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

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

And that's where any similarities ended.

Same tactics, same strategies , same people.

Spend some time examining the role of Fred Singer as a merchant of doubt.

Merchants of Doubt about Global Warming Hope to Strike Back - Scientific American

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Why do you have problems finding this information? Inability or ignorance?



https://www.theguardian.com/environm...-change-report



New York in 2080: 9 Degrees Warmer, 39 Inches of Sea Level Rise - CityLab



In 2080, Winnipeg summers could be as hot as the Texas desert: projections - Winnipeg Free Press

Your own animated graph said a bit less than 1.5 degs. from 1860 to 2015. What is the IPCC/Paris projection for warming at the end of this century?

Why do you have problems posting more balanced data & information? Politics or personality?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Why do you have problems posting more balanced data & information? Politics or personality?

A balance implies that the debate is 50/50. 1/99 is not a debate, it is a rout.

Next you will try to present naturopathy as a balance to medical science.

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

And you thought MMGWC wasn't political?

Dem Platform Calls For Prosecuting Global Warming Skeptics | The Daily Caller

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Federal Lab Closed After 'Disturbing' Data Manipulation | The Daily Caller

Opps....more MMGWC Data fakery....

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

The Daily Caller has more credibility than the EPA...so deal with the issue or hide and attack the source...bingo...

Really Rich, you consider this a reliable source?

I don't really know if I should shake my head in disbelieve or if I should consider the slight possibility that you are trolling again .

Yeah Rich, you are too smart and too well educated for that. You are dropping bait and everyone is jumping right on to it. Most likely you are in your cockpit rolling on the teak deck laughing your behind off.

Rich, you are a funny guy, I'll give you that.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I'm absolutely interested in the truth.



here's the resolution:

[A] 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.

They're not after skeptics,



they're proposing to investigate companies that are alleged to have willfully misled shareholders and the public. Same as with big tobacco.

Wrong. They're not "proposing to investigate" anything, but rather prosecuting Exxon/Mobil for, yes, funding scientists who are skeptics, or more accurately for challenging the scientific status quo. And they are also prosecuting conservative think tanks for the very same reason, except last I checked such nonprofits don't have shareholders. So unlike the overwhelmingly strong links btwn. smoking, cancer, and heart disease, Jack for one does not even include the link btwn. CO2 and warming in the category of "scientific fact." So what is it exactly about the science of CC that somehow Exxon/Mobil and conservative think tanks have known about all these years that somehow the world's supposedly smartest scientists have not yet reached?

These prosecutions are first & foremost about currying political favor with constituencies ignorant enough to believe that courts will have the final word on science. Secondarily, they are yet another attempt by one political faction to suppress dissent when they cannot prevail on the truth and the merits. Or does it sound logical to you that Exxon/Mobil's shareholders were "defrauded" because disclosing the "real" dangers of CC would have created less demand for their product, less profits, and thus a less attractive stock for investors?? What again is the harm the shareholders suffered again??

The Daily Caller is just the online version of the "2 Minute Hate" for lazy right-wingers.

If you cannot suppress dissent, then calling those with a different point of view "haters" (to name one of many) is the next best thing. Just ask those Brits who voted for more self-rule what they were called. Another nasty one, L-E.

So much for your 'truth'.

Originally Posted by jackdale

Same tactics, same strategies , same people.

And a completely different issue, with a completely different level of scientific certainty and thus legal proof.

Spend some time examining the role of Fred Singer as a merchant of doubt.

Merchants of Doubt about Global Warming Hope to Strike Back - Scientific American

Spend some time learning how the U.S. legal system works.

Originally Posted by Bill Seal

"scientific reality"

With tobacco, the changes in the lungs were easily documented.

Exactly.

[StuM]

"[A] 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."

GOP AGs warn Dems that if climate skeptics can be prosecuted for 'fraud,' so can alarmists - Washington Times
If Democratic attorneys general can pursue climate change skeptics for fraud, then also at risk of prosecution are climate alarmists whose predictions of global doom have failed to materialize.
The “cuts both ways” argument was among those raised by 13 Republican attorneys general in a letter urging their Democratic counterparts to stop using their law enforcement power against fossil fuel companies and others that challenge the climate change catastrophe narrative.
Consider carefully the legal precedent and threat to free speech, said the state prosecutors in their letter this week, headed by Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange.
“If it is possible to minimize the risks of climate change, then the same goes for exaggeration,” said the letter. “If minimization is fraud, exaggeration is fraud.”

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

A balance implies that the debate is 50/50. 1/99 is not a debate, it is a rout.

Next you will try to present naturopathy as a balance to medical science.

Try not to change the subject, go silent, or threaten to leave the thread anytime someone challenges your always one-sided and often alarmist data.

I guess you just couldn't get yourself to post this IPCC projection. Depending on the model, it looks like a range of roughly 1.8 to 3.6 degs. of warming through the end of the century.

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and...ctions-of.html

Cherry picking data doesn't seem consistent with someone defending a "1/99 rout." But that representation isn't truthful either . . . .

[Exile]

Originally Posted by StuM

"[A] 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."

GOP AGs warn Dems that if climate skeptics can be prosecuted for 'fraud,' so can alarmists - Washington Times
If Democratic attorneys general can pursue climate change skeptics for fraud, then also at risk of prosecution are climate alarmists whose predictions of global doom have failed to materialize.
The “cuts both ways” argument was among those raised by 13 Republican attorneys general in a letter urging their Democratic counterparts to stop using their law enforcement power against fossil fuel companies and others that challenge the climate change catastrophe narrative.
Consider carefully the legal precedent and threat to free speech, said the state prosecutors in their letter this week, headed by Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange.
“If it is possible to minimize the risks of climate change, then the same goes for exaggeration,” said the letter. “If minimization is fraud, exaggeration is fraud.”

Good thing so many of our alarmists are Canadian and thus outside the reach of U.S. law. Or are they?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Try not to change the subject, go silent, or threaten to leave the thread anytime someone challenges your always one-sided and often alarmist data.

I guess you just couldn't get yourself to post this IPCC projection. Depending on the model, it looks like a range of roughly 1.8 to 3.6 degs. of warming through the end of the century.

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and...ctions-of.html

Cherry picking data doesn't seem consistent with someone defending a "1/99 rout." But that representation isn't truthful either . . . .

Why are you using using a graph from AR4 when AR5 was published 3 years ago?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Brexit is a natural progression of people's reaction to the type of Big Government top down policies that are akin and necessary in socialist systems of government. The reason of course I brought it up in this thread is because it fits perfectly into the MMGW cult mindset. If only more control is given to the elites, the smart folks, the masterminds, then whether it be the environment, the economy, or the Society THEY will be able to run it better than those ignorant rubes. And just like Brexit and MMGW...the result from the enlightened class is the same...to go on the attack that don't agree with their policies of control, regulation and enslavement.

As a second generation American with most of my mother's family still living in Italy all of them I talk to despise the EU, the Euro and the masterminds in Brussels who have sold them down the river for their Utopian dreams.

The EU Experiment has failed and I fully support returning power back closer to the people where it belongs. The Elites hate it...will lecture the Brits and us on why we should surrender our Sovereignty for the greater good, and now that the people have spoken, they will ever try to ignore and nullify the will of the people. It is what the elite do in science, government, politics and religion.

The referendum seems to now be one of the last remaining vestiges for the people, as opposed to the elites, to restore democracy & self-rule. Which also explains in large part why the Left hates David Cameron for suggesting it. But wait, wasn't it supposed to be about "power to the people?" Funny how such ideals have changed. Or were they always merely slogans?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Why are you using using a graph from AR4 when AR5 was published 3 years ago?

Easy fix. Just show us what AR5 says.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Easy fix. Just show us what AR5 says.

The three quotes I gave you were all within the ranges of both AR4 and AR5.

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The three quotes I gave you were all within the ranges of both AR4 and AR5.

No, they're not...not even close...

Fearmongering. Beneath you, Jack.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Wrong. They're not "proposing to investigate" anything, but rather prosecuting Exxon/Mobil for, yes, funding scientists who are skeptics, or more accurately for challenging the scientific status quo.

That's not what the Dem declaration says. Links for your assertions?

And they are also prosecuting conservative think tanks for the very same reason, except last I checked such nonprofits don't have shareholders.

Haven't heard that either. Link?

If you cannot suppress dissent, then calling those with a different point of view "haters" (to name one of many) is the next best thing.

No, I'm calling out a crap source.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by fryewe

No, they're not...not even close...

Fearmongering. Beneath you, Jack.

Attachment 127115

I said it before and I will say it again its even on their projections.
One good volcano away from ice age.