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

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

And here I thought you criticized people who copy and paste...

You thought wrong. I am criticized for cut and paste when I produce evidence.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Millions?? Does that include the cafeteria & janitorial staff? Or how about the pseudo-scientists who subscribe to their newsletter, give them donations, and therefore become "members?" Is it any surprise that the more well-known skeptics work elsewhere?



Ah yes, the Powell "study" I presume? Next comes the big black ball graph . . . wait for it.

Yes, millions of professionals.

The AGU has over 60,000 members, the APS over 50,000 members, AMS 13,000,

The graphic was has been around for a while. Powell's peer-reviewed paper was published recently.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The carbon is taxed before it is burned and becomes carbon dioxide.

If you're going to tax "carbon", name one organic product that doesn't contain it and therefore shouldn't be taxed.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Yes, millions of professionals.

The AGU has over 60,000 members, the APS over 50,000 members, AMS 13,000,

The graphic was has been around for a while. Powell's peer-reviewed paper was published recently.

How would a survey of coalminers swing if the question was "Is coal good or bad for human society?".

That, my dear fellow, is called bias. Bias caused by self serving interest.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Exile

Ah yes, the Powell "study" I presume? Next comes the big black ball graph . . . wait for it.

You want a ball graph?
I'll give you a ball graph!

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

If you or anyone else would like to read for yourself what this case was really about -- as opposed to how Jack's posted articles (by bloggers perhaps?) spin them, here's the link to the administrative court's advisory opinion:

Maybe you should read it yourself.

For starters.

Administrative Law Judge’s Conclusions Regarding Climate Change
57. Peabody must demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that its
claims that climate change is not occurring or, to the extent it is occurring, the warmingand increased CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere are not anthropogenically caused and are beneficial. This burden of proof is appropriate because Peabody presented the testimony regarding the existence and benefits of climate change and warming in support of its proposed values for the SCC in this proceeding. In its Post-Hearing Brief in this
matter, Peabody states that the most appropriate SCC value is zero.Alternative values proposed by Peabody are set forth in section V.C. of this Report.

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.

I am in the process of reading the whole document.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

You want a ball graph?
I'll give you a ball graph!

Wrong study. Do your homework and pay attention.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

If you're going to tax "carbon", name one organic product that doesn't contain it and therefore shouldn't be taxed.

You love to pick nits, don't you.



We are discussing a tax of extracted sequestered carbon in the form of fossil fuels. Did you miss the word "burned" or just stop at "carbon"?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Conversely the MWP may have benefited Europe but it resulted in serious drought conditions in other parts of the world.

So what is the deal mean global temperature? 13C.



https://www.sciencemag.org/news/sift...owth-13%C2%B0c

The US loses, Canada and Russia win.

The study itself.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture15725.html

I'm starting to think the word "may" is an abbreviation for something like "although we really don't have any definitive proof, we need to counter positive spin so <insert doom and gloom quip here>"

And your Nature link is comedy gold. Aside from a conclusion that appears in direct contrast to the wishy-washy synopsis, did any of the intellectual pillars of society that researched and wrote this paper stop and consider the economic productivity effects of stopping all anthropogenic carbon emissions? An action that would be required to prevent their scenario? I mean, to make a sensible conclusion, this should have been considered, right?

Sheesh!



Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Rustic Charm]

You know, YOU guys are continuing on a debate about something, and like ecclesiastical creation debates, the whole world has moved on and you guys remain here on CF debating something that is only debated with any seriousness on CF amoung a very very few members. and these silly arguments will remain on the internet for people to laugh at for decades.

And, it's got zip all to do with sailing/boating/cruising

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

And, it's got zip all to do with sailing/boating/cruising

I was going to bail out when the topic veered off the question of the Arctic. But right now I am recovering from knee surgery and it keeps me amused as I watch the contarians spin and twist and turn.

I head for Maui on July 27 to go sailing.

In the meantime, I am also trying to contribute to the sailing discussions.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

You know, YOU guys are continuing on a debate about something, and like ecclesiastical creation debates, the whole world has moved on and you guys remain here on CF debating something that is only debated with any seriousness on CF amoung a very very few members. and these silly arguments will remain on the internet for people to laugh at for decades.

And, it's got zip all to do with sailing/boating/cruising

And yet, you keep dropping by.

How quaint.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I was going to bail out when the topic veered off the question of the Arctic. But right now I am recovering from knee surgery and it keeps me amused as I watch the contarians spin and twist and turn.

I head for Maui on July 27 to go sailing.

In the meantime, I am also trying to contribute to the sailing discussions.

I know you have been Jack. Your very patient, I'll give you that.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Maybe you should read it yourself.

I have. In fact the first of the three times you posted about it. Just never thought even you would consider it a viable piece of propaganda and pursue it. But I obviously underestimated . . . .

For starters.

Quote:
Administrative Law Judge’s Conclusions Regarding Climate Change
57. Peabody must demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that its
claims that climate change is not occurring or, to the extent it is occurring, the warmingand increased CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere are not anthropogenically caused and are beneficial. This burden of proof is appropriate because Peabody presented the testimony regarding the existence and benefits of climate change and warming in support of its proposed values for the SCC in this proceeding. In its Post-Hearing Brief in this
matter, Peabody states that the most appropriate SCC value is zero.Alternative values proposed by Peabody are set forth in section V.C. of this Report.

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.

I am in the process of reading the whole document.

That will help you understand it . . . or not. And you'll probably enjoy all the acronyms. In fact, I thought you of all people would be careful to read a primary source document before relying on secondary ones, especially when these secondary ones are fraught with obvious & transparent bias.

The case revolves around setting rates to properly account for the cost of various types of energy, in this case cheaper coal vs. more expensive renewables, and whether the "costs" of CC are properly factored into the analysis. In other words, the judge is recommending imposing a higher cost on coal to make the inherently more expensive cost of renewables more competitive. In effect, the type of "carbon tax" you favor to artificially inflate the cost of a cheaper source of energy.

Correctly or not, the administrative judge determined that Peabody had the burden of proof, in this case a preponderance of the evidence standard. And then the court chose the IPCC's findings over the evidence presented by Peabody. Perfectly understandable and not unexpected given that the IPCC's findings have the force of officialdom and are widely recognized. I suspect this is why Peabody et al. opted not to appeal. Just don't confuse what is a legal test for admissibility in court vs. a final determination on the validity of a scientific theory. Relying on the majority IPCC findings rather than the minority view as presented by Spencer & Co. is a more conservative approach for a court, and makes it more likely the advisory ruling will be adopted by the utility in setting rates. In other legal contexts, and as the administrative opinion recognizes, the US Supreme Court has also appropriately recognized the IPCC as an official source for such findings. Nothing all that groundbreaking, exciting, or controversial about that one, but you are free to celebrate this advisory ruling as you wish.

[Exile]

Since low prices on fossil fuels have been the only thing keeping the U.S. economy (barely) positive, it only follows that some from a leftward persuasion would like to risk another, probably worldwide recession because . . .

1. Higher prices will encourage less consumption and thus lower fossil fuel emissions (the ostensible reason);

2. Taxes on energy will enable the govt. to encourage green technological development (the naive reason);

3. Taxes on energy will punish fossil fuel cos. with lower profits (the real reason as L-E kindly divulged for us, except it won't work).

Although some fancy themselves clairvoyant about the motivations of other posters, it's usually not hard to uncover the ideologues -- lots of brooding, lecturing and obvious frustration when their simplistic and usually ill-informed utopian dreams are not shared by others. If their ideas are so terrific, then why is approval so desparately sought from strangers on a sailing forum??

I find this facet of the discussion rather fascinating.