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

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SailOar

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."

Cases challenging First Amendment rights of free speech are almost always civil, SailOar. The rare exception is a criminal prosecution where a defendant may assert the First Amendment as an affirmative defense to alleged criminal conduct (e.g. threatening to assassinate the president), but that often involves a civil-type proceeding as part of or separate to the criminal prosecution.

But whether the "investigations" being brought here are civil or criminal in nature, whether it is deemed an "investigation" or a "prosecution," or which govt. entity or agency is conducting them, is all besides the point. The concern is that, whatever form it takes, it creates an actual or potential "chilling effect" on free speech (as U.S. courts routinely refer to it, not me). There are few absolutes, and certainly not when it comes to the area of civil rights. Obviously the right of free speech is also not absolute, and so speech that creates an imminent threat to life (falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater), or is actually fraudulent or conspiratorial (the theory used in the cases against oil cos. & their advocates), are not constitutionally protected.

But in this case you have oil cos. and conservative nonprofits voicing their skepticism about an unsettled and uncertain area of science that is supported by and consistent with respected and properly credentialed scientists in the field. Yes, yes, I know, the scientists who are skeptics represent a minority view, but that minority becomes larger as you get beyond the wide consensus that "AGW is real, and humans are having a ___?___ impact as compared to natural forces." Do we really want to run the risk the credibility of an ultimate conclusion on CC by potentially "chilling" minority views which serve as the only real way of developing the certainty of the science, whichever direction it takes? Besides, if every CC issue & sub-issue really enjoys a 99% consensus as Jack & others continue to imply if not assert, then why bother potentially suppressing a mere 1%??

I don't expect to talk you or any other diehards out of your viewpoint on this, but you should at least have a better understanding of where much of the concern lies. The ACLU has expressed this concern and noted it also violates the right of the public to listen. In that case it was the govt. allegedly trying to suppress scientific opinion that supported climate change. You know, the same sort of govt. conduct that Jack says went on during the last administration governing Canada. Does it matter, or should "free" speech be censored based on who is doing the talking or what they are talking about?? The right of free speech is there exactly for the purpose of protecting minority or unpopular views, on the assumption that popular majority views don't need protecting!!

https://www.aclu.org/joint-statement...-and-democracy

And here's renowned civil rights attorney Harvey Silvergate, the former head of the ACLU in Mass., recently calling the Mass. AG's investigation "pure harassment." Fmr ACLU Prez: Targeting Climate Skeptics Is ‘Harassment’ | The Daily Caller Yes, yes, I know it's TDC again, but it was the first Google hit and the question should be whether the statement is true. And regardless who said it or where it appears, I thought this comment from the article was particularly appropriate given you & Jack's preferred approach (emphasis mine):

“Climate change campaigners argue the seriousness of the issue means extreme measures are warranted, but the exact opposite is the case,” the Financial Times editorial board wrote in response to the Exxon investigation.

“It is precisely because the stakes are so high that all arguments must be heard."


C'mon folks. Do you really want to be the ones whose favored speech is chilled the next time there is another inevitable shift in the political winds? If you are so convinced the skeptics are a bogus front by the oil cos. designed to mislead the public, then let the science demonstrate this and not the politicians pandering for votes.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Exile

Cases challenging First Amendment rights of free speech are almost always civil, SailOar. The rare exception is a criminal prosecution where a defendant may assert the First Amendment as an affirmative defense to alleged criminal conduct (e.g. threatening to assassinate the president), but that often involves a civil-type proceeding as part of or separate to the criminal prosecution.

But whether the "investigations" being brought here are civil or criminal in nature, whether it is deemed an "investigation" or a "prosecution," or which govt. entity or agency is conducting them, is all besides the point. The concern is that, whatever form it takes, it creates an actual or potential "chilling effect" on free speech (as U.S. courts routinely refer to it, not me). There are few absolutes, and certainly not when it comes to the area of civil rights. Obviously the right of free speech is also not absolute, and so speech that creates an imminent threat to life (falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater), or is actually fraudulent or conspiratorial (the theory used in the cases against oil cos. & their advocates), are not constitutionally protected.

But in this case you have oil cos. and conservative nonprofits voicing their skepticism about an unsettled and uncertain area of science that is supported by and consistent with respected and properly credentialed scientists in the field. Yes, yes, I know, the scientists who are skeptics represent a minority view, but that minority becomes larger as you get beyond the wide consensus that "AGW is real, and humans are having a ___?___ impact as compared to natural forces." Do we really want to run the risk the credibility of an ultimate conclusion on CC by potentially "chilling" minority views which serve as the only real way of developing the certainty of the science, whichever direction it takes? Besides, if every CC issue & sub-issue really enjoys a 99% consensus as Jack & others continue to imply if not assert, then why bother potentially suppressing a mere 1%??

I don't expect to talk you or any other diehards out of your viewpoint on this, but you should at least have a better understanding of where much of the concern lies. The ACLU has expressed this concern and noted it also violates the right of the public to listen. In that case it was the govt. allegedly trying to suppress scientific opinion that supported climate change. You know, the same sort of govt. conduct that Jack says went on during the last administration governing Canada. Does it matter, or should "free" speech be censored based on who is doing the talking or what they are talking about?? The right of free speech is there exactly for the purpose of protecting minority or unpopular views, on the assumption that popular majority views don't need protecting!!

https://www.aclu.org/joint-statement...-and-democracy

And here's renowned civil rights attorney Harvey Silvergate, the former head of the ACLU in Mass., recently calling the Mass. AG's investigation "pure harassment." Fmr ACLU Prez: Targeting Climate Skeptics Is ‘Harassment’ | The Daily Caller Yes, yes, I know it's TDC again, but it was the first Google hit and the question should be whether the statement is true. And regardless who said it or where it appears, I thought this comment from the article was particularly appropriate given you & Jack's preferred approach (emphasis mine):

“Climate change campaigners argue the seriousness of the issue means extreme measures are warranted, but the exact opposite is the case,” the Financial Times editorial board wrote in response to the Exxon investigation.

“It is precisely because the stakes are so high that all arguments must be heard."


C'mon folks. Do you really want to be the ones whose favored speech is chilled the next time there is another inevitable shift in the political winds? If you are so convinced the skeptics are a bogus front by the oil cos. designed to mislead the public, then let the science demonstrate this and not the politicians pandering for votes.

How very ironic that you should pull up the ACLU piece entitled Joint Statement on Censorship and Science: A Threat to Science, the Constitution, and Democracy -- which I agree with 100%. Here's the first paragraph:

Introduction

A hearing held on January 30, 2007 [during the Bush administration], by the House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform revealed a widespread pattern of political interference in the operations of federal scientific activities, including censorship of federal scientists’ speech and writing, the distortion and suppression of research results, and retaliation against those who protest these acts. These charges raise profoundly important questions about the basis for public policies that rely on sound science, the government’s respect for fundamental constitutional rights and privileges, and the effective operation of our democracy.

Here they are talking about the GW Bush administration's overt attempt to influence various scientific organizations, trying to manipulate the outcome of scientific investigation into Climate Change, simply because a lot of Republicans didn't like what was being discovered.

Back to Exxon-Mobil. I suspect that politics is indeed involved in the decision to investigate. And that may not be good. But I don't see that it rises to the level of an attack on the Constitutional Right to free speech. Publicly-held companies don't have a right to mislead shareholders. Sadly, far-right news organizations and talk-show hosts do have the right to mislead the public, and are all too willing to exercise that right.

[Reefmagnet]

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. 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

Originally Posted by jackdale

His graph also bears no resemblance to CDIAC Law Dome Data. For example, there is no data for his claimed record year of 1809.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2...e.combined.dat

I won't be too harsh on you Jack for this misunderstanding. The blogger got his year wrong by one, and quoted a paper (MacFarling Meure et al. 2006) which contains an out of date reference. The blogger quoted from the latest data set.

The correct data set is:

NAME OF DATA SET: Law Dome Ice Core 2000-Year CO2, CH4, and N2O Data LAST UPDATE: 7/2010 (Original receipt by WDC Paleo) CONTRIBUTOR: David Etheridge, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research IGBP PAGES/WDCA CONTRIBUTION SERIES NUMBER: 2010-070

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/pal...aw/law2006.txt

The link itself provides an indication why this confusion, I guess.

And a snippet of the relevant data is:

1808 734.8 0.3 743.7 1808.0 284.0 0.1 1808.0 271.6 -0.1 1809 735.0 0.3 744.0 1809.0 284.1 0.1 1809.0 271.5 -0.1 1810 735.3 0.2 744.2 1810.0 284.2 0.1 1810.0 271.4 -0.1 1811 735.4 0.2 744.4 1811.0 284.2 0.0 1811.0 271.3 -0.1 1812 735.6 0.2 744.6 1812.0 284.2 0.0 1812.0 271.3 0.0 1813 735.8 0.2 744.7 1813.0 284.2 0.0 1813.0 271.3 0.0 1814 735.9 0.2 744.9 1814.0 284.2 -0.1 1814.0 271.4 0.1 1815 736.2 0.3 745.2 1815.0 284.1 -0.1 1815.0 271.5 0.2

Now I've no idea of what your "factor of 7" claim is referring to, however if you'd like to explain this more fully and your reasoning for this claim more clearly I'll be happy to clarify as time permits.

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by jackdale

What was really said in the draft policy:







https://demconvention.com/wp-content...AFT-7.1.16.pdf



You are safe.

Martha Stewart went to prison as the direct result of a "civil" investigation. I doubt she would agree with your assurances.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Martha Stewart went to prison as the direct result of a "civil" investigation. I doubt she would agree with your assurances.

That was directed at GWA. Somehow I doubt the DOJ will go after her.

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by jackdale

What was really said in the draft policy:



https://demconvention.com/wp-content...AFT-7.1.16.pdf

You are safe.

I wish I was safe. I'm the CEO of a public company. According to this new Democrat platform resolution I will be forced to acknowledge AGW and if I don't put it in as a risk factor in my public disclosure documnts than I will be committing a crime.

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by Exile

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."

At Galileo's trial it was brought out that it was a scientific fact that the world was flat. 99% of scientists, church leaders and politicians agreed that the earth was flat. Therefore Galileo must be an heretic.

All deniers of common scientific belief should be ostracized, ridiculed and now criminalized.

It reminds of a saying "as everything changes, everything remains the same."

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Going Walkabout

At Galileo's trial it was brought out that it was a scientific fact that the world was flat. 99% of scientists, church leaders and politicians agreed that the earth was flat. Therefore Galileo must be an heretic.

Galileo's "sin" was heliocentricism. Science had known the earth was spherical since the three century BC when Eratosthenes calculated its circumference. Magellan's ships had circumnavigated the earth almost 100 years earlier.

The Ptolemaic geocentric world was also spherical.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Going Walkabout

I wish I was safe. I'm the CEO of a public company. According to this new Democrat platform resolution I will be forced to acknowledge AGW and if I don't put it in as a risk factor in my public disclosure documnts than I will be committing a crime.

As I understand it, if you have in-house scientists who warn you that a product or service you are providing is hazardous to public health, and therefore a potential liability to your company, then you have an obligation to inform your shareholders of that liability. If you decline to do so then you may indeed be in violation of law.

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Galileo's "sin" was heliocentricism. Science had known the earth was spherical since the three century BC when Eratosthenes calculated its circumference. Magellan's ships had circumnavigated the earth almost 100 years earlier.

The Ptolemaic geocentric world was also spherical.

The scientific thought of Galileo that the world was a sphere in a galaxy of spheres with the earth rotating around the sun was what was thought to be heresy and against the "science" of the time. It was both the sun and the spheres that got him into trouble.

A warning about the internet. Catholic Church activists have spent a lot of time in posting articles attempting to whitewash the ignorance of the church on this position. Even wikipedia has fallen victim to pro Catholic Church whitewashing. Propagandists are learning how to use the Internet to change historical reality.


The following is worth reading:


"The Bible grossly errs in upholding the viewpoint that the earth is flat. In the sixth century, a Christian monk named Cosmas wrote a book entitled Topographia Christian in which he described the structure of the physical world. Cosmas based his conclusions on the teachings of the Bible and held that the earth is flat and surrounded by four seas.

One of the reasons for Cosmas' belief in a flat earth was the statement at Revelation 1:7 that, when Christ returns, "every eye shall see him." Cosmas reasoned that if the earth were round instead of flat, people on the other side would not be able to see Christ's Second Coming.

Further support for the idea of a flat earth is contained in the Bible verses which speak of the "Four Corners of the earth" (e.g., Isaiah 11:12; Revelation 7:1) and the "ends of the earth" (e.g., Jeremiah 16:19; Acts 13:47).

As a consequence of such Bible teachings, most of the early church fathers believed that the earth is flat. Also, the view of the world as set forth in Cosmas' book was for several centuries accepted as part of the orthodox Christian doctrine. In addition, when Christopher Columbus proposed, in the fifteenth century, the idea of sailing west from Spain to reach the East Indies, biblical support for the notion of the earth's flatness was a major source of opposition to his proposal."

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by SailOar

As I understand it, if you have in-house scientists who warn you that a product or service you are providing is hazardous to public health, and therefore a potential liability to your company, then you have an obligation to inform your shareholders of that liability. If you decline to do so then you may indeed be in violation of law.

Read the Democrat resolution. It involves every public company. In their sick minds all companies face the risk to ongoing business because of global warming.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Going Walkabout

At Galileo's trial it was brought out that it was a scientific fact that the world was flat. 99% of scientists, church leaders and politicians agreed that the earth was flat. Therefore Galileo must be an heretic.

All deniers of common scientific belief should be ostracized, ridiculed and now criminalized.

It reminds of a saying "as everything changes, everything remains the same."

Oh come on. Not even a resemblance of fact in this post. You could probably guess that 99% of church leaders and lay people thought the world was flat because firstly 99% of lay people were illiterate and relying on church leaders to 'tell them' what to believe. And 99% of church leaders would follow the head of the church because it's what he said and it was death to disagree.

Rejectiong Galileo was an ecclesiastical political act. Nothing to do with science.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Going Walkabout

The scientific thought of Galileo that the world was a sphere in a galaxy of spheres with the earth rotating around the sun was what was thought to be heresy and against the "science" of the time. It was both the sun and the spheres that got him into trouble.

A warning about the internet. Catholic Church activists have spent a lot of time in posting articles attempting to whitewash the ignorance of the church on this position. Even wikipedia has fallen victim to pro Catholic Church whitewashing. Propagandists are learning how to use the Internet to change historical reality.


The following is worth reading:


"The Bible grossly errs in upholding the viewpoint that the earth is flat. In the sixth century, a Christian monk named Cosmas wrote a book entitled Topographia Christian in which he described the structure of the physical world. Cosmas based his conclusions on the teachings of the Bible and held that the earth is flat and surrounded by four seas.

One of the reasons for Cosmas' belief in a flat earth was the statement at Revelation 1:7 that, when Christ returns, "every eye shall see him." Cosmas reasoned that if the earth were round instead of flat, people on the other side would not be able to see Christ's Second Coming.

Further support for the idea of a flat earth is contained in the Bible verses which speak of the "Four Corners of the earth" (e.g., Isaiah 11:12; Revelation 7:1) and the "ends of the earth" (e.g., Jeremiah 16:19; Acts 13:47).

As a consequence of such Bible teachings, most of the early church fathers believed that the earth is flat. Also, the view of the world as set forth in Cosmas' book was for several centuries accepted as part of the orthodox Christian doctrine. In addition, when Christopher Columbus proposed, in the fifteenth century, the idea of sailing west from Spain to reach the East Indies, biblical support for the notion of the earth's flatness was a major source of opposition to his proposal."

This is simply not true. It was certainly against church teaching. But to extend this to the 'science' at the time is simply not true.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Going Walkabout

I wish I was safe. I'm the CEO of a public company. According to this new Democrat platform resolution I will be forced to acknowledge AGW and if I don't put it in as a risk factor in my public disclosure documnts than I will be committing a crime.

oh this is just too funny

honestly, if you are that paranoid you really need to be out sailing more and spend far less time on the internet.

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by Going Walkabout

At Galileo's trial it was brought out that it was a scientific fact that the world was flat. 99% of scientists, church leaders and politicians agreed that the earth was flat. Therefore Galileo must be an heretic.

All deniers of common scientific belief should be ostracized, ridiculed and now criminalized.

It reminds of a saying "as everything changes, everything remains the same."

The Galileo trials are a little more complex. He got only prosecuted after he portrayed the pope as an imbacil. The fact that Earth was spherical was known since the old Greeks pot a stick in the ground and measured the circumference of the planet ~2500 years ago.

I wrote a paper about this. Let me know if you want to read it