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

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

It was added to the party platform this year. You can look for the link yourself. Hint: use google or bing or yahoo, etc.

Googled it Found it. Copied it. Pasted it. Posted it.

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2158330

GWA need not fear.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

Just for starters:


Back in April, a group of mostly Democratic (there was one independent) attorneys general announced they were going to be targeting any companies that denied climate change. Thus, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that the Democratic Party has adopted this far left tactic in the final draft of their official platform.
“The Committee unanimously adopted a joint proposal from Sanders and Clinton representatives to commit to making America run entirely on clean energy by mid-century, and supporting the ambitious goals put forward by President Obama and the Paris climate agreement. 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,” reads part of the platform on climate change and clean energy.
This seems like something Attorney General Loretta Lynch would gladly take up, as she’s already admitted the department is looking into the possibility of pursuing civil action against climate change deniers.
“This matter has been discussed. We have received information about it and have referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action on,” Lynch said at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in March.
Some state attorneys general have already launched investigations of ExxonMobil for their position on climate change, while others have demanded records from prominent conservative and libertarian think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute.
Looks like it’s time to say goodbye to free speech.


Democratic Party Platform Calls For Prosecuting Climate Change Skeptics - Leah Barkoukis



Climate Change and Clean Energy: Moving beyond the “all of the above” energy approach in the 2012 platform, the 2016 platform draft re-frames the urgency of climate change as a central challenge of our time, already impacting American communities and calling for generating 50 percent clean electricity within the next ten years. The Committee unanimously adopted a joint proposal from Sanders and Clinton representatives to commit to making America run entirely on clean energy by mid-century, and supporting the ambitious goals put forward by President Obama and the Paris climate agreement. 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/

I read that DRAFT platform plank a number of days ago. It's quite a stretch to conclude that ...

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

The country that brought us the Salem Witch trials has a political party (Democrats) who have just made it official party policy to prosecute and criminalize global Global Warming denial....

Give me a break! Looks to me like we've got fear-mongers informing the gullible among us with unsubstantiated bull poo.

In case you missed it you might want to read this post in which Exxon-Mobil is lobbying for a carbon tax, and this post which describes the legal reason for investigating Exxon-Mobil (which is because they may have neglected their fiduciary responsibility to shareholders).

[Lake-Effect]

Just a short note that you will not experience LEE til after July 4th.

Have a great Independence Day celebration and holiday.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SailOar

World could warm by massive 10C if all fossil fuels are burned | The Guardian

And if an asteroid hits us it would have disastrous effects. What's the point of a study like this except pure alarmism? Fossil fuels will be burned at the worldwide rate of demand for the energy they produce, hopefully offset by the development of viable and realistic alternative forms of energy.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

And if an asteroid hits us it would have disastrous effects. What's the point of a study like this except pure alarmism? Fossil fuels will be burned at the worldwide rate of demand for the energy they produce, hopefully offset by the development of viable and realistic alternative forms of energy.

Some folks need a alarm to wake them from their stupor.

Sent from my SM-T705W using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SailOar

What the world thinks about climate change in 7 charts | Pew Research Center

Quote:
1) Majorities in all 40 nations polled say climate change is a serious problem, and a global median of 54% believe it is a very serious problem...

Compared to the purported 99% of scientists. I'd say there is a significant credibility gap.

2) People in countries with high per-capita levels of carbon emissions are less intensely concerned about climate change...

Maybe they have more to do, think more independently, or are more widely read?

3) A global median of 51% say climate change is already harming people around the world, while another 28% believe it will do so in the next few years...

I have to wonder, with a reported 1.5 deg. change in temperature from 1860 to 2015 (thanks Jack), what harm this 51% believe has already befallen people around the world? Could it be all the alarmist propaganda you've already admitted is designed to scare people into responding in this manner to a poll?

4) Drought tops the list of climate change concerns...

Drought is always a worldwide concern, hence an excellent one to link to CC. Certainly more effective alarmism than watermelon colored ice and fleeing penguins.

5) Most people in the countries we surveyed say rich nations should do more than developing nations to address climate change.

Rich nations already are since they have the wealth, means & technology to do so, but I'm sure many in poorer developing nations are still hoping for the promised "payments." You know, so we can balance all the inequities and injustices that, thanks to politicians and the zealots they pander to, are now an inextricably linked part of the "science."

6) To deal with climate change, most think changes in both policy and lifestyle will be necessary...

"Changes?" Good way to sell it, but more like unprecedented sacrifices to the bulk of humanity's well-being if the Paris accords are the answer.

7) Americans’ views about climate issues divide sharply along partisan lines...

And there's no better way to accomplish this than by one of the two major political parties in the U.S. making CC an official part of their platform, right down to prosecu . . . errrr . . . I mean "investigating" deniers & skeptics under the guise of the govt. needing to uphold oil cos. "fiduciary duties" to their "defrauded" shareholders. It's OK to still be a fringe CC zealot without refusing to acknowledge what is going on with these sorts of pseudo-legal shenanigans designed to secure votes at the expense of free speech, in this case Bernie supporters still disgruntled that their college tuitions won't become "free."

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Some folks need a alarm to wake them from their stupor.

Sent from my SM-T705W using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Yup. That's SailOar's approach as well. The all too familiar "we-know-what's-good-for-you" program where the ends justify the means, whether the means are honest & truthful or not. Funny how it's so often promulgated by people whose sense of authority, entitlement & hubris is so out of sync with their credentials.

But back to the science -- now that you've had some time to explore the issue, what's your conclusion about Reef & Stu's evidence about historical CO2 measurements being out of sync with emissions, and about the different views amongst you on the validity of isotope measurements?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SailOar

I read that DRAFT platform plank a number of days ago. It's quite a stretch to conclude that ...

Give me a break! Looks to me like we've got fear-mongers informing the gullible among us with unsubstantiated bull poo.

Gullible is certainly the appropriate word here.

In case you missed it you might want to read this post in which Exxon-Mobil is lobbying for a carbon tax, and this post which describes the legal reason for investigating Exxon-Mobil (which is because they may have neglected their fiduciary responsibility to shareholders).

You may want to re-read them, along with several others to round out your knowledge on these subjects. The first link made it patently clear that Exxon's motivation for adopting a carbon tax was to improve its public relations. This is consistent with its primary fiduciary duty to increase the value of its stock for its shareholders. Do we need reminding of BP's advertising campaign after the gulf oil spill "signaling" their commitment to clean energy?? A carbon tax may or may not be an effective way of reducing consumption, but don't confuse an oil cos.' motivation with its endorsement.

The second link describes the ostensible reason why these "investigations" have ensued, but it's up to informed & conscientious citizens who understand the value of free speech in science and society at large to recognize the actual reasons. These sorts of basic lessons in civics have to be taught early on I guess or we all risk losing our basic civil rights.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

But back to the science -- now that you've had some time to explore the issue, what's your conclusion about Reef & Stu's evidence about historical CO2 measurements being out of sync with emissions, and about the different views amongst you on the validity of isotope measurements?

I have already shown that Reef's blogger was out by a factor of 7 in his calculation of anthropogenic CO2 in the graph that Reef presented. Nor are the blogger's graphs consistent with the Law Dome data at CDIAC.

Stu's posts were more thoughtful and require more thought on my part.

Sent from my SM-T705W using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

That is the most absolutely delusional argument against technology I've ever read. Great insight into the mind of alarmists which appear to work in a binary mode. Everything must either be black or white, there can be no shades of grey. No such thing as evolving tech. By the above logic a car is just an extension of the first skid pulled by an ox.

I had similar thoughts, although I respect JimB.'s honesty. Better to reveal the mindset behind the zeal for the CC movement than hide behind the ruse that it's not just all about a path towards "soshulism," or whatever ideology feels personally satisfying, regardless of reality.

Calling it a binary mode of thinking seems apt. An easier and simpler way of trying to resolve the complexities of the world we live in. No surprise that all sorts of political & (extreme) religious ideologies also attract such types of thinkers, and in such large numbers.

Unfortunately this sort of zeal also makes it difficult to come to a political consensus re: any steps towards mitigation, and explains why any sort of proposal other than full acceptance and adoption of the entire meme is so strenuously objected to. Shall I test this and propose "adaptation" again? The politicians on both sides just exploit this, of course, thereby emboldening the extremism.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I have already shown that Reef's blogger was out by a factor of 7 in his calculation of anthropogenic CO2 in the graph that Reef presented.

Stu's posts were more thoughtful and require more thought on my part.

Sent from my SM-T705W using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Fair enough Jack. It is still the weekend after all.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Fair enough Jack. It is still the weekend after all.

I edited the previous post by adding.

Nor are the blogger's graphs consistent with the Law Dome data at CDIAC.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Exile

You may want to re-read them, along with several others to round out your knowledge on these subjects. The first link made it patently clear that Exxon's motivation for adopting a carbon tax was to improve its public relations. This is consistent with its primary fiduciary duty to increase the value of its stock for its shareholders. Do we need reminding of BP's advertising campaign after the gulf oil spill "signaling" their commitment to clean energy?? A carbon tax may or may not be an effective way of reducing consumption, but don't confuse an oil cos.' motivation with its endorsement.

The second link describes the ostensible reason why these "investigations" have ensued, but it's up to informed & conscientious citizens who understand the value of free speech in science and society at large to recognize the actual reasons. These sorts of basic lessons in civics have to be taught early on I guess or we all risk losing our basic civil rights.

If you are as interested in accuracy as you imply that you are, then you will agree that any case being considered against Exxon-Mobil is a civil case, not a criminal case. And you will also agree that, even if the investigation is at least partially political in nature, there is no intent to "criminalize global [sic] Global Warming denial."

Edit to Add:
I've not stated my personal thoughts about whether I think such investigations of fossil fuel companies are prudent or necessary or desirable. I'm only trying to correct misconceptions about what is being investigated, and what the likely outcomes might be.

[landlockedsquid]

Originally Posted by jackdale

You thought wrong. I am criticized for cut and paste when I produce evidence.

This is where I had to stop. I can't take anymore.
Im sorry, but you haven't PRODUCED anything. What you have done is parrot what others have said. Whether they are right or wrong is totally subjective.
Heres the big problem with the eco cult, and it most definitely is a cult. It acts and performs exactly like one. Refusing any alternative opinion, shouting down dissenting voices, even at time threatening or engaging in violence.
And none of it proves their point. They even lie to try, then when they get caught they brush it off. Well, one group lied and manipulated the evidence to support there hypothesis, how do I know the rest in the cult haven't?
And how are they financed?
If they proved global warming was a farce, what would they do then? No, their financial security is tied to the hypothesis that (the latest iteration of the group think name) "climate change" is man made.
And what is the temperature of the globe SUPPOSED TO BE?
We've swung from ice age to global tropical climates on this rock. And thats been proven. So what is the temperature SUPPOSED to be?
I guess it is the average the climate cultist remembers just before they were had their "awakening"?
And one last thing.
Hypocrisy.
If we did indeed keep the oil in the ground like the cultists demand, well, we would be living like the Natives before the settlers came.
And most of them would be dead due to a much shorter life span.
Yet I never see any of them living in a manner that reflects their "disgust" with petroleum.
They all live a modern lifestyle, with their clothing and computers and boats and weather gear">foul weather gear........ all made from petroleum.
Tools? You need a way to make a fire hot enough to melt iron ore into metal. I see no cultists making their tools by banging rocks into other rocks to make simple stone tools.
And then there is fire. The human race would have to use trees to create it without petroleum.
But what about the forests?
Well, I guess we could cut them all down and burn them and then the human race would start to die off until a "sustainable" population was reached. Then mankind greatest struggle would then return again to surviving minute to minute.
Its the eco cultist utopia, yet none of them live by example.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

> "- Dissolved ocean carbon has the same 13C/12C ratio as the atmosphere"

Second Fail!

Isotopic Fractionation in Radiocarbon Dating, AMS Lab - Beta Analytic
...
The isotope C13 is depleted by 1.8% in comparison to its natural ratios in the atmosphere (Harkness, 1979). Conversely the inorganic carbon dissolved in the oceans is generally 0.7% enriched in 13C relative to atmospheric carbon dioxide....

Stu Assuming that your posts are correct, how difference in the ratio of anthropogenic CO2 is involved?

One of the reason I ask: We know that CDIAC totals for athropogenic CO2 from 1751 - 2013 is 392.254 billion tonnes.

Using the accepted formula 392.254 / 2.18 = 180 ppm of added CO2

The CO2 around 1750 was 277 ppm.

277 + 180 = 457 ppm

That is clearly higher than the current level.

Here is a diagram of the carbon cycle



The oceans are a net sink, that would account for some.

How much is related to your reported "fails" by Mandia?

Unlike some others, I can be patient. I am not going anywhere for a while.


Sent from my SM-T705W using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app