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 ... 227, 228, 229 ... 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
keycocker



Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 3441

PostPosted: Sun Sep 22, 2013 9:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The teas should not be expected to all step up in a poll with a well informed critique of funding options for nuclear Insurance at the federal level.
That is not reasonable.
Even those of us who worked in the biz, even perhaps including your father, have differing opinions or prefer no opinion, about each different aspect of this very complex issue.
If that poll had asked us that question we would not be able to say yes or no.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5345

PostPosted: Mon Sep 23, 2013 10:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

KC--I am making two points. One, nuclear, whatever its merits in carbon reduction, cannot compete in the market place. It has had massive subsidies in both loan guarantees and in the government assuming liability for accidents. The current estimates for cleaning up Fukushima are $11 billion. Those costs will be paid for by the Japanese government, not reflected in a rate base.

Second, despite NW's claims on behalf of conservatives to oppose all subsidies, the Tea Party's actual record is to support subsidies for their buddies. One might expect this from an "astro-turf" organization that fronts for the far right element in the Republican Party and has been largely hijacked in legislative matters by sleaze bags like Tom Delay. While there have been Tea Party activists in Georgia who have objected to nuclear subsidies, most of the far right outrage has been reserved to opposing alternative energy and bemoaning the Solyndra loan--not to eliminating subsidies for nuclear, coal, or oil. We can call that hypocrisy. We don't have to invent their position--we just need to look at what they have done and supported. The only modest reform that they have supported is not increasing the loan guarantees for nuclear--not eliminating either the existing loan guarantees, or requiring developers to cover liability.

As I said, some members of the right, and a lot of businesses, give lip service to the market--but avoid it in favor of subsidies if they can.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
keycocker



Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 3441

PostPosted: Mon Sep 23, 2013 11:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A failure to stop subsidies is not the same as a policy of strong support for them.
This a group which has failed to do anything at all.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5345

PostPosted: Mon Sep 23, 2013 12:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 1791
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 12:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just another little diddy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Global warming believers are feeling the heat

By James Delingpole Environment Last updated: September 25th, 2013

From Thursday's Daily Telegraph

On Friday the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change delivers its latest verdict on the state of man-made global warming. Though the details are a secret, one thing is clear: the version of events you will see and hear in much of the media, especially from partis pris organisations like the BBC, will be the opposite of what the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report actually says.

Already we have had a taste of the nonsense to come: a pre-announcement to the effect that “climate scientists” are now “95 per cent certain” that humans are to blame for climate change; an evidence-free declaration by the economist who wrote the discredited Stern Report that the computer models cited by the IPCC “substantially underestimate” the scale of the problem; a statement by the panel’s chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, that “the scientific evidence of… climate change has strengthened year after year”.

As an exercise in bravura spin, these claims are up there with Churchill’s attempts to reinvent the British Expeditionary Force’s humiliating retreat from Dunkirk as a victory. In truth, though, the new report offers scant consolation to those many alarmists whose careers depend on talking up the threat. It says not that they are winning the war to persuade the world of the case for catastrophic anthropogenic climate change – but that the battle is all but lost.

At the heart of the problem lie the computer models which, for 25 years, have formed the basis for the IPCC’s scaremongering: they predicted runaway global warming, when the real rise in temperatures has been much more modest. So modest, indeed, that it has fallen outside the lowest parameters of the IPCC’s prediction range. The computer models, in short, are bunk.

To a few distinguished scientists, this will hardly come as news. For years they have insisted that “sensitivity” – the degree to which the climate responds to increases in atmospheric CO₂ – is far lower than the computer models imagined. In the past, their voices have been suppressed by the bluster and skulduggery we saw exposed in the Climategate emails. From grant-hungry science institutions and environmentalist pressure groups to carbon traders, EU commissars, and big businesses with their snouts in the subsidies trough, many vested interests have much to lose should the global warming gravy train be derailed.

This is why the latest Assessment Report is proving such a headache to the IPCC. It’s the first in its history to admit what its critics have said for years: global warming did “pause” unexpectedly in 1998 and shows no sign of resuming. And, other than an ad hoc new theory about the missing heat having been absorbed by the deep ocean, it cannot come up with a convincing explanation why. Coming from a sceptical blog none of this would be surprising. But from the IPCC, it’s dynamite: the equivalent of the Soviet politburo announcing that command economies may not after all be the most efficient way of allocating resources.

Which leaves the IPCC in a dilemma: does it ’fess up and effectively put itself out of business? Or does it brazen it out for a few more years, in the hope that a compliant media and an eco-brainwashed populace will be too stupid to notice? So far, it looks as if it prefers the second option – a high-risk strategy. Gone are the days when all anybody read of its Assessment Reports were the sexed-up “Summary for Policymakers”. Today, thanks to the internet, sceptical inquirers such as Donna Laframboise (who revealed that some 40 per cent of the IPCC’s papers came not from peer-reviewed journals but from Greenpeace and WWF propaganda) will be going through every chapter with a fine toothcomb.

Al Gore’s “consensus” is about to be holed below the water-line – and those still aboard the SS Global Warming are adjusting their positions. Some, such as scientist Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, have abandoned ship. She describes the IPCC’s stance as “incomprehensible”. Others, such as the EU’s Climate Commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, steam on oblivious. Interviewed last week by the Telegraph’s Bruno Waterfield, she said: “Let’s say that science, some decades from now, said: 'We were wrong, it was not about climate’, would it not in any case have been good to do many of the things you have to do in order to combat climate change?” If she means needlessly driving up energy prices, carpeting the countryside with wind turbines and terrifying children about a problem that turns out to have been imaginary, then most of us would probably answer “No”.

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



Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 1363

PostPosted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 2:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Precisely, N.W. The Telegraph states the case as it appears to many in our country, and is similar to the earlier conclusions I posted on the leaked IPCC report.

The point in the IPCC report (and they are totally committed to warming) which has us rolling in the aisles with laughter is, (quote the Telegraph) 'it is the first in its history to admit what its critics have said for years; global warming did 'pause' unexpectly in 1998, and shows no signs of resuming. And other than an ad hoc new theory about the missing heat (love that sarcasm!) being absorbed by the deep ocean, it cannot come up with a convincing explanation why.'

Incidentally, sinnce the Arctic ice cover has increased by over 1 million square miles this year, doesn't that mean that sea level must have fallen slightly? I see no mention of that from the warming lobby!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coboardhead



Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 1960

PostPosted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 8:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

My understanding is this is a pause in the Increasing RATE of global warming. I am holding off on the big end of global warming party for now.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GURGLETROUSERS



Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 1363

PostPosted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 9:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

No C.B. Not according to the (leaked) IPCC report, the Met Office, and the East Anglian Climate Research Centre.

They have all, under pressure to explain, conceeded and made statements that 'there has been no significant warming since 1998.' They have all admitted to 'a pause' in warming, NOT that it has continued over that period, though at a slower rate.

They only insist that it will once again pick up and continue in the future. Many climatologists are now questioning on what grounds they base this assertion, since they have all had to admit to fundamental flaws in their computer models. (Or rubbish in/rubbish out.)

The point is that they have all 'blown' their credibility with their wildly inaccurate predictions (and they were predictions) so they need now to explain on what basis they are continuing to put figures on their projections of future temperature rises?

According to the leaked IPCC report, they do not say! (The Met Office are even claiming that their state of the art computer is still correct, despite being so clearly wrong up to now!) Myles Allen, head of Oxford University Climate research centre, and a member of the IPCC panel has stated that thge process by which the IPCC reach their conclusions misrepresents the meaning of science!

So I ask again, why should we believe their predictions?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5345

PostPosted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 10:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

No one is asking anyone to believe the predictions. But the false logic of the deniers is that the inaccuracy of the predictions--which was always expected because the models simplified the physics--have been used to ignore the real information we have about the changes we have seen. They are:

average temperature has risen rather dramatically

CO2 levels are higher than they have been in millennia

the oceans are warmer and rising at an accelerated rate

the oceans seem to be storing CO2 (a good thing for slowing down the rate of temperature increase) and that is having significant ecological impacts

the rising temperatures are altering the landscape--from summer sea ice and the thickness of winter sea ice in the arctic, to bud break and harvest times for virtually all crops.

I guess windsurfers will notice when the changing climate causes a shortage of hops!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coboardhead



Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 1960

PostPosted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 11:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

GT... I am going to wait until the final report is out before I consider your question.

I often do evaluations of structures and produce reports. These reports are used for a number of uses including decisions by government agencies for budgeting capital improvements, industry in deciding facility life cycle costs and in legal proceedings.

I am constantly amazed when I see portions of my report, taken out of context, that appear during governmental meetings, local press and in the courtroom. It seems that anyone with an agenda can massage a technical report into what they want it to read.

A recent headline stated that a bridge replacement would cost one half million dollars. My estimate was a range from less than half that amount to that top number. The range was a result of a number of variables including increasing bridge width, bike lanes, aesthetics and road realignment. I am stopped on the street and asked how I could possibly spend that much money to replace an old one lane bridge.

It must be very frustrating to be a climate scientist in this politically charged environment where any discussions become fodder.
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 ... 227, 228, 229 ... 347, 348, 349  Next
Page 228 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