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

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

You missed it again. The point is not to try and "defend" the Daily Caller or any other publication, but not to vilify, marginalize, or be condescending towards any publication that has such a large following. What you are really doing, of course, is marginalizing the millions of mostly conservatives who read it, but the fact is that you cannot see this because you are more out of the political mainstream than they are, at least here in the U.S.

If thoughtless reactionary is the mainstream, you can keep it.

Gee whiz, I'm sorry that the Daily Caller and its large readership kind of deflates your cherished notion that each and every conservative has independently and rationally pondered the scientific evidence for and against AGW and have, to a man, concluded as you have.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The decision was made on a preponderance of evidence which is exactly how these decisions are made.

Yes, that is the correct standard of proof that is used in most civil cases. Hopefully you also now understand that the court ruled that the burden of proof was on Peabody and how that practically preordained the decision.

Yes I have read the all 142 pages.

So why don't you tell us where the court thrashed Peabody's expert witnesses and wholeheartedly endorsed AGW like you and your propaganda sources claimed?

How you can claim that this is nothing other a defeat for Peabody and the others is denial writ large.

No question about it being a defeat for Peabody in this narrow advisory ruling where the court held that they failed to meet their burden of proof. And a definite win for the AGW intelligentsia who can afford to pay higher utility bills in order to subsidize renewable energy which is nowhere close to being price-competitive with fossil fuels. But the court did so by choosing to go with the "mainstream/majority/dominant/popular/significant consensus" scientific opinion on AGW as recognized by the IPCC. But the court did not so rule because Peabody's scientists were not credible, credentialed, or truthful as you and your biased articles tried to represent.

Some of us are still waiting for the natural causes of the current warming.

You yourself have long acknowledged that our current warming, like Arctic ice melt, is the result of natural and human forces, and know all too well that the scientific debate is mostly about the ratio. And yes, we already know that you and many other scientists believe it's almost entirely human-derived. But there are many other equally reputable scientists who believe otherwise. You also claim to follow Curry's blog. Surely we don't need to chase this rabbit down the hole again, do we? So what exactly are you waiting for? Do you not know how to research scientific opinions from credible scientists you happen to disagree with, or has that thought not occurred to you? Btw, I hear Google Scholar is good.

[jackdale]

Meanwhile more to the topic at hand.

From the US Navy

In the coming decades, the Arctic Ocean will be increasingly accessible and more broadly used by Arctic and non-Arctic nations seeking the Region’s abundant resources and trade routes. Due to the significant retreat of sea ice, previously unreachable areas have started to open for maritime use several weeks each year. The predicted rise in oil and gas development, fishing, tourism, and mineral mining could alter the Region’s strategic importance as Arctic and nonArctic nations make investments.

http://www.navy.mil/docs/USN_arctic_roadmap.pdf

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

If thoughtless reactionary is the mainstream, you can keep it.

Just as well. I doubt they'd want someone so intolerant in their midst anyway.

Gee whiz, I'm sorry that the Daily Caller and its large readership kind of deflates your cherished notion that each and every conservative has independently and rationally pondered the scientific evidence for and against AGW and have, to a man, concluded as you have.

Never read it until Third Day started citing it, so no idea how the readership comes down on CC. SailOar posted something about an even split which surprised me after you kept saying how conforming and homogenous conservatives are. Do they all look alike to you as well?

Btw, what conclusion have you concluded I have reached on the scientific evidence?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

[COLOR="navy"]You yourself have long acknowledged that our current warming, like Arctic ice melt, is the result of natural and human forces, and know all too well that the scientific debate is mostly about the ratio.

No - I said climate change is a the result of both human and natural causes. Natural causes are tending toward cooling human causes are tending toward warming. It is not hard to determine which is more dominant.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Meanwhile more to the topic at hand.

From the US Navy

Quote:
In the coming decades, the Arctic Ocean will be increasingly accessible and more broadly used by Arctic and non-Arctic nations seeking the Region’s abundant resources and trade routes. Due to the significant retreat of sea ice, previously unreachable areas have started to open for maritime use several weeks each year. The predicted rise in oil and gas development, fishing, tourism, and mineral mining could alter the Region’s strategic importance as Arctic and nonArctic nations make investments.


http://www.navy.mil/docs/USN_arctic_roadmap.pdf

Sounds like a good example of adaptation to a changing climate.

[jackdale]

Peabody thrashed

58. The Administrative Law Judge concludes that Peabody Energy has failed to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that climate change is not occurring or, to the extent climate change is occurring, the warming and increased CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere are beneficial.

page 23.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

..after you kept saying how conforming and homogenous conservatives are.

I never said that. I'm simply sticking a pin in your expressed notion that so many deniers/skeptics actually have anything like an informed opinion about AGW. For too many, anti-AGW is just a line in the catechism, and Daily Caller is just a hymn book.

Btw, what conclusion have you concluded I have reached on the scientific evidence?

That you like to bicker.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

No - I said climate change is a the result of both human and natural causes. Natural causes are tending toward cooling human causes are tending toward warming. It is not hard to determine which is more dominant.

I have long understood your position (and many others) on the influence of natural causes. But is that the only credible scientific opinion on this topic?

[jackdale]

But the court did not so rule because Peabody's scientists were not credible, credentialed, or truthful as you and your biased articles tried to represent.

How many successful motions to strike testimony were directed at Peabody et al versus the AGW crowd?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

I have long understood your position (and many others) on the influence of natural causes. But is that the only credible scientific opinion on this topic?

If you have something to contrary, lets see it.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I never said that. I'm simply sticking a pin in your expressed notion that so many people have anything like an educated opinion about AGW.

You mean like you & Jack?

For too many, anti-AGW is just a line in the catechism, and Daily Caller is just a hymn book.

I must not be smart enough to understand this one, but I'm sure it was insightful.

That you like to bicker.

Yeah, sometimes. Like today when I'm not sailing, the weather sucks, and I'm bored being in btwn. jobs. But I find bickering preferable to knocking people based on what they think and what they read for cryin' out loud!! I was raised in a liberal "progressive" household (if you will) but was never taught that behavior! Wtf is up with all the nonstop intolerance??

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

I have long understood your position (and many others) on the influence of natural causes. But is that the only credible scientific opinion on this topic?

Take solar actvity for example

The sun's activity is in free fall, according to a leading space physicist. But don't expect a little ice age. "Solar activity is declining very fast at the moment," Mike Lockwood, professor of space environmental physics at Reading University, UK, told New Scientist. "We estimate faster than at any time in the last 9300 years."

Lockwood and his colleagues are reassessing the chances of this decline continuing over decades to become the first "grand solar minimum" for four centuries. During a grand minimum the normal 11-year solar cycle is suppressed and the sun has virtually no sunspots for several decades. This summer should have seen a peak in the number of sunspots, but it didn't happen.

But Lockwood says we should not expect a new grand minimum to bring on a new little ice age.Human-induced global warming, he says, is already a more important force in global temperatures than even major solar cycles. "

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

You mean [informed] like you & Jack?

I mean like you, Stu, newhaul... you guys are thinking about it. Don't get a swelled head on me now...

But I find bickering preferable to knocking people based on what they think and what they read for cryin' out loud!! I was raised in a liberal "progressive" household (if you will) but was never taught that behavior! Wtf is up with all the nonstop intolerance??

I call out a sh!t site... and I'm intolerant. Got it.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Take solar actvity for example

The sun's activity is in free fall, according to a leading space physicist. But don't expect a little ice age. "Solar activity is declining very fast at the moment," Mike Lockwood, professor of space environmental physics at Reading University, UK, told New Scientist. "We estimate faster than at any time in the last 9300 years."

Lockwood and his colleagues are reassessing the chances of this decline continuing over decades to become the first "grand solar minimum" for four centuries. During a grand minimum the normal 11-year solar cycle is suppressed and the sun has virtually no sunspots for several decades. This summer should have seen a peak in the number of sunspots, but it didn't happen.

But Lockwood says we should not expect a new grand minimum to bring on a new little ice age.Human-induced global warming, he says, is already a more important force in global temperatures than even major solar cycles. "

I do get the "sense" -- but mostly from this thread and the many links that I've had time to read -- that there appears to be more scientific consensus agreeing with this position (i.e. not much impact if any from solar) than most other natural forcings. But what do I know?? Sailorchic linked us to some reports awhile back from scientists at both NASA & NOAA saying that there may be more of an impact than first realized, and that much of it was still unknown. I hope that's a fair synopsis.

So what does a skeptic do with this one?