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

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

The other thread is discussing climate change. What I was asking was are we entering a period of global cooling? I'm not interested in the fanatics from the climate change debate. I've been watching the effect of solar activity on earth temperature and I am serious about looking at the real potential of a strong cooling cycle. Its happened before and it may be happening again.

Global cooling is climate change! But so is warming. The climate is always changing in fact, and always has. And yes, there will always be fanatics, although the other thread got a bit more educational rather than fanatical, but only in the last 500 posts or so! Over 2600 now I think, so perhaps you're better off dissuaded . . . .

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jackdale

No, we are not entering a period of global cooling. Ask the solar scientists.

Solar activity varies about 0.1% .


Notice anything?

Yep, you've only considered a reconstructed 11 year average TSI. What about all the other solar parameters?

(But this would be better off discussed in the other thread)

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Chartering a Moorings 4600 out of Marsh Harbour.

I'm sure you'll enjoy escaping the cold and soaking up the sun. Have a great time sailing.

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by Exile

Global cooling is climate change! But so is warming. The climate is always changing in fact, and always has. And yes, there will always be fanatics, although the other thread got a bit more educational rather than fanatical, but only in the last 500 posts or so! Over 2600 now I think, so perhaps you're better off dissuaded . . . .

. Glad to hear there's less fanaticism over there. I never can understand the knife throwing at each other just because differing perspectives. For me the whole issue has become so politicized amongst the scientists that objective fact is almost impossible to find. Scientific fraud on both sides with such vitriolic attacks that leaves you with wondering how can these climate scientists be sober rational and objective purveyors of unbiased scientific information. I will exercise my mind on this subject perhaps in a few years ahead. After the hysteria and super charged politicization has calmed down.

Who knows I may even do my own objective water testing and scientific research when I start floating around in my condo. In the meantime I'm focusing on serious issues such as what style of cabinets in the galley I would be most happy with.

[Ocean Girl]

Neil deGrasse Tyson on climate change deniers - Tech Insider

[bustermaw]

Originally Posted by Ocean Girl

Neil deGrasse Tyson on climate change deniers - Tech Insider

Climate change deniers eh !
Sounds rather like you'd say heretic or blasphemer.
Do you think we should start an inquisition ?
I'm sure that there are lot's of people who'd like to dust off those racks and iron maidens to make those poor deluded people see the error of their ways.

[Ocean Girl]

Originally Posted by bustermaw

Climate change deniers eh !
Sounds rather like you'd say heretic or blasphemer.
Do you think we should start an inquisition ?
I'm sure that there are lot's of people who'd like to dust off those racks and iron maidens to make those poor deluded people see the error of their ways.

Wow, did you watch the same video as me? Was meant not to offend but to explain why what is true and what is false are so hard for some folks to grasp

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by Ocean Girl

Wow, did you watch the same video as me? Was meant not to offend but to explain why what is true and what is false are so hard for some folks to grasp

Can you please explain why the World hasn't already ended in total disaster as Al Gore predicted. The hysterics and lies are so pervasive that I choose not to participate in the craziness.

[Ocean Girl]

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

Can you please explain why the World hasn't already ended in total disaster as Al Gore predicted. The hysterics and lies are so pervasive that I choose not to participate in the craziness.

No, I cannot explain why a politician says anything, sorry.

[bustermaw]

Originally Posted by Ocean Girl

No, I cannot explain why a politician says anything, sorry.

Well here's a clue.Follow the money.
( That was said with tongue in cheek , not to offend ).

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Ocean Girl

No, I cannot explain why a politician says anything, sorry.

I'm not 100% sure, but was Gore still a politician when he joined the climate change money train?

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Ocean Girl

Neil deGrasse Tyson on climate change deniers - Tech Insider

He's got it exactly bass ackward.

The telling quote is "the denier demographic , whatever it is" or words to that effect.

Firstly, using the canard "denier" shows that he doesn't understand the issues and what sceptics actually believe. Secondly not knowing the demographics of the case effectively blows his whole argument out of the water.

He is quite correct about the failing in science education over the last 20-30 years. He is completely wrong about the implications of it.

It's very clear from numerous sources what the demographics are.

In general the older you are, the more sceptical you are likely to be or as frequently used as a slur, it's the "old, white males" who are the problem.

If you fit that demographic, your primary education was more than 30 years ago in an educational environment where you were rigorously taught scientific methods of reasoning and "understanding" (as he puts it).

If you fall outside that demographic, especially on age and gender ground, you are far more likely to have received the sort of deficient "education" which he describes.

And it's this second group who tend to be far more gullible about the alarmist claims.

It's the former who did receive a proper scientific education who are generally far more sceptical.

Sorry, giant logical fail which is only persuasive to those who have received the type of education he is criticising.

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by StuM

He's got it exactly bass ackward.

The telling quote is "the denier demographic , whatever it is" or words to that effect.

Firstly, using the canard "denier" shows that he doesn't understand the issues and what sceptics actually believe. Secondly not knowing the demographics of the case effectively blows his whole argument out of the water.

He is quite correct about the failing in science education over the last 20-30 years. He is completely wrong about the implications of it.

It's very clear from numerous sources what the demographics are.

In general the older you are, the more sceptical you are likely to be or as frequently used as a slur, it's the "old, white males" who are the problem.

If you fit that demographic, your primary education was more than 30 years ago in an educational environment where you were rigorously taught scientific methods of reasoning and "understanding" (as he puts it).

If you fall outside that demographic, especially on age and gender ground, you are far more likely to have received the sort of deficient "education" which he describes.

And it's this second group who tend to be far more gullible about the alarmist claims.

It's the former who did receive a proper scientific education who are generally far more sceptical.

Sorry, giant logical fail which is only persuasive to those who have received the type of education he is criticising.

Well analyzed and stated StuM.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by bustermaw

Climate change deniers eh !
Sounds rather like you'd say heretic or blasphemer.
Do you think we should start an inquisition ?
I'm sure that there are lot's of people who'd like to dust off those racks and iron maidens to make those poor deluded people see the error of their ways.

Yep, every time I see the expression "climate change denier", I know that I am dealing with someone who either doesn't understand the argument or is arguing from vested interests.

A little history:

The whole thing started with warnings about "Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming" (CAGW). There were a number of scientifically well educated people who doubted the validity of the "Catastrophic" and openly said that they were sceptical of the alarmism.

Those in the CAGW alarmism camp dropped the word "catastrophic" from the name because of the obvious dubiousness of that claim, but continued with exactly the same alarmism under the brand AGW. The sceptics recognised that the name may have changed but the message hadn't and continued to express their doubts about that C.

When it became apparent that warming wasn't occur as predicted, the AGW alarmists changed the name again to Man Made Climate Change (MMCC) and started to blame every extreme weather event on it, while still continuing the "catastrophic" meme. The sceptics recognised that the name had changed but the the message still hadn't and continued to express doubts about that C.

The alarmists then stopped using the words "man made" and just shortened it to "Climate Change". The sceptics recognised that it was still exactly the same old CAGW alarmism under yet another name and pointed out that climate change has always been happening and continued to express doubts about that C.

Then along came the master stroke: some genius came up with the concept of calling the sceptics and doubters "deniers" with the obvious adverse connection to "holocaust deniers".

So we end up with the scientifically educated people who are justifiably sceptical of the C in CAGW now being accused of being scientific morons who deny that climate changes. And among the more strident of these accusers are certain "scientists" who keep trying to flatten out both Holocene and 20th Century temperature reconstructions and records to hide the climatic variations revealed by them. The most infamous of them being of course the "Hockey Stick"

A masterpiece of deceit by the spin doctors of the CAGW promulgators.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I'm not 100% sure, but was Gore still a politician when he joined the climate change money train?

Yep he is still a politician ( once a politician always a politician ). Its the nature of the disease