myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums 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 ... 409, 410, 411 ... 571, 572, 573  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: 17736
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Thu Oct 29, 2015 11:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

From the International Monetary Fund, a snapshot of what dirty fuels cost us. Just consider it subsidies to mrgybe's lifestyle:
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mrgybe



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 5180

PostPosted: Thu Oct 29, 2015 12:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh dear. He really isn't very smart is he? CALPERS top two holdings.......Apple and ExxonMobil......two stocks he self righteously tells us he would never own.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17736
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Thu Oct 29, 2015 12:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh dear, diversion. He thinks he is smart, but provides no rebuttal for either the nonsense of his sackcloth and ashes argument, or the massive transfer of costs--not including defense--associated with his industry.

I would assume that mrgybe knows well the difficulties of dis-investing in the evil empire--and the tenacious fight that big oil makes on all fronts. One might even suspect that's how he made his money.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2015 12:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh dear, dissent will not be tolerated!
Which begs the question, what are they afraid of?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Back To The Dark Ages: Update: Top French Meteorologist Who Questioned ‘Global Warming’ Fired

A popular weatherman announced Saturday evening he has been sacked by leading French news channel France Télévisions for publishing a book which accused top climate change experts of misleading the world about the threat of global warming.

Philippe Verdier, a household name in France for his daily weather reports on the France 2 channel, announced in an online video that he had received a letter of dismissal


Read more: http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/02/back-to-the-dark-ages-top-french-weatherman-fired-over-climate-change-book-the-global-warming-policy-forum-gwpf/#ixzz3qM5s74N0
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

U.N. planning court to judge U.S. for 'climate justice'

Stealth agenda to issue rulings on debt, finance, tech transfers


At the upcoming United Nations Climate Summit in Paris, participating nations have prepared a treaty that would create an “International Tribunal of Climate Justice” giving Third World countries the power to haul the U.S. into a global court with enforcement powers.

Congress would be bypassed – left out in the cold – by this climate deal, critics say.

Policies once left to sovereign nations could be turned over to a U.N. body if the U.S. and its allies approve the proposed deal in Paris during the summit scheduled for Nov. 30-Dec. 11.

The Paris Conference is mandated to adopt “a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under the Convention applicable to all parties,” which is to come into force in 2020, according to IISD Reporting Services, which tracks the global sustainable development movement.

Like many initiatives that come out of the U.N., there has been a media blackout on coverage of the potential for a new world tribunal that would make binding decisions on a host of issues critical to the U.S. economy. The draft text has been available on the Internet since Oct. 20 for all to see.

“The only mentions one is likely to find with search engines are alarms being sounded by critics, the climate realists who reject the apocalyptic predictions (and discredited pseudo-science – see: here, here, and here) of the multi-billion dollar global warming lobby,” writes William F. Jasper for the New American magazine.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/11/u-n-tribunal-to-judge-u-s-for-climate-debt/#bWorju8CeVFKzKR6.99
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And all this attempt at criminalization in the light of this.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Antarctica is actually gaining ice, says NASA. Is global warming over?

Not quite, scientists say. But new study results show the fallibility of current climate change measuring tools and challenges current theories about the causes of sea level rise.

By Lonnie Shekhtman, Staff November 1, 2015

A new NASA study found that Antarctica has been adding more ice than it's been losing, challenging other research, including that of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, that concludes that Earth’s southern continent is losing land ice overall.

In a paper published in the Journal of Glaciology on Friday, researchers from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, the University of Maryland in College Park, and the engineering firm Sigma Space Corporation offer a new analysis of satellite data that show a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001 in the Antarctic ice sheet.

That gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.

Climate scientists caution that these findings don’t mean it’s time to start celebrating the end of global warming. More than anything, the paper shows how difficult it is to measure ice height in Antarctica and that better tools are needed.

For the rest~
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2015/1101/Antarctica-is-actually-gaining-ice-says-NASA.-Is-global-warming-over
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Of course, being NASA, they say that this is not a conclusion, everything could turn around tomorrow if we don't change our criminal ways.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17736
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2015 1:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In his glee at finally finding a credible source, NW has lost track of what it means. He apparently has forgotten that the Antarctic average temperature is well below freezing, so the accumulation of ice depends on the amount of precipitation. While for the Arctic, the average temperature is close to freezing, so a small change makes a big difference.

If NW had ever paid attention in school, or had the capability for critical thinking, he might compare ice gains in the Antarctic to the losses in the Arctic. I'll help him out here. Looking only at Greenland, the loss of ice is 200 billion tons per year (http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/greenland-losing-ice-121119.htm) In a rough mass balance, that is twice the amount gained in the Antarctic.

Trust the Re-thugs. If they get their way, there will be no more scientific measurements that might support science that Exxon and the Koch's don't like.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
techno900



Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4161

PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2015 3:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Interesting chart from mac.

It seems that oil/gasoline powered cars cause accidents and road damage, while coal and natural gas powered cars essentially cause no accidents or road damage. Shocking revelation!

And the alternative to gas powered cars??????????????? Electric? No accidents or road damage from electric cars?

It seems really silly to include this element in the graph, other than to make the column higher under oil, just to spin the graph toward a more liberal way of thinking.

Clearly there is a cost related to automobiles, but since there is no realistic alternative, why include it? Maybe it's the high speed rail California is planning from LA to San Francisco. Can we say Boondoggle? I guess Californians don't mind paying outlandish taxes for the "cause".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17736
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2015 4:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Techno--talk about twist the story! You give no sign that you have even looked at the two graphs that I provided. One shows that California has had robust economic growth while cutting emissions. It is a combination of increasing cost of fuel and government regulation that has achieved this.

The second graph shows just some of the hidden costs of fuels, making no distinction between transportation and heating/cooling. It includes no costs for road damage or anything else, nor does it include the cost of overseas adventures to make Big Oil so profitable, so it understates the costs.

Most of the gains in transportation have come from fuel economy standards, which have had the unintended consequence of reducing gas tax. To be sure, all vehicles wear out the roads, and should pay their fair share. Neither asked nor answered in anything I posted.

But for those of you in the deep red states that fear that it can't be done without turning you gay, or whatever it is that makes you so crazy, here are a few facts about what California has done to reduce CO2:

--California has joined in a consortium of other entities committed to reducing our carbon footprint, representing a gross domestic product of $14.7 trillion, and a vast majority of the states' by electoral votes. (349)
--California has created some 200,000 jobs in the clean-energy arena since 2002

--rather than increase costs, that has saved California consumers $74 billion since 1977

--Silicon Valley has invested $26 billion in green energy since 2006, and sees this as a better way to market their products;

--renewable energy has increased by 56% between 2002 and 2012. Three times as much solar energy, four times as much wind energy.

--State pension funds will stop investing in coal this year, and you can bet they will move away from EXXON in the near future.

Try reading what I post rather than making shit up.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
techno900



Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4161

PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2015 4:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac said:
Quote:
The second graph shows just some of the hidden costs of fuels, making no distinction between transportation and heating/cooling. It includes no costs for road damage or anything else, nor does it include the cost of overseas adventures to make Big Oil so profitable, so it understates the costs.


You might want to go back and look again at your second chart, middle column. The medium green color represents the cost of "traffic accidents and road damage", which seems to me like a distinction between transportation and heating and cooling.

Now go back and read my previous post and if you will take a breath, you just might figure out my point, which in the scope of things is no big deal. I fail to see how I am twisting anything, other than noting an element in the chart that seems pointless to me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2015 5:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac wrote:
In his glee at finally finding a credible source, NW has lost track of what it means. He apparently has forgotten that the Antarctic average temperature is well below freezing, so the accumulation of ice depends on the amount of precipitation. While for the Arctic, the average temperature is close to freezing, so a small change makes a big difference.

If NW had ever paid attention in school, or had the capability for critical thinking, he might compare ice gains in the Antarctic to the losses in the Arctic. I'll help him out here. Looking only at Greenland, the loss of ice is 200 billion tons per year (http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/greenland-losing-ice-121119.htm) In a rough mass balance, that is twice the amount gained in the Antarctic.

Trust the Re-thugs. If they get their way, there will be no more scientific measurements that might support science that Exxon and the Koch's don't like.

Now why would I want to look at Greenland only, it extends outside of the Arctic circle?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Myth of Arctic meltdown: Stunning satellite images show summer ice cap is thicker and covers 1.7million square kilometres MORE than 2 years ago...despite Al Gore's prediction it would be ICE-FREE by now
Seven years after former US Vice-President Al Gore's warning, Arctic ice cap has expanded for second year in row.
An area twice the size of Alaska - America's biggest state - was open water two years ago and is now covered in ice.
These satellite images taken from University of Illinois's Cryosphere project show ice has become more concentrated.

By David Rose for The Mail on Sunday

Published: 17:04 EST, 30 August 2014 | Updated: 10:21 EST, 2 September 2014

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2738653/Stunning-satellite-images-summer-ice-cap-thicker-covers-1-7million-square-kilometres-MORE-2-years-ago-despite-Al-Gore-s-prediction-ICE-FREE-now.html#ixzz3qNHFilO1
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Monday, 15 September 2014
With Ice Growing at Both Poles, Global Warming Theories Implode
Written by Alex Newman

In the Southern Hemisphere, sea-ice levels just smashed through the previous record highs across Antarctica, where there is now more ice than at any point since records began. In the Arctic, where global-warming theorists preferred to keep the public focused due to some decreases in ice levels over recent years, scientists said sea-ice melt in 2014 fell below the long-term mean. Global temperatures, meanwhile, have remained steady for some 18 years and counting, contrary to United Nations models predicting more warming as carbon dioxide levels increased.
............
Another key tactic of the warmists to deflect attention from the expanding polar ice in the Southern Hemisphere has been to hype changes occurring in the Arctic instead. Unfortunately for the alarmists, however — critics often ridicule the movement as a “cult” for desperately clinging to its beliefs despite the evidence, not to mention the “Climategate” scandal — that will now be much harder to do with a straight face.

“After the very high melt rates of the 2007-2012 period, the trend reversed in 2013 and especially in 2014 when the melt fell below the long-term average,” explained German professor and environment expert Fritz Vahrenholt, adding that the heat content of the North Atlantic was also plummeting. “In other words: The 21st century climate catastrophe is not taking place.”

Decades ago, of course, Newsweek reported that Arctic ice was growing so quickly due to man-made “global cooling” that “scientists” were proposing to melt the polar ice cap using black soot. Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed. More recently, “climate” guru Al Gore had been regularly predicting that the entire polar ice cap would be gone by now. Instead, it is now far more extensive than when he made his now-discredited predictions.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/19121-with-ice-growing-at-both-poles-global-warming-theories-implode
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Of course these two articles can't still be true today, they are a little over one year old, and global warming is happening too fast for that.
But I'm sure you go along with Bill Gates in every way.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bill Gates says that capitalism cannot save us from climate change
Posted 4 days ago by Louis Doré in people

"There’s no fortune to be made. Even if you have a new energy source that costs the same as today’s and emits no CO2, it will be uncertain compared with what’s tried-and-true and already operating at unbelievable scale and has gotten through all the regulatory problems.

Without a substantial carbon tax, there’s no incentive for innovators or plant buyers to switch.

Since World War II, US-government R&D has defined the state of the art in almost every area. The private sector is in general inept.

The climate problem has to be solved in the rich countries. China and the US and Europe have to solve CO2 emissions, and when they do, hopefully they’ll make it cheap enough for everyone else."

For the rest~
http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/bill-gates-says-that-capitalism-cannot-save-us-from-climate-change--b1xNpbL8O_x
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In other words it will have to be socialism that will save us from our criminal selves.

The other non-wealthy countries, almost all rule under socialistic or dictatorial rules, are the worst offenders, and they make most of our goods now days. How about bringing back all those jobs to this country to where we know how to manufacture all that stuff in a non-polluting way?
Capitalism can actually save us from our criminal selves, assuming we are criminals that is.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coboardhead



Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 4303

PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2015 6:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac

Since you brought this up... I was recently chastised by a retired state employee friend who overheard me discussing the purchase of some energy stocks in my retirement plan with my financial consultant. I asked him if I kept out of the oil investment part of the market and its returns, would he be willing to take the same hit? Didn't get an answer.

When a retirement fund, that is subject to governmental guarantees of support, chooses to limit investments in a portion of the market, due to "moral" choices, shouldn't the retirees bear some of the burden?

Quote:
A recent study commissioned by API shows California’s two large public employee pension funds have major holdings in oil and natural gas companies and those holdings provide substantial returns to the funds and their beneficiaries. Investments in oil and natural gas companies by the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) and the State Teachers’ Retirement System (STERS) are providing strong returns for teachers, firefighters, police officers, and other public pension retirees in California, according to a study by Sonecon and released by API. The study showed oil and natural gas investments are outperforming other investments by public pension funds across the nation. According to Sonecon, returns on oil and natural gas investments by CalPERS and STERS averaged 41 cents for each dollar invested compared to just 4 cents for other assets in those funds from 2005 to 2009. Throughout this period – which included good economic times as well as challenging times – oil and natural gas investments far outperformed other public pension holdings in the state. While oil and natural gas stocks made up an average of 4.1 percent of holdings in California’s public pension funds, they accounted for an average of 10.8 percent of the returns in these funds, according to the Sonecon study


https://www.wspa.org/blog/post/public-pension-funds-gain-oil-industry-investments
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 ... 409, 410, 411 ... 571, 572, 573  Next
Page 410 of 573

 
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