Do we need to be preparing for Arctic cruising strategies because of Global Cooling

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I do post what represents [some of] the science.

What do [you] want - Daily Caller?

Credibility. I would guess I'm not the only one. And for many of us less schooled on the science, it's probably more important. I've never heard of someone trying to persuade by so transparently avoiding or obscuring highly relevant facts and analysis that doesn't fit his or her preferred conclusion. I'm pretty sure L-E honestly doesn't know that other opinions from equally well-intended people actually exist, but you have definitely done your homework. Besides, yours is undeniably the "majority" opinion, so what are you so afraid of?

[SV THIRD DAY]

Not the Mann Hockey Stick lie again...sheesh that was disproved along with Butter causing high cholesterol. And by the way...we no longer put real coca in Coke.

[SV THIRD DAY]

The Elites told us there as a Consensus that Brexit would not happen...
Where are the Elites and Consensus Preachers now?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

I cannot make that judgment. I think the opinions of all the scientists are worth considering.

Yes, you can. Put on your thinking cap and apply some critical thinking skills. Learn to spot the CRAAP.

Evaluating Information – Applying the CRAAP Test

Evaluation Criteria

Currency: The timeliness of the information.
 When was the information published or posted?
 Has the information been revised or updated?
 Does your topic require current information, or will older sources work as well?
Are the links functional?

Relevance: The importance of the information for your needs.
 Does the information relate to your topic or answer your question?
 Who is the intended audience?
 Is the information at an appropriate level (i.e. not too elementary or advanced for your needs)?
 Have you looked at a variety of sources before determining this is one you will use?
 Would you be comfortable citing this source in your research paper?

Authority: The source of the information.
 Who is the author/publisher/source/sponsor?
 What are the author's credentials or organizational affiliations?
 Is the author qualified to write on the topic?
 Is there contact information, such as a publisher or email address?
Does the URL reveal anything about the author or source?
examples: .com .edu .gov .org .net

Accuracy: The reliability, truthfulness and correctness of the content.
 Where does the information come from?
 Is the information supported by evidence?
 Has the information been reviewed or refereed?
 Can you verify any of the information in another source or from personal knowledge?
 Does the language or tone seem unbiased and free of emotion?
 Are there spelling, grammar or typographical errors?

Purpose: The reason the information exists.
 What is the purpose of the information? Is it to inform, teach, sell, entertain or persuade?
 Do the authors/sponsors make their intentions or purpose clear?
 Is the information fact, opinion or propaganda?
 Does the point of view appear objective and impartial?
 Are there political, ideological, cultural, religious, institutional or personal biases?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

The Elites told us there as a Consensus that Brexit would not happen...
Where are the Elites and Consensus Preachers now?

Apparently consumed with trying to convince the 52% who voted to leave that they didn't really mean it, are regretting it, or need to change their minds about it. I guess it's only "power to the people" who are put in charge of controlling other people.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by conachair

What "natural causes" are causing the extremely rapid warming trend?

Probably the Earth's historical preference to be 10 degrees warmer

Originally Posted by jackdale

BTW - gravity remains a theory - actually two quite different ones.

The thing is that with gravity is that although the boffins don't fully understand how it works, I know if I step off the top of a skyscraper it will kill me in seconds. AGW theory is the polar opposite in that a bunch of boffins are reasonable sure they know how it works but if I step outside from my mother's basement, it won't kill me. Unless of course it's -20 outside.

So you see they are nothing alike. Gravity has an easily proven effect but disputable theory whereas climate change has a disputable effect yet mostly non disputable theory.

Now for something completely different...

All this talk of "The Daily Caller" got me curious. I found this gem below on the site. Not sure if it's pro or con re global warming but I lol'd at how quickly researchers turn upon one another like a pack of ravenous dogs fighting for a mutton bone if one finds the possibility for some obscure benefit related to climate change.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/24/cl...octopus-study/

A climate scientist is dubious global warming is causing octopus and cephalopod populations to increase, as claimed by a*Australian*University of Adelaide study.

The study*published Monday analyzed the number cephalopods*caught and speculated the ecologically and commercially important invertebrates could be benefiting from rising ocean temperatures.*The study’s lead author stated*in a press release*cephalopods are*very*adaptable animals which could allow*them to adapt quickly to changing environmental conditions.

Even though the study did not attempt to correlate*temperature trends spatially or temporally to trends in the cephalopod population or*examine other explanations for the rising population, media outlets promptly*claimed the study showed that “Swarms of Octopus Are Taking Over the Oceans”*due to global warming.

“The new study linking cephalopod population increases to human-caused climate change is long on speculation and short on facts,”*Chip Knappenberger, climate scientist at the libertarian Cato Institute, told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “There are undoubtedly complex interactions between the large number of factors at play in shaping the reported cephalopod trends, although the authors look at none of them in detail. To prominently play up the role of global warming is to elevate hype over substance—an all too common characteristic of this type of study.”

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[jackdale]

Just out.

Paris Agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2 °C

Joeri Rogelj, Michel den Elzen, Niklas Höhne, Taryn Fransen, Hanna Fekete, Harald Winkler, Roberto Schaeffer, ** Sha, Keywan Riahi & Malte Meinshausen


Nature 534, 631–639 (30 June 2016) doi:10.1038/nature18307

Received 01 September 2015 Accepted 09 May 2016 Published online 29 June 2016

The Paris climate agreement aims at holding global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius and to “pursue efforts” to limit it to 1.5 degrees Celsius. To accomplish this, countries have submitted Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) outlining their post-2020 climate action. Here we assess the effect of current INDCs on reducing aggregate greenhouse gas emissions, its implications for achieving the temperature objective of the Paris climate agreement, and potential options for overachievement. The INDCs collectively lower greenhouse gas emissions compared to where current policies stand, but still imply a median warming of 2.6–3.1 degrees Celsius by 2100. More can be achieved, because the agreement stipulates that targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions are strengthened over time, both in ambition and scope. Substantial enhancement or over-delivery on current INDCs by additional national, sub-national and non-state actions is required to maintain a reasonable chance of meeting the target of keeping warming well below 2 degrees Celsius.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

So you see they are nothing alike. Gravity has an easily proven effect but disputable theory whereas climate change has a disputable effect yet mostly non disputable theory.

The Greenhouse Effect and the GHG qualities of CO2 have been understood for close to 200 years. Maybe you missed that part.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I disagree with many conservatives, I am dismissive of the willfully ignorant, regardless of political stripe. Third Day defies categorization.

DC's article title: Dem Party Platform Calls For Prosecuting Global Warming Skeptics

And you know this isn't true. But I guess it's 'truthy' enough for you.

Only if you neglect to read past the headline onto the very first sentence of the article:

"Democratic operatives responsible for creating their party’s platform this year have unanimously adopted a provision calling for the Department of Justice to investigate companies who disagree with Democrats on global warming science."

So 'truthy' it's actually true. And from the Daily Caller of all rags.

Btw, I'm pretty sure you just paid Third Day the highest complement by saying he "defied categorization." But I know how intolerant you are of nonconformity so I'll just consider it an insult even if Third Day won't.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

"Democratic operatives responsible for creating their party’s platform this year have unanimously adopted a provision calling for the Department of Justice to investigate companies who disagree with Democrats on global warming science."

Like you the Daily Caller bends and twists the truth.

Another joint proposal calling on the Department of Justice to investigate alleged corporate fraud on the part of fossil fuel companies who have reportedly misled shareholders and the public on the scientific reality of climate change was also adopted by unanimous consent.

https://demconvention.com/news/democ...ing-concludes/

Unlike you I was aware of and have read the memos that came from Exxon.

Somehow I would think that companies had a duty to be honest with their shareholders.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The Greenhouse Effect and the GHG qualities of CO2 have been understood for close to 200 years. Maybe you missed that part.

Would that include the link btwn. the GHG quality of CO2 and warming? If so, then the chairman of Exxon apparently missed it as well, since it took him all the way to 1977 to acknowledge and then start misleading the public about it. It sounds like a fraudulent racket to me, but apparently not to the AG for the USVI who has now rescinded the subpoena he served on the CEI.

https://cei.org/content/virgin-islan...nst-think-tank

Wonder how that motion for sanctions filed against the AG will turn out? I bet The Daily Caller gets the first scoop on it.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The Greenhouse Effect and the GHG qualities of CO2 have been understood for close to 200 years. Maybe you missed that part.

If that were a true statement, then that understanding would leave to a predictable model that could accurately predict the temperature and weather of the future. That is how real science works. You make a model, test it and if you were right...bingo then you have proved your understanding. If your model can not accurately predict the future...then boom....you have nothing more than a Religious Cult hanging on to a hope. So far the climate models have all been WRONG...so that tells us using the basic scientific method that MMGW is a Cult and not science.

Back to the deck

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

I bet The Daily Caller gets the first scoop on it.

The only thing the DC scoops is poop.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Like you the Daily Caller bends and twists the truth.



https://demconvention.com/news/democ...ing-concludes/

Please tell us what material differences you are reading in the two statements, or better yet why the one from the DC is untruthful. But be warned, this assignment requires a bit of analysis.

Unlike you I was aware of and have read the memos that came from Exxon.

Please share. Are they as much of a smoking gun as the infamous Happer e-mails?

Somehow I would think that companies had a duty to be honest with their shareholders.

It would help you out to be a bit more specific, it really would. For the sake of entertainment value, let's get beyond the part where Exxon acknowledged the theoretical link btwn. CO2 & warming as far "back" as 1977, and the second part where they willfully suppressed that information to the point of "misleading" consumers & shareholders about the harm caused by their product. Assuming both are proven, then how again would this have caused the value of their stock to drop? Would people have put less gas in their cars when it was time to drive to work??

Just trying to take your advice to do some critical thinking here. Speaking of, you seem to be developing a long trail of questions that you have thus far left unanswered. You're less than a month or so from leaving for Maui, after all.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

I'm pretty sure L-E honestly doesn't know that other opinions from equally well-intended people actually exist.

There's a compliment in there and I'm man enough to take it.

btw I know that many well-intended and honourable people hold opinions different to my own. I'm equally aware that a whole lotta other people are happy to just parrot the opinions served up to them daily in steaming piles by DC and others.