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 ... 410, 411, 412 ... 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
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935

PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2015 6:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

techno900 wrote:
the high speed rail California is planning from LA to San Francisco.

Is Moonbeam still pushing that? Does NOTHING he does outrage the taxpayers funding his asinine dreams? I've heard this debated on the radio by national call-in audiences for countless hours over the last decade without one scintilla of sense on the side of this project.
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 7:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NW--so much for math and a credible source. Went right to crazy, eh?

Techno--you are right that some of the $1.5 trillion in externalities from oil is road wear and accidents. But it is picking a nit, a favorite ploy. Given that the IMF identifies nearly $3 trillion in costs from burning carbon fuels, without that factor, shouldn't we capture some of those costs in the price of the fuel in the first place? Instead of subsidize the fuels, as we do?

CB--good point. I decided many years ago, as a personal matter, to not invest in oil or coal. You are correct that managers of retirement funds have fiduciary responsibilities.

Both of Jerry Brown's pet projects, high speed rail and the twin tunnels, are bad ideas and poor examples of infrastructure funding. Money should be spent on light rail, in cities, where it will improve mobility and reduce carbon footprint. We have a pretty good air travel system, built with public money, that has capacity.

The tunnels are probably dead.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coboardhead



Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 4303

PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2015 7:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac

This is, really, a broader question. I don't invest in oil either...but my personally directed retirement plan does. Without that, I would not enjoy the same potential retirement benefits that those that are isolated from the "dirt" do.

An adjustment to our energy use will result in lost revenue, at least on the short term. Shouldn't we all have skin in that pain?
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 10:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Seriously CBH, do you really want to get advise from mac on investments for your future?

I wouldn't touch his advise, and I'm doing fairly well. Warmers and doomers make very poor investment advise, optimism, based on capitalism, wins out almost every time.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mrgybe



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 5180

PostPosted: Tue Nov 03, 2015 12:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac wrote:
Techno--talk about twist the story! You give no sign that you have even looked at the two graphs that I provided....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,. Try reading what I post rather than making shit up.

Techno, Clearly the Mother Jones subscriber from Berkeley had not even looked at the charts he posted or he wouldn't have made this ridiculous statement and have accused you of making stuff up. I expect you will receive an an apology shortly. FYI, the study he references was instantly discredited since it was so clearly slanted and lacking in substance. 50% of the mythical external costs of oil usage is derived from road accidents and damage! That nonsense may only a "nit" to those constantly looking to reinforce their prejudices; to the sensible observer it is a joke.........as is the "lost tax revenue" which looks only at deductions and not at the massive taxes paid by oil companies which dwarf those deductions. He will be happy to hear, however, that Exxon's results beat expectations and they are well placed to maintain the dividend streams that fund his generous government pension.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



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

PostPosted: Tue Nov 03, 2015 4:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Happy to have given you righties a mistake for you to focus on. That way you can ignore the massive transfer of wealth to coal and oil, by selling a product a transfering the costs of that product to others. Not at all surprised that you would get glee out of my mistake, and ignore the perfidity of EXXON. Perhaps not everyone is willing to ignore their lies:

Quote:
Four members of Congress asked the Securities and Exchange Commission late Friday to investigate ExxonMobil's past federal filings to determine if the company violated securities laws by failing to adequately disclose material risks to its business posed by climate change.

The letter to the SEC from members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, led by California Democrat Ted Lieu, cites recent separate investigative series by InsideClimate News and The Los Angeles Times regarding Exxon's early research into climate change. The articles revealed that Exxon's top management (NYSE: XOM) knew as far as back as the late 1970s of the threat of global warming from the burning of fossil fuels. A decade later, the company spearheaded industry efforts to derail regulation of greenhouse gas emissions and cloud public understanding of climate science.

The call for an SEC inquiry is the latest in a growing chorus of lawmakers, politicians and activists pressing for federal probes into Exxon's handling of climate change. Members of the House and Senate have asked the Justice Department to investigate the company. Late last week, Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton joined fellow candidates Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley in demanding a Justice Department inquiry. A coalition of nearly 50 environmental and other watchdog groups last Friday also mounted a campaign for an investigation.

Senate Democrats led by Rhode Island's Sheldon Whitehouse wrote ExxonMobil's chief executive Rex Tillerson last week asking if the company sent donations to a financial clearinghouse that backed climate denial efforts after the oil giant said it had stopped directly funding such groups.

The letter to the SEC was signed by Lieu and fellow Democrats Mark DeSaulnier of California, Matthew Cartwright of Pennsylvania and Peter Welch of Vermont. Two weeks ago, Lieu and DeSaulnier were among the first to write to Attorney General Loretta Lynch requesting a Justice Department investigation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935

PostPosted: Tue Nov 10, 2015 2:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's been argued very convincingly that AGWA is nothing more than a substitute for the old socialist/communist movement now that the latter has been exposed as an impossible dream in a large, diverse, free nation. Isn't it convenient timing that this tired old wolf has now donned a new sheepskin just in time to fool the public yet again as the next "climate control" mafia meeting looms. (They can't fool us any longer by calling their wealth redistribution demagoguery "Anthropomorphic Global Warming Alarmism", so now it's Cal-l-l-I-mate Change", as though it hasn't dominated the earth for billions of years)?

I'm talking about the past week's rash of headlines about cancer being CAUSED by red meat, especially processed meat.

B U L L S H I T !

Because I have read at least 50 books on medical and sports nutrition in an attempt to optimize my health and athletic performance, I am very alert to new findings and resolutions of old dilemmas. I REALLY WANT TO KNOW what I should and should not eat relative to those objectives. These headlines emerged very shortly after I finished the most definitive book I have yet seen on the red meat/sat fat controversy. That book is just one of many based on decades of research by award-winning investigative journalists providing hundreds of pages of peer-reviewed literature citations, including the same 800 studies on which this new conclusion has been supposedly based. The latest front page leading headline in our local McClatchey rag screamed that we're not only going to die but will also go to hell wearing tutus if we keep eating animal meat (what other kid of meat IS there?), but it didn't take the AP three paragraphs to tie it all to "catastrophic" global warming and our unwillingness ... not "inability"; UNWILLINGNESS ... to stop it.

I doubt even mac believes AGW is "catastrophic" OR significantly preventable, at least not compared to the 18 bigger, much sooner, MUCH more preventable socio/economic/health threats identified and ranked by the nations most threatened by them.

It turns out that this newest BS comes from the UN via the WHO. It is very clearly and often even OPENLY nothing more than the unsupportable claims of AGWA activists based on their assessment of the environmental impacts of eating meat. It includes no new medical data not addressed by previous scientific meta-analyses which reached the opposite conclusion that there is no body of proof indicting red meat OR sat fat. i.e., these latest headlines are just word-twisting and deceptive applications of statistics including numerous outright lies.

I don’t give a rat’s ass who among you swallow or deny AGWA, nor what you choose to eat. I just wanted to advise people interested in optimizing their health and athletic ability that the last places you’ll hear the truth, as best as science can define it regarding health and nutrition, are the news media, unenlightened physicians, and lobby-driven government agencies, all of which apparently have been snookered, bamboozled, blustered, and bullshot by Ancel Keyes and momentum.

If you really care, one of many such books is “The Big Fat Surprise” by Teicholz. (And, yes, I’ve read “The China Study” … and an equally erudite and authoritative refutation.)

The fact that our health is yet again being threatened by the UN for political purposes is disgusting, but not a surprise.

The minute I see evidence to the contrary, I'll say so. I'm always looking.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
techno900



Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4161

PostPosted: Sun Nov 15, 2015 4:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

More on the topic:

Quote:
New studies flip climate-change notions upside down

The sun will go into "hibernation" mode around 2030, and it has already started to get sleepy. At the Royal Astronomical Society's annual meeting in July, Professor Valentina Zharkova of Northumbria University in the UK confirmed it - the sun will begin its Maunder Minimum (Grand Solar Minimum) in 15 years. Other scientists had suggested years ago that this change was imminent, but Zharkova's model is said to have near-perfect accuracy.


See the rest at: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Cold-sun-rising-30272650.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pointster



Joined: 22 Jul 2010
Posts: 376

PostPosted: Sun Nov 15, 2015 6:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

techno900 wrote:
More on the topic:

Quote:
New studies flip climate-change notions upside down

The sun will go into "hibernation" mode around 2030, and it has already started to get sleepy. At the Royal Astronomical Society's annual meeting in July, Professor Valentina Zharkova of Northumbria University in the UK confirmed it - the sun will begin its Maunder Minimum (Grand Solar Minimum) in 15 years. Other scientists had suggested years ago that this change was imminent, but Zharkova's model is said to have near-perfect accuracy.


See the rest at: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Cold-sun-rising-30272650.html


But probably not so much:

www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/07/14/news-about-an-imminent-mini-ice-age-is-trending-but-its-not-true/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935

PostPosted: Sun Nov 15, 2015 7:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just one among MANY stories from MANY sources exposing national weather agencies around the globe -- often with IPCC implications -- manipulating data to fraudulently bolster AGWA.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/19/more-countries-caught-manipulating-their-climate-data/

Yeah, yeah ... I know ... I'm a racist. What's your point?
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 ... 410, 411, 412 ... 571, 572, 573  Next
Page 411 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