myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Windsurfing Videos Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Global cooling
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 173, 174, 175 ... 347, 348, 349  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5471

PostPosted: Sat Mar 16, 2013 3:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Perhaps mrgybe and techno could practice a little discipline, and write about economic issues such as debt under the appropriate thread?
We are even waiting for some comments that would continue a conversation rather than merely repeat right wing talking points. I do remember mrgybe claiming that the stimulus had no benefits in creating jobs--something different than the conclusion of independent analysts. The degree of recovery must really get your goat.

Comments that are actually related to global warming might be more appropriate.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
techno900



Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 1518

PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 10:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac said:
Quote:
Oh techno, you are so sad. So devoid of facts.


Ridicule doesn't become you, and you call yourself a teacher? You missed my point as usual and go into your typical history lesson. I offered an opinion that the "recovery" may not be as glowing as you suggest and that the stimulus may not have been best way of fixing the problem. Plus I suggested that private enterprise had to find a way to survive by operating more efficiently or cease to exist, unlike our government.

The government had to cut back as well, but they continue to survive by taking our money, printing their own, and borrowing from others. Disaster is ahead if they continue to ignore reality.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 1859
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 11:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A good read~


The Great Green Con no. 1: The hard proof that finally shows global warming forecasts that are costing you billions were WRONG all along
By David Rose
PUBLISHED: 18:37 EST, 16 March 2013 | UPDATED: 05:55 EST, 17 March 2013


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2294560/The-great-green-1-The-hard-proof-finally-shows-global-warming-forecasts-costing-billions-WRONG-along.html#ixzz2NoXJDOyw

_________________
I don't drink the 'cool' aid, I drink tequila, it's more honest.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 14469

PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 11:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

nw30 wrote:
The Great Green Con no. 1: The hard proof that finally shows global warming forecasts that are costing you billions were WRONG all along
By David Rose

Oh, I can just see the erudite response you'll get from this group of open-minded intellectuals: "David Rose wrote "The Stripper", you fool. He's a right wing hack. Cue EEE Dee."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GURGLETROUSERS



Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 1391

PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 12:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac. .... As I'm sure you will be aware, the anti global warming lobby are now really pushing their agenda, especially over here, with almost as much spin as were the rabid global warmers of a few years ago. The casualty, as ever, is the truth.

Todays paper (The Mail on Sunday) had a four page spread with 'potted' (and edited) contributions from various climate scientists. Their particular agenda (the papers) is against our governments slavish adherence to all initiatives, in a vain attempt to set a world example, at huge cost and damage to our economy, when far bigger polluting countries are not accepting such restrictions. Naturally, most of our population is angry.

(Will continue ... but still having posting problems.)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GURGLETROUSERS



Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 1391

PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 12:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

(Continued.)

Their arguments are based on two now generally accepted facts.

1) The predicted temperatures from computer models used by the U.N. panel on climate change, overlain by the actual temperatures tabulated by the Met Office (The Met Office has probably the worlds most extensive 'HadCRUT4' data base, with measurements from over 30,000 points, plus extensive archives) have seriously diverged. i.e. The global temperature has not, for whatever reason, correlated with the graph.

2) There has been no significant temperature rise in the last 15 years, a fact now accepted by both the IPCC and the Met Office. Their current predictions are that this 'pause' could last for another decade, or even two.

(Will continue.)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GURGLETROUSERS



Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 1391

PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 12:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

To quote one of the many climatologists (Dr. David Whitelove of the Global Warming Policy Foundation) 'This changes everything. Global warming should no longer be the main determinant of economic or energy policy.' He is CLEARLY speaking about the U.K. governments policies, and their stance on windmills, NOT claiming that global warming is just a myth!!!

Nobody is suggesting that there is not a problem which could become serious in the future, but that all predictions so far have been too high. They are rather suggesting that the world has been given a breather, and a chance to tackle the problem in a worldwide manner, applicable to all nations, especially the major polluters. I can find NO serious scientific body which is claiming climate change is just a myth!

If gas is to be the stopgap power source for the next few decades, the plants should all be built to exacting CO2 pollution standards. Our country also sits on gas deposits and subsidies would far better be spent on securing the as a power source, instead of billions on these idiotic windmills!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5471

PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 3:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Techno--let me quote your point:

Quote:
everyone but the government figured out how to tighten up their budgets


It is, of course, not true. Government spending dropped dramatically. One of the problems with the Keynsian concept is that it has never been tried. During the great depression, local and state government spending dropped by more than Federal stimulation. During the most recent great recession the same thing happened. The magnitude of the stimulus, way less than $1 trillion, was a penny in the wishing well compared to the estimates of $10-14 trillion lost in the housing bubble melt-down. It is clear, not subject to debate, that job losses would have been greater without the stimulus.

If you wanted to make the point that the stimulus didn't target the areas of the economy where the job losses were greatest, or that the cost per job was very high, you could have made those points and I would have agreed with you. Sometimes when people don't understand you it is because you haven't made your point clearly. Here, you claimed that government hadn't cut back--and you were, quite simply, full of shit.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5471

PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 3:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

GT--on topic. I have not relied on warming projections since 1981 when I was in graduate school and a complete skeptic. Computer modeling was developed to compare scenarios, and it does a reasonable job of projecting if the full physics are captured and there is enough data. Hydrodynamic modeling is light years better than it was when I was in graduate school.

The warming models have never captured, or claimed to capture, the full physics of atmospheric heating and radiation of heat back into space. There is no doubt that there is a relationship between atmospheric CO2 and warming, well explained a few pages back. But the damping effect of seawater absorption of CO2 and greater cloud cover were not included in the early models. We now see that this is happening, and eventually models will account for that.

I have consistently said that we should implement only the "no regrets" actions. A carbon tax because it offsets at least partially the subsidy that currently goes into allowing discharge of contaminants without mitigation, and sends a further economic signal stimulating conservation and development of alternatives. Tax credits or direct subsidies for insulation and weatherproofing because all the data shows that is the most cost-effective way to reduce carbon emissions. Subsidies for technology development for fossil fuel alternatives, since we will need them sooner or later. Subsidies may eventually be appropriate, but for the most part we are still at the gearhead or technology development stage.

The fact that there are extremists on both sides of the issue is a strong argument that a middle course, and further data collection, is necessary. You keep forgetting, as you remind me of the "flattening of the temperature curve" that the projected temperature increase over the last 15 years would have been about 0.1 to 0.15 degrees--a trend that is very hard to detect in a chaotic data set. Republicans, backed by coal and oil companies, have blocked funding for the more rigorous data collection that would allow better understanding of temperature trends.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GURGLETROUSERS



Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 1391

PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 4:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac. .... I wasn't 'getting at' you. You have consistently rejected the extreme positions, as have many of us. BUT, both the U.N. and the Met Office now officially state that, ' there has been no significant warming over the last 15 years', and that this state of affairs may yet last longer.

My argument is that the Mail on Sunday article has SPUN this admission to claim that global warming is a MYTH! They have clearly 'primed' selected climatologists with loaded questions to back this view. It seems clear to me that the climatologists opinions were to the effect that a) because of developments the British government can be seen to have over reacted to the more extreme predictions, and b) we now have a little more time to tackle things on a more logical basis.

I stress that that is MY interpretation of how the paper, in following its agenda, is attempting to mislead the gullible into believing global warming to have all along been a MYTH! They clearly didn't make the point that the accepted PAUSE, is not a CESSATION in the process, and the selected quotes do not make that fact clear.

That is par for the course with this paper.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 173, 174, 175 ... 347, 348, 349  Next
Page 174 of 349

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group