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

[jackdale]

Meanwhile to OP's question.

Arctic ice extent continues to track below the 2012 record year with about 80 days to get the minimum.



This extent is based on 15% ice coverage, not 100% coverage.

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by weavis

Please note this is a controversial subject and it is not nice to make it personal.

The end is nearing...YIPPEE!!!

[weavis]

Mods have been truly impressed by the interchange from opposing viewpoints regarding Global warming...

Let the members keep it to that subject only. Infered personal comments tend to upset people and frankly will get this thread shut down if it it continues,,

We are about being a community..

[jackdale]

+++++++++++++++

The staples were removed last week. I have a flexible brace set for 45 degrees. I can sleep without it and I can take it off to shower. I am cleared for the Pacific crossing.

As an aside for the those who have weird misconceptions about our health care system: I ruptured the tendon at 5:40 on June 1. I was went to an emergency clinic who sent me to emergency at my closest hospitable. The emerg doctors had a an orthopedic specialist check me out. He diagnosed the ruptured tendon and I was admitted for surgery. The head orthopedic surgeon saw me at 5:30 in the morning and I was in surgery at 7:30 on June 2.

The only cost I have incurred have been $27 for a Zimmer splint and $130 for the G II brace. My extended health care through Blue Cross will probably pick up that cost.

The joy of single payer health care.

[weavis]

Posts have been removed and edited.

After a CF request to cease with a certain interchange, there is no need to justify or answer or retaliate. Its over for the good of the thread. Take your differences to Personal messaging if you have to..

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

So you're suggesting the U.S. Dept. of Justice merely "investigates" allegations of corporate fraud without it having a chilling effect on the free speech of the targets of such an "investigation?" And do you also believe that the nation's chief law enforcement agency does so without building a case for eventual prosecution?

How about when the nation's chief law enforcement officer publicly announces that she is referring the case to the FBI?

AG Lynch: DOJ Has Discussed Whether to Pursue Civil Action Against Climate Change Deniers

And what exactly do you think 17 state AG's (16 Dems; 1 indpt.) were doing on March 29 standing before the media (with Al Gore) when they announced their joint "investigation" -- in consultation with pro-AGW groups, of course -- into pursuing fraud and even racketeering claims against fossil fuel cos.?

Democratic AGs, climate change groups colluded on prosecuting dissenters, emails show - Washington Times

I think the DoJ should be investigating allegations of corporate fraud and racketeering if they are serious, don't you?

So what would you call the Competitive Enterprise Institute getting served with the following subpoena? Weren't you the same guy protesting so vigorously against such tactics by a state AG against Michael Mann?? But that's different right??

"The subpoena requests a decade's worth of communications, emails, statements, drafts, and other documents regarding CEI's work on climate change and energy policy, including private donor information," the institute said. "It demands that CEI produce these materials from 20 years ago, from 1997-2007, by April 30, 2016."

Think Tank With Fossil-Fuel Ties Subpoenaed in AG's Climate Inquiry | InsideClimate News

...

PLEASE!! This is a blatantly political, unconstitutional attempt to stifle dissent, and everyone who values free speech in a democratic society should object to these sorts of dangerous shenanigans. Or would you like your next conservative govt. to employ the same tactics to issues that you deem important?

You are of course silent or defensive about the HUNDREDS of nuisance FOIA requests that real scientific institutions were bombarded with, all the false accusations, insinuations conspiracy theories and other crap hurled at scientists, and about the very existence of an organized and well-funded anti-AGW industry whose reason for existence is to spin AGW facts and manufacture opposition to the scientific finding of AGW. Pretty close to racketeering, no?

btw - our previous Conservative government did just that: they muzzled government scientists, they defunded scientific initiatives, they went after the tax-exempt status of pro-ecology organizations. Jealous?

A "crap source" with "over 35 million views a month according to Quantcast, surpassing rival sites such as The Washington Times, Politico, and Forbes. The site has an active community, with over 200,000 comments made each month."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Caller

But who cares about its millions of readers when you believe it's a "crap source" for "lazy right-wingers." Or do you just not feel "safe" having such opposing points of view out there? Perhaps another govt. "investigation" is in order?? I'm sure it'll pass constitutional scrutiny if no formal prosecution is announced.

You have got to be kidding. Crap is crap. The fact that such crap gets 35M views and 200K comments a month is not something I would be bragging about. McD serves billions of tasty (or not) burgers a month; this doesn't necessarily make them the pinnacle of nutrition or fine dining.

The Daily Caller is inflammatory crap. Citing it speaks volumes about how such opinions get disseminated to the faithful.

{Hey, maybe you are actually clueing in that, no, a majority of right-wingers have not suddenly become thoughtful and discerning scientific analysts.)

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I think the DoJ should be investigating allegations of corporate fraud and racketeering if they are serious, don't you?

Yes.


You are of course silent or defensive about the HUNDREDS of nuisance FOIA requests that real scientific institutions were bombarded with, all the false accusations, insinuations conspiracy theories and other crap hurled at scientists, and about the very existence of an organized and well-funded anti-AGW industry whose reason for existence is to spin AGW facts and manufacture opposition to the scientific finding of AGW. Pretty close to racketeering, no?

There's "an organized and well-funded anti pro-AGW industry as well whose reason for existence is to spin AGW facts and manufacture opposition exaggerated support to the scientific finding of AGW."

Give me specific instances with links to objective sources of analysis about the FOIA cases and I would not be silent nor defensive. I thought the ultimate disposition by the trial & appellate courts in favor of Michael Mann vs. the Tenn. AG reasonably balanced the competing interests.

btw - our previous Conservative government did just that: they muzzled government scientists, they defunded scientific initiatives, they went after the tax-exempt status of pro-ecology organizations. Jealous?

No. Abuse of power is not unique to any particular party or persuasion. Just ask conservative groups in the U.S. about their treatment by the IRS.

You have got to be kidding. Crap is crap. The fact that such crap gets 35M views and 200K comments a month is not something I would be bragging about. McD serves billions of tasty (or not) burgers a month; this doesn't necessarily make them the pinnacle of nutrition or fine dining.

The Daily Caller is inflammatory crap. Citing it speaks volumes about how such opinions get disseminated to the faithful.

{Hey, maybe you are actually clueing in that, no, a majority of right-wingers have not suddenly become thoughtful and discerning scientific analysts.)

Your intolerance is on full display again. The best response is always revealing any purported bias with facts, not being derogatory, manipulative, or trying to intimidate or suppress. Or do I simply need to draw a line through "Daily Caller" in your response and substitute "Huffington Post?"

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

+++++++++++++++

The staples were removed last week. I have a flexible brace set for 45 degrees. I can sleep without it and I can take it off to shower. I am cleared for the Pacific crossing.

As an aside for the those who have weird misconceptions about our health care system: I ruptured the tendon at 5:40 on June 1. I was went to an emergency clinic who sent me to emergency at my closest hospitable. The emerg doctors had a an orthopedic specialist check me out. He diagnosed the ruptured tendon and I was admitted for surgery. The head orthopedic surgeon saw me at 5:30 in the morning and I was in surgery at 7:30 on June 2.

The only cost I have incurred have been $27 for a Zimmer splint and $130 for the G II brace. My extended health care through Blue Cross will probably pick up that cost.

The joy of single payer health care.

I am pleased to hear about your recovery and that your country's health care system worked well in your case. But I am doubtful these were the only "costs" you and your countrymen incurred in treating you so successfully, just like I am doubtful that, under at least one presidential candidate's proposal, college tuition would be "free."

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

The end is nearing...YIPPEE!!!

You don't have to wait (and hope) for the mods to close the thread, but are free to end your reading & participation anytime you like. But I hope you'll stay!

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

I am pleased to hear about your recovery and that your country's health care system worked well in your case. But I am doubtful these were the only "costs" you and your countrymen incurred in treating you so successfully, just like I am doubtful that, under at least one presidential candidate's proposal, college tuition would be "free."

Please do not misconstrue what I said. That seems to be your modus operandi.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Meanwhile to OP's question.

Arctic ice extent continues to track below the 2012 record year with about 80 days to get the minimum.



This extent is based on 15% ice coverage, not 100% coverage.

Entirely consistent with a long-term warming trend which enjoys near-unanimous consensus amongst climate scientists. But standing alone it reveals nothing about human v. natural causes, a determination that remains uncertain in the scientific community. The bigger problem is that it has a strong potential to be deceptive by inducing viewers to assume MMGW when that is only one of at least two conclusions that may be reached.

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by jackdale

As Exile has pointed out, the Peabody was not a criminal case. As such the burden of proof is different.

Yes, but the defendant in a civil case usually does not have to prove they have done nothing wrong. They typically respond to the complaint with any and all affirmative defenses. The judge in this case said that because Peabody raised a defense (MMGW isn't really a problem) then they had to prove through a preponderance of evidence that defense was correct in order to prevail. For hundreds of years at least in the US we have avoided this type of "prove you are innocent" requirement.

If future damaging effects of MMGW is easily provable to judges and peer juries then these types of tactics should not be needed. The very fact that these tactics are being tried speak to how difficult some perceive it will be to prove, through a preponderance of evidence, the deleterious effects of MMGW.

If these tactics are allowed to proceed in cases involving MMGW then they can be used for lots of other "hard to prove" allegations.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Yes, but the defendant in a civil case usually does not have to prove they have done nothing wrong. They typically respond to the complaint with any and all affirmative defenses. The judge in this case said that because Peabody raised a defense (MMGW isn't really a problem) then they had to prove through a preponderance of evidence that defense was correct in order to prevail. For hundreds of years at least in the US we have avoided this type of "prove you are innocent" requirement.

The key is the preponderance of evidence with is overwhelmingly on the side of AGW.

Generally used to describe the threshold that a party seeking to prove a fact in court must reach in order to have that fact legally established. For example, in criminal cases, the burden of proving the defendant’s guilt is on the prosecution, and they must establish that fact beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil cases, the plaintiff has the burden of proving his case by a preponderance of the evidence.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/burden_of_proof

Peabody Energy brought contrarians Spencer, Happer, and Lindzen to testify on their behalf, but the judge wasn’t convinced by their case.

On the AGW side were John Abraham and Andrew Dressler.

I have feeling this does not bode well for Mark Steyn, NRO and CEI.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Entirely consistent with a long-term warming trend which enjoys near-unanimous consensus amongst climate scientists. But standing alone it reveals nothing about human v. natural causes, a determination that remains uncertain in the scientific community. The bigger problem is that it has a strong potential to be deceptive by inducing viewers to assume MMGW when that is only one of at least two conclusions that may be reached.

Check out the rather nice graphic.

What's Really Warming the World? Climate deniers blame natural factors; NASA data proves otherwise

to compare human versus natural causes.

None of the natural causes are leading to warming.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SailOar

As I understand it, the E-M scientists were not climate change skeptics. Rather, the E-M scientists, as well as non-E-M scientists, were warning that a product sold by E-M (oil) might prove in the future to be a hazardous to public well-being (CO2 causing greenhouse warming). Publicly held companies are required by law to disclose to their shareholders liabilities which the company may be incurring. The E-M executives failed to disclose to shareholders the liabilities that their own scientists were warning about.

New York is investigating Exxon Mobil for allegedly misleading the public about climate change | Washington Post

I have neither read nor seen any evidence to support these allegations, which makes the investigations/prosecutions nothing more than a fishing expedition at best, and an attempt to intimidate contrarian scientists and their funders at worst. If the shareholders suffered some sort of loss as is speculated, then the best remedy is a private shareholder suit to redress what would be their purely economic losses. Have you looked into whether one of these lawsuits have been filed and what the allegations are?

So scientists working for fossil fuel cos. are not "skeptics," and are not attempting to support the skeptical position on AGW?? WHAT??? Would you simply prefer that the scientific process in this unsettled area -- unlike every other area of unsettled science where basic uncertainties remain -- not be challenged because contrarian views have been silenced by govt. intimidation or compulsion?? Please say it ain't so.

The tobacco cases were successfully settled (in part) because the contrarian scientists and cos. were proven wrong by scientific evidence which ultimately overcame any credible doubt. There is only comparable certainty with climate science in the minds & keyboards of the fringe zealots, not amongst the scientists themselves. But I guess this is why AGW proponents continue to stress the factually inaccurate "99% consensus."