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 ... 298, 299, 300 ... 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: 5391

PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 7:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Head up his ass? http://reallysciency.blogspot.com/p/who-is-steven-goddard.html

Not clear if he is a kook at the back of the City Council meeting or bought and paid for. Clearly not qualified--but he hooked you because you don't understand the difference between weather and climate. Credible? Not on your life.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5391

PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 7:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

But if you want a laugh, here's more:

Quote:
New Lows: Sea Ice and “Steven Goddard” credibility
September 14, 2011
“Steven Goddard” is a pseudonym used by an anonymous climate denialist crank, so incredibly sloppy that he even embarrassed arch climate denier Anthony Watts, as shown in this link, and as I showed in one of last year’s “sea ice wrap-up” videos.

At least Chris Monckton has a medical condition that explains his break with reality. As for this “Goddard” character, well, I have to let you see this headline to believe it.


http://climatecrocks.com/2011/09/14/new-lows-sea-ice-and-steven-goddard-credibility/

Sloppy appeals to NW, eh?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 1821
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 8:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You never disappoint, you'll always do research for me. Wink

But you'll never sell me, shouldn't that be okay?
I'm just one of many.

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



Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 3468

PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 10:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NW.
Are you one of many who will never be sold on global warming no matter the facts....
Because your politics are conservative?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5391

PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 11:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here's an explanation of the carbon problem, courtesy of Bill Gates. Accessible to those with an open mind and a fifth grade education:

Quote:
Are you hopeful that global climate talks will lead to a solution?
Many climate-change discussions are off-target because they've focused on things like the $100 billion per year that some people believe should be spent by the rich world to help the developing world, which is not really addressing the problem. At the same time, discussion about how to increase funding of research-and-development budgets to accelerate innovation is surprisingly missing. We haven't increased R&D spending, we haven't put a price signal [like a carbon tax] in, and this is certainly very disappointing. I think it's a real test of the boundary of science and politics – and an acid test of people's time horizons. Before the economic downturn, attitudes in the U.S. about climate change had become quite enlightened, and then there was a big reversal, which I believe was a result of people's worries about their immediate economic situation. Talking about problems that will have a significant effect 30 or 40 years out just gets off the agenda, and there's this shrill political debate that is distracting people. So we've made some progress, but you can't take the progress we've made and linearize it – if you do, you really are going to find out how bad climate change can be.

Let's say climate change was delayed 100 years. If that were the case, science would take care of this one. We wouldn't have to double the Department of Energy budget, because there's five or six different paths to go down. And 100 years, at the current rate and speed of science, is a long time.

We're heading for big trouble, right?
Absolutely. That's why I happen to think we should explore geo-engineering.­ But one of the complaints people have against that is that if it looks like an easy out, it'll reduce the political will to cut emissions. If that's the case, then, hey, we should take away heart surgery so that people know not to overeat. I happened to be having dinner with Charles Koch last Saturday, and we talked a little bit about climate change.

And what was the conversation like?
He's a very nice person, and he has this incredible business track record. He was pointing out that the U.S. alone can't solve the problem, and that's factually correct. But you have to view the U.S. doing something as a catalyst for getting China and others to do things. The atmosphere is the ultimate commons. We all benefit from it, and we're all polluting it. It's amazing how few problems there are in terms of the atmosphere. . . . There's just this one crazy thing that CO2 hangs around for a long, long time, and the oceans absorb it, which acidifies them, which is itself a huge problem we should do something about.

Like cut carbon emissions fast.
Yes, but people need energy. It's a gigantic business. The main thing that's missing in energy is an incentive to create things that are zero-CO2-emitting and that have the right scale and reliability characteristics.

It leads to your interest in nuclear power, right?
If you could make nuclear really, really safe, and deal with the economics, deal with waste, then it becomes the nirvana you want: a cheaper solution with very little CO2 emissions. If we don't get that, you've got a problem. Because you are not going to reduce the amount of energy used. For each year between now and 2100, the globe will use more energy. So that means more CO2 emissions every year. TerraPower, which is the nuclear-energy company that I'm backing, required a very long time to get the right people together, it required computer modeling to get the right technology together, and even now it's going to require the U.S. government to work with whatever country decides to build a pilot project – China, maybe. In a normal sort of private market, that project probably wouldn't have emerged. It took a fascination with science, concern about climate change and a very long-term view. Now, I'm not saying it's guaranteed to be successful, although it's going super, super well, but it's an example of an innovation that might not happen without the proper support.

Nuclear power has failed to fulfill its promises for a variety of economic and technical reasons for 40 years. Why continue investing in nuclear power instead of, say, cheap solar and energy storage?
Well, we have a real problem, and so we should pursue many solutions to the problem. Even the Manhattan Project pursued both the plutonium bomb and the uranium bomb – and both worked! Intermittent energy sources [like wind and solar] . . . yeah, you can crank those up, depending on the quality of the grid and the nature of your demand. You can scale that up 20 percent, 30 percent and, in some cases, even 40 percent. But when it comes to climate change, that's not interesting. You're talking about needing factors of, like, 90 percent.



Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/bill-gates-the-rolling-stone-interview-20140313#ixzz2x2UJOIyS
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 1821
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 11:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"a fifth grade education"
Setting the bar pretty young for an indoctrination, you must be proud.

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



Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 4240

PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 11:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

keycocker wrote:
NW.
Are you one of many who will never be sold on global warming no matter the facts....
Because your politics are conservative?


I'll say this. Climate is changing, but I think there are many more important areas. I could list dozens.

Like I've said, if the Dems were to say we need to change building codes and flood zones, I'd listen. But from my perspective all they are trying to do is tax the little guy with "carbon taxes".

How about a rainy day fund? I'd buy that too. The whole climate change debate is just too slick and complicated for me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5391

PostPosted: Wed Mar 26, 2014 10:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

NW shows no signs of having read any of the material, or that I set the bar just above his apparent comprehension level. Throw some more rocks in the Pacific and explain sea level rise!

Then comes Bard with:

Quote:
I could list dozens.


Oh really? I have asked for just one that has been peer reviewed. That is the claim of someone who admittedly finds the debate too hard to follow--especially if you don't try.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 14339

PostPosted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 10:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The IPCC is about to drop its other AGW assessment shoe, known as AR5-WGII. Its draft has been leaked.

Summary, in one word: "Oops."

Summary, in two words: "Never mind."

Summary, in three words: "We were wrong."

Summary, in four words: "There are bigger problems."

Summary, in five words: "Net improvement to human welfare."

The WSJ, Friday, at http://tinyurl.com/la3bqlw .
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5391

PostPosted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 1:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

From the self-brainwashing of Mike Fick we get a posting from Matt Ridley. Highly qualified? Yes, as a denier. He is a zoologist, and is on the Board of the Global Warming Policy Foundation--a denier outfit. Chosen, presumably, by the Murdoch empire, to fulfill his mission of disputing climate change in every report.

Not a peer reviewed source--but one that will ignore the science and tell Isobars, NW, and mrgybe, what they want to hear.

Laughing Laughing Laughing
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 ... 298, 299, 300 ... 347, 348, 349  Next
Page 299 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