supposed key GHG has caused like rises in global temperatures, as the "consensus science" said it surely would.

Okay, then where is the proof of that? I was willing to give the models a chance at it, to show that what you're saying might be the case. But they've been shown to be wrong now. So what proof do you have that C02 'would generally lead to increasing temperature'? No, they are basic tenets for evangilists to have us assume in order to sell their views and keep the money coming. That's what "consensus science" gets you. No, and neither do you or anyone else. Accurate weather recording was not in place over the last few ice ages. The science behind the guessing at how quickly or slowly past warming and cooling trends is just that, guessing. And it's even less exact than the climate models which have been proven wrong. Well, let's just for fun say that's true. Who is to say that all periods between all the ice ages are the same? I'm pretty sure when the world was much younger and more volcanic, for example, the climate was far different. But it's not even close to what we have now. Yet, man was not there to influence it! How can that be? We have to blame man for it somehow, don't we? And what arrogance we have that we are here at exactly the right time and believe we know enough to be able to foretell this catalysm that is about to unfold on us. Amazing! We've invented the crystal ball at last. Well, except for that pesky part where it's wrong all the time. But let's just ignore that.

If increases in CO2 levels have been rising steadily and that is the supposed key GHG, why have the temps not gone up with them, like all the (incorrect) models predicted they would? The answer is obviously because there is not a tie between C02 levels and "climate change". C02 is blamed because it is something that can be pinned on humans. Do you know how much of the atmosphere is C02? Wiki says .04%. Yeah, that's right point zero four. Not even a 1/10 of one percent. And if you want to talk about money, follow all the grant money devoted to CC/AGW, and carbon credits. There is a lot of money on both sides!

Yep, that was a nice "whatever mouth" you caught, Jeff. Nice day of fishing. Not what we saw last Friday, but we all know that kind of bite doesn't last very long.

Nope, this is what I'm talking about:95% wrong His chart is different from yours. I suspect your chart uses corrected models, but don't know for sure.

I guess not, since the climate has always changed and always will. It is certainly an arguement against believeing what the AGW/CC evangilists want us to buy into though, since they use those models for their sky is falling predictions. I guess you're talking about short term weather models here. The evangilist tell you one has nothing to do with the other. But to me, they have to be compared. If we can't reliably forecast local weather data for even 30 days out, it's just simply beyond obvious we can't predict climate many decades out, or even a few years. I don't know how anyone can say that when all the evidence so far says otherwise. To me, it seems silly to believe we are "the cuase", as you put it, when we KNOW ice ages have come and gone w/o us even existing.

We're not, though. We've already come such a long ways in this country, and most other developed countries, as far as cleaning up pollution sources and making the world a better place to live. We need to figure out how to make developing nations clean up their act in a similar way. Continuing to ship them our jobs and polluters by strangling our own businesses with ever more onerous requlations, taxes, carbon taxes, etc is not the way to accomplish that goal, even if there were evidence to support the idea that it would help "fix" AGW/CC, which there is not.

Actually, the deficit spending our govt is doing is more harmful than any supposed impact we're having on Climate Change or AGW, IMO. And that's something we CAN actually control. Or at least have a better chance of controlling, since it's a real world problem. But I fear the govt is so hooked on it's crack habit, er, deficit spending, it will never come under control.

It was a fun day for sure! Those schooling days like that are where I think my Calais DC reels earn their pay. I can cast a spoon a mile with those things in L mode, and many of my fish came at the end of LONG casts.

We all know it's generally accepted, but it's also misguided, as proven by the fact that 95% of their models/predictions are wrong. That's not science, that's guessing. And darn poor guessing at that.

While WW temps have remained pretty much steady over the last 10-20 years, and are far short of the predictions of 95% of the AGW models, I never said I did not believe we might not be in a warming period. My point is that the earth is ALWAYS in either a warming trend or cooling trend. Always has been, always will be. The guessing comes in with trying to blame it on mans presence. And I'm open to the idea. But so far, the proof is completely lacking. All the models are wrong, we are not warming at any appreciable rate at all, etc. In other words, there is no hole in the guys head. Also of note. Throughtout the history of mankind, the most prosperous periods have been during the warmer periods. I don't understand your point. What does it have to do with your original assertion of:That's why companies based on the profit motive are investing money to prepare for this. See above. And cherry picking older articles is no better than changing the models to reflect the reality of the data, and then calling them "fixed". It is called steering by your wake. A model that predicts the past is easy to construct. As the immortal Yogi Berra said "Prediction is difficult. Especially about the future."

Sure, some of them are. But many are chasing a paycheck. I've read countless stories of folks chasing grant money running into this. For example, someone might want to study black squirrels in MN's hardwood forests. Gets denied. Changes the study to "climate changes impacts on black squirrels in MN" and presto, grant money arrives. And that has an impact over time. I sincerly hope that most of the folks making hay off this issue actually believe in what they're doing, albiet mis-guided, IMO. But when all the flat earthers are getting money for being on the "right" side of the issue, it sways their peers. Not at all. One has real evidence, the other does not. He has a hole in his head or he doesn't. The AGW community wants me to believe there is a hole in his head when there really is none. And they can't prove it one way or the other because his head is 100 years in the future. Yep, many of them are moving their jobs overseas. The fly in the ointment though, is it likely would have been that way anyway. Glaciers come, glaciers go away, it's warmer between those cycles. How warm or how quickly is simply a guessing game. And so far, the "consensus" guessing has been demostrably and overwhelmeingly incorrect.

Taking your first two points together, if 97% are scientific evangalist of the AGW theory, it is blindly obvious where the money is. So following the money will lead you to the bias, I'm sure. Also interesting to note that 95% of the models from these 97% of scientist are grossly wrong. Not a very good arguement. The bullet hole is a fact, not an unproven theory. It would be like the body was lying there on the street with no bullet hole, but a scientist had built a model saying it could have been a bullet that killed him, so we should invest a lot of time and money to find out why it's not there. I'm all for research into this infantile branch of science. But basing policy and running our economy into the ground to fight this boogey man is kind of hard to justify, given how inaccurate the science has been so far. As other posters have mentioned, the harder we make it on folks to do business here, the more we ship this pollution off to other countries that have far less pollution controls that we did even 10-20+ years ago. Not to mention the harm it does to our country by shipping those jobs away.

I told you that you need to start putting a gun in the boat.

Great story. Glad you found a guy that would take the time to help you out.

Here's the one I have, the IR-w7150-K1: http://www.ingersollrandproducts.com/am-en/products/tools/Iqv-cordless-tools/iqv20/w7150-1-2-20v-high-torque-impactool It's pricey, but it's a beast. Seems like in the battery operated impacts, you either have the small ones that look like a drill gun or the big boys, like this IR. The small ones will not pull lug nuts off anything above a Smart car, and probably not even those. The 7150 will pull them off my diesel pusher RV and those are toqured to something like 450ft lbs. Amazing tool which I use quite often around the house, much more so than I thought I would. But I have a LOT of toys I maintain. :-) I did not buy it from the link above. I found it online somewhere for a decent price.

Sorry to hear that, Jeff. Wish I'd been in the area to help. I have a battery operated Ingersoll Rand impact wrench that would have made very short of those lug nuts. Glad you got it fixed up, but it sucks it cost you a day of fishing. In the 35 years I lived in MN, I think I had one flat that was "road hazard" related. Since moving to AR 9 years ago, I've had at about 5 or 6. And I used to travel FAR more gravel roads up north (Pheasant hunting) than I do now.

No mosquitos here around Beaver Lake. One of the real blessings about this area, especially since we moved here from MN, where they were the state bird.

Nice looking bass, Jeff! Wish I'd been there with you. Sounds like I need to get some of the BX's. I'd throw more wake baits, but in reading here over the years where only like 1 in a 100 fins will ever work correctly, and not knowing how to determine that, I've stayed away from them. Sounds like Rapala has brougt us the easy button.

Shouldn't this be in the political forum?

Actually, given that 95% of the pro-GW models have been shown to be incorrect and that global temperatures have not risen significantly (or at all, depending on who you listen to) in the last 10 years or more, it's at least as valid an argument as the "sky is falling crowd" is putting forward.

Same here. After living 35 years in MN, I'd rather sweat than shiver any day of the week.

40' is a kind of deep, not because of the depth, per se, but water temp and visibility are problems. If the thermocline has setup in that area, which it sure should have by now, it will require at least a full length neoprene suit to deal with the much colder water down there. And it's usually very silty/turbid below the thermocline, so it'd have to be found running search grids and feeling along by hands. I've done that a few times, but not that deep. As a diver, I don't like being below the thermocline blind searching.

I hear you, sounds crazy that it could happen. But your inner ears and mind can play tricks on you. All you have to do is add air to your compensator vest (which all divers wear these days) and it will force you to the surface like a balloon full of air. But folks get rattled, push the wrong buttons or forget about it altogether, etc. Like when folks drive into a store front, swearing they were pushing the brake as hard as they could, when in reality they were pushing the wrong pedal.

It's not a good place for anyone that panics easily, that's for sure. I hear stories of folks that have to take the tests over and over again to get certified and I think to myself maybe that's a good sign that they should not be diving. I'm a pretty hard to fluster person, and have had an anxious moment or two. Nothing major, but like swimming along the bottom and suddenly find you've swum right into a tree top from a tree that's fallen in the water from shore recently. Hard to see those coming in low vis situations. There are lots of stuff on you that will snag branches when you're in all that scuba gear. I carry a "pony bottle" with me, attached to my compensator vest. It's a totally independent breathing devices. Gives me about 8 minutes of air and is about the size of a tall water bottle. That way, if worse comes to worse, I can slip that out of its holster, abandon all my other gear and get out. But you still have to be calm enough under duress to make it all work.