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 
Big Oil and citizenship
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 22, 23, 24 ... 31, 32, 33  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: 5349

PostPosted: Wed Aug 21, 2013 10:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Techno--what part of "a small fraction" in the published literature lets you cling to your belief you that wildfires are a significant problem and liberals are ignoring them? Do you think doubling down, after someone provides an answer to your question, deserves a second respectful response? Try the reality based world. Or admit it when you are wrong. It takes a grown up.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
reinerehlers



Joined: 25 Jul 2001
Posts: 999

PostPosted: Wed Aug 21, 2013 11:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

techno900 wrote:
The usual demeaning comment. By the way, I did think, it's just that you disagree.

Probably the most factual and well put comment in this whole thread so far.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
techno900



Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 1492

PostPosted: Wed Aug 21, 2013 11:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

for mac:
Quote:
Forest fires that cause deforestation and habitat loss are also responsible for 20% of carbon dioxide emissions. It is a phenomenon that feeds global warming. Fire and climate are a tandem that goes back at least 400 million years, since plants began to colonize the Earth.


It took 10 seconds to find this from Australia. I don't think this is "a small fraction". Valid or not, who knows, but MY NUMBER BEAT YOUR NUMBER, SO THERE!

I couldn't help myself. Mac said:
Quote:
It takes a grown up.
You must be right. Feel better now?

http://trendsupdates.com/forest-fires-cause-20-of-co2-emissions/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GURGLETROUSERS



Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 1363

PostPosted: Wed Aug 21, 2013 12:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Had to smile Techno at your admiration for forest fires. Wink If it eliminates a few billion insects, bring it on.

At the height of the exaggerated phase of the initial global warming alarm, I read an article claiming that the biggest danger facing the human race, once warming took real hold, would be from an explosion in the world insect population, such that if we ventured outside with any bare skin showing, we would be almost eaten alive.

I was half way through before I realised it was an expertly written sarcastic wind up. But it has now set me thinking. My worst ever experience with the buzzy pests (mosquitos in particular) was actually up in the Arctic, where they could zero in with guided missile accuracy on a 'hot' body.

Supposing ( Twisted Evil ) we are heading for another mini-ice age in temperate latitudes, shouldn't we now be deluging the whole Arctic region in D.D.T. to wipe them out, before the little beggars can swarm down all over us? Laughing

(Just trying to lighten up a bit!)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coboardhead



Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 1960

PostPosted: Wed Aug 21, 2013 1:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Techno

There will always be variations in the calculated effects of global warming. Models vary. Using one extreme, or the other, to develop policy is a bad idea.

I design structures to codes that are adopted laws based on standards. I cannot arbitrarily decide what the effects of global warming may be on a particular structure I design. I cannot assume the liability in determining a nonexistent standard.

This is a problem now for Architects and Engineers in designing in the wake of hurricane Sandy. Owners are asking design professional to insure against future damage...a hurricane proof house. My insurer is cautioning against making any such claim.

If we want to hedge our bets on building lasting facilities, we may need to take our best current information and get on with developing new standards and policy. Sure, a mini ice age could/would change the needs. But, a couple generations later, when the sun becomes active again, warming would return to the levels that would have occurred without the ice age. In other words, the effects will march on in the background.

Do we care? Will over population make these efforts a waste? Maybe global warming will keep those dang bugs from freezing in the ice age!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5349

PostPosted: Wed Aug 21, 2013 2:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Techno--my point was that you probably should have checked before the original posting. Congratulations on finding a source, and it might be right. But here's something with an author, which puts the load much lower:

Quote:
Christine Wiedinmyer and Jason Neff, researchers with the National Center for Atmospheric Research, found that CO2 emissions from fires in the US are equivalent to only 4 6% of anthropogenic emissions, but that there is a lot of variability from region to region and from year to year.


Of course, the greater volatility of climate, one of the phenomena associated with warming, is expected to increase fires. (It is, of course, wrong that 100% of fires are human caused, as can be seen from the lightning strikes that set off fires in the Sierra this week.)

Untangling these different opinions/studies is, of course, what peer review is all about.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 14311

PostPosted: Wed Aug 21, 2013 2:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

coboardhead wrote:
I design structures to codes that are adopted laws based on standards. I cannot arbitrarily decide what the effects of global warming may be on a particular structure I design. I cannot assume the liability in determining a nonexistent standard.

One could overbuild, as most standards are minimums, not maximums. We were under no obligation to choose the lowest bidder on the federal contracts I or my wife let (some of hers ran well into 11 figures), but a high-priced bidder would have to justify his high price before I'd select him. That justification would have to include both rationale and guarantees for a widget like a bridge or an aircraft carrier. A contract in which the deliverable is knowledge, however, such as a whole new technology, as both my wife and I have developed and/or managed, can command a higher price even with no guarantees. Your challenge, in that light, is to convince your customer that climate change is real and is sufficiently threatening over the next 75 years to warrant the extra expense.

And, oh yes, you'll need to choose a direction -- hot or cold -- or he'll think you're making it up. Suggestion: if the source selection team runs liberal, choose hotter. If it runs Republican, choose colder. Heck, those rationale are as valid as science, given the range of expert opinions.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5349

PostPosted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 10:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

An update:

Quote:
Chevron agrees to pay penalty

New Mexico officials say Chevron will pay $5.2 million to settle the state's claims that the energy company improperly applied for money from an environmental cleanup fund.

The state alleges Chevron, based in San Ramon, falsely claimed it didn't have and didn't collect on insurance to pay for cleaning up petroleum contamination from the company's leaking underground storage tanks at gas stations around the state.

The state says the company did get payments from insurers through secret settlements. The state says it paid $4 million to Chevron after the company filed dozens of claims to tap into the cleanup fund. Some of the claims date back to the early 1990s.


Tell me again about how oil companies have so much integrity that we need to regulate them less? Then tell me about the rabbits again.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stevenbard



Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 4217

PostPosted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 12:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac wrote:
Techno--my point was that you probably should have checked before the original posting. Congratulations on finding a source, and it might be right. But here's something with an author, which puts the load much lower:

Quote:
Christine Wiedinmyer and Jason Neff, researchers with the National Center for Atmospheric Research, found that CO2 emissions from fires in the US are equivalent to only 4 6% of anthropogenic emissions, but that there is a lot of variability from region to region and from year to year.


Of course, the greater volatility of climate, one of the phenomena associated with warming, is expected to increase fires. (It is, of course, wrong that 100% of fires are human caused, as can be seen from the lightning strikes that set off fires in the Sierra this week.)

Untangling these different opinions/studies is, of course, what peer review is all about.


Well, 1st of all, Christine Wiedinmyer & Neff attribute forest fires to Anthropogenic emissions. That is their 1st error. Many fires are caused by lighting, falling rocks and other "natural" causes. I wonder whether volcanoes are included in her study and human caused?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5349

PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 10:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Time to revisit the "good citizenship" practices of our oil oligarchs. Afraid of the cleansing light of publicity, they try to hide their misdeeds and political manipulations:
\
Quote:
SACRAMENTO California officials are imposing a record $16 million in penalties on secretive political groups that funneled money into initiative campaigns in 2012, ending a yearlong investigation that showed gaps in state disclosure laws.


Two campaign committees in California are being ordered to pay a total of $15 million to the state, a sum equivalent to the donations they received, which regulators said were improperly reported. Two Arizona nonprofits, one linked to billionaire Republican donors Charles and David Koch, will pay a combined $1-million fine as part of a settlement.

The nonprofits are not being required to reveal their donors' identities, even though disclosure was at the root of the investigation. Under existing campaign finance laws, the state cannot force the groups to release the names, officials said.

"California law doesn't provide adequate disclosure of political contributions made through dark-money nonprofits," said Fair Political Practices Commission Chairwoman Ann Ravel, who announced the investigation's resolution Thursday along with the commission's largest-ever penalties.

The case highlighted how some big-ticket donors have sought to influence political campaigns by relying on off-the-books methods. Anonymous donations have exploded in popularity since 2010, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Citizens United case that many nonprofits can spend unlimited money on elections.


and then there is:

Quote:
BISMARCK, N.D. North Dakota, the nation's No. 2 oil producer behind Texas, recorded nearly 300 oil pipeline spills in less than two years, state documents show. None was reported to the public, officials said.

According to records obtained by The Associated Press, the pipeline spills many of them small are among some 750 "oil field incidents" that have occurred since January 2012 without public notification.


Of course there are legal requirements to report all such spills.
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 ... 22, 23, 24 ... 31, 32, 33  Next
Page 23 of 33

 
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