Watts up with that?
127 posts
19 users
65k+ views
fishnski
November 20, 2009
Member since 03/27/2005 🔗
3,530 posts
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/br...sed/#more-12937
I'll go run & hide now..subject is Taboo shocked eek
jimmy
November 20, 2009
Member since 03/5/2004 🔗
2,650 posts
don't mess with the collective utopia the annointed ones are trying to build for you, now you know why He needed the power to shut down owls internets. the scientists are the only ones who know enough to be scared of the skeptics ya?
jb714
November 20, 2009
Member since 03/4/2003 🔗
294 posts
Tee hee hee.....this could really be fun to watch, if the hacked emails are legit.
fishnski
November 20, 2009
Member since 03/27/2005 🔗
3,530 posts
So far it seems legit..This Jones dude admitted it in an interview & "Tried to explain"..I have Mentioned a couple of times on some of my Redneck/Partyholic level Science threads that something seemed Fishy about the Data I was following..like it was doctored..
http://wattsupwiththat.com/....Read for yourself & make your own conclusions...Mine is....The things folks will do to get there way just because they feel its in the best interest of the lot of us..& the big fat wallets they carry!
DCSki Sponsor: Seven Springs Resort
fishnski
November 20, 2009
Member since 03/27/2005 🔗
3,530 posts
Isn't the NY Times one of the most Liberal Gore Loving Type?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html
Its Legit....I'm starting to feel better about some of my past rants...
jimmy
November 21, 2009
Member since 03/5/2004 🔗
2,650 posts
These e mails are legit no doubt as several of the writers have admitted, but don't worry jeff just like captax healthcare energystars and free cableTV it's only a game here are the rules.

I'm looking for the WC schedule, like to watch some ski-racing anyone find one?
fishnski
November 21, 2009
Member since 03/27/2005 🔗
3,530 posts
Originally Posted By: jimmy
the scientists are the only ones who know enough to be scared of the skeptics ya?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
I like that Quote!..Scientists gone Wild(Bad)..& their rules Suck.
I work my rear end off every day while Gore & his Cronies are flying around in their Gulfstars Spewing their Propaganda..& CO2 for money...I wish we lived back in the times where we could round em up...& Hang em!...Ok..I wouldn't hang them But I'd make them come over & do my Laundry or something..Silver spooners from Cradle to Grave..Sickning..
gizmosnow
November 22, 2009
Member since 10/6/2005 🔗
269 posts
Semi-related... I recently read the book Super Freakonomics (sequel to Freakonomics) written by a fairly respected micro-economist. There is an entire chapter on global climate change which presents some very interesting data/information and interprets it in some unique ways. While you need to take everything you read, especially on the topic of global warming, with a 'grain of salt', it presents some very thoughtful reading. The remainder of the book is interesting as well.
fishnski
November 22, 2009
Member since 03/27/2005 🔗
3,530 posts
So how did you interpret the chapter?...U gonna make us buy the Book? smile
Denis - DCSki Supporter
November 23, 2009
Member since 07/12/2004 🔗
2,236 posts
jimmy
November 23, 2009
Member since 03/5/2004 🔗
2,650 posts
Indeed. I assume the Guardian is a *mainstream* media source, you know, impartial and reporting the facts?

I find this bit interesting

"I believe that Jones should speak to every journalist who calls, go on the offensive and defend his science. He ought to clearly state that he is not prepared to have his hard-working and committed colleagues around the world defamed or slandered by the kinds of people who illegally hack into computers. This is a desperate, last-ditch tactic by fanatics who have lost the rational debate." George Marshall

I agree with Marshall that Jones should "defend his Science". There has been no legitimate peer review done on this "science", jones and his bunch will not release their data outside the realm of believers; if their evidence is irrefutable, just sayin. They've set out to prove their point right or not, but what do I know. I thought it was a mistake for Timber line to schedule their opening for Dec 10, surely they'd be able to open by Thanksgiving if they wanted to blush .

More about Marshall here.
Denis - DCSki Supporter
November 23, 2009
Member since 07/12/2004 🔗
2,236 posts
Well, we are probably in agreement. Peer review is the gold standard and the proper place for scientific disputes is in the pages of refereed journals. You put your stuff out there and somebody else agrees, or disagrees, and the whole field moves forward. I've done it many times, although not in this specific area, and have great respect for the process. I linked that article only because I thought it presented a view that is no more biased than what has already been posted on this thread.

The problem with the great experiment of doubling the pre-industrial era carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in ~ a century (we're not there yet but will be if we continue current trends) is that we live in the test tube.

It will be interesting to see how various factions in the public react and change their tune when industry develops ways to make more money by accepting global warming than by opposing it. IMHO this will not take long, 5 years, plus or minus a few.
fishnski
November 23, 2009
Member since 03/27/2005 🔗
3,530 posts
Its not about GW..its about going Green & recieving green. We are seeing the beginings of Damage control Jimmi..You know the score!
KevR
November 23, 2009
Member since 01/27/2004 🔗
786 posts
I often ask economists what the weather will be like tomorrow.

Amazing...
JohnL
November 23, 2009
Member since 01/6/2000 🔗
3,518 posts
Quote:
Indeed. I assume the Guardian is a *mainstream* media source, you know, impartial and reporting the facts?


Actually, the Guardian is one of the world's leading newspapers, with IMHO probably a left-leaning bias.

Key point, this was an opinion piece. All newspapers publish opinion pieces which have different standards applied to them then news reporting. Why do people typically confuse news reporting with opinion pieces with editorials? confused They are all separate.
fishnski
November 24, 2009
Member since 03/27/2005 🔗
3,530 posts
Originally Posted By: Denis

The problem with the great experiment of doubling the pre-industrial era carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in ~ a century (we're not there yet but will be if we continue current trends) is that we live in the test tube.
It will be interesting to see how various factions in the public react and change their tune when industry develops ways to make more money by accepting global warming than by opposing it. IMHO this will not take long, 5 years, plus or minus a few.

The CO2 problem is Way over rated Denis. it is slowly being proved to be less of a factor..Its good stuff & we humans exhale it every breath while the plants inhale it.Way before man was a factor we have had heat waves & Ice Ages brought on in part by emissions of CO2 in amounts that Man could never come close to.
Industry will always go where the money is...I just don't want it Forced by Gov or special interest groups into what direction it will go in which is what this argument is all about..Ck out what 20 years of man made "enhanced" CO2 has done to our Ice pack..also remember the Antarctic is doing fine..Should we invest our future in saving the planet??
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test...=24&sy=2009

The ice has a little less extent but is looking thicker....There is less ice into hudson Bay but that will change real soon with the pattern shift...Just say NO to Al & GW!!
KevR
November 24, 2009
Member since 01/27/2004 🔗
786 posts
Your post is full of silliness but my favorite part is when you say you do not want to be "Forced by Gov or special interest groups into which direction it will go"

So I guess you DO support indirect distortion of the science behind all this by the folks in the special interest industries responsible (such as oil, coal etc...)

Because it's goes down "easy"... ?

In other words, you don't want anyone telling you DIRECTLY what to do -- but it's OK if they SNEAK it by you?
fishnski
November 25, 2009
Member since 03/27/2005 🔗
3,530 posts
I'll take "Silly"..doesn't seem too offensive...could be worse from such an angry dude.
Look Kevr..I'm just saying that this country is broke & if the Planet doesn't seem to be doing too bad Why fix it? Ever drive around in a car that has an Engine light on but seems to be driving great? Weve all done it, sometimes driving the car for years with the light on..at worst the engine was not driving at optimum efficiency & the amount of money & time it would take to fix it would be way more than the extra gas money you will be spending..especially if you don't have the money anyway.
I wish we could get straight answers & not Specially interested ones!..I'd be right with the Greeners if I thought the time was crucial to act!..Copenhagen & Obama scare me...
jimmy
November 25, 2009
Member since 03/5/2004 🔗
2,650 posts
Kev That's Brilliant!! I usually ask my barista, I'll bet the guy who changes the oil in you Prius could give you as reliable an answer as a meteoroligist, but i never thought of asking an economist.


Brilliant...


Originally Posted By: KevR
I often ask economists what the weather will be like tomorrow.

Amazing...



At the risk of being called silly, what's wrong with some legitimate peer review. I can accept that we are increasing the amount of CO2, maybe exponetially, show me the harm, you know evidence? Then show me how proposals to solve the problem will. My point isn't that you're wrong and i'm right, my point is that there has been NO LEGITIMATE peer review. The movement has changed from Global Warmings to Climate Change, why? Maybe the inconvenient fact the earths temperature didn't increase over the last ten years? I'm all for wind, hydro and nuclear power. I'm all for not cutting 100's of 1000's of acres of rain forest every year. Trees breathe CO2 and exhale O, silly as that sounds.

Denis is right about industry and money. Can you accept though that there is a difference between making money and taking money? This issue is not about science it's about MONEY.

Kev instead of asking an economist what the weather will be tomorrow, maybe you should ask a polititian.


smile smile
Denis - DCSki Supporter
November 25, 2009
Member since 07/12/2004 🔗
2,236 posts
All serious science is peer reviewed. Where do people get the idea that it is not? Declaring the facts to be what they would like them to be? Does that change the facts? The media who are not scientists sometimes report it wrong, and sometimes report it with their own slant (usually to make it more newsworthy, not to pitch a particular point of view). None of this invalidates the science. In this internet age it is easy to find peer reviewed science. Try entering PEER REVIEWED JOURNALS OF ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE in a google search line and go from there. Go to the library of a good university and start reading.

As to CO2 being over rated, how is that? It's concentration in the atmosphere is well known. The trend is well known. The infrared spectrum is well known. These are basics. All the results down the road are not yet fully understood but more science is being done. Declaring things to be what one would like them to be is not an effective course of action.

I have a car that likes to throw CHECK ENGINE codes. I bought an OBD-2 code reader. It's cheap, it's digital. Then I know what's really happening rather than what I'd like it to be.
fishnski
November 25, 2009
Member since 03/27/2005 🔗
3,530 posts
Try to get one of those cheap coders to work well on a diesel Truc mad..Infrared Spectrum..Hmmm..thats a fact of course but with all the forces of nature & the different levels of atmosphere ect..My head is hurting! Thats why I look at unbiased bottom line evidence like Ice,Snowcover,Temps across the world & the fact that even though we have had a dramatic increase in CO2 we can see that 5 out of the last 7 decades saw downturns in global temps..we can see that a little clearer now that these fake hockey stick graphs have been exposed...Watts up with that? smile...
KevR
November 25, 2009
Member since 01/27/2004 🔗
786 posts
No idea why you'd say such a thing - check out this article. The article talks about changes in long term global avg temp trends -- the graphs and graphics in the left corner show the issues. The data from last century is real measurements mostly, better and more complete as you move forward in time to now, farther in the past it gets worse and may be modeled or simulated to some degree.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html

Note the 10 yr or so warm up in the mid-atlantic? (the orangish tinge in the graphic over mid-atlantic region... explains our lack of snow)
jimmy
November 25, 2009
Member since 03/5/2004 🔗
2,650 posts
Originally Posted By: KevR
No idea why you'd say such a thing - check out this article.


My bad Kev, seems what i said wasn't quite what I read here's the link I know he is one of the skeptics and we shouldn't listen to him but maybe you can explain what i don't get. I am curious about many things, it's my nature, please be patient with me and my skepticism.

edit: Thanks Kev i fixed your link this is a good read. Is that not what i said?
bawalker
November 26, 2009
Member since 12/1/2003 🔗
1,547 posts
At the end of the day, science itself isn't defined on peer review, or through the acceptance of others. Almost always when peer review is involved it's to politicize science or the given scientific issue at hand. I believe we have seen that enmass with global warming. It's been the elephant in the room (just like with false science of evolution) that peer review is a fancy name of bullying to accept what is politically correct or to shut up and get thrown under the bus.

Science stands on it's own grounds of facts of data collection through observation and reproduction of those facts to reach an end conclusion of whether the original hypothesis was wrong or right.

What came out last week which could be known as 'climatgate' should be sending shock waves of mass scrutiny throughout the entire scientific community. Notice there isn't any massive media reporting of this, there isn't any newscasters or journalists conducting stories scrutinizing every last nook and cranny of global warming. Which shows it in fact *IS* politically charged faux science.

As I started off above, at the end of the day REAL science doesn't need peer review. It doesn't need the acceptance of others to validate it as proven fact or not. A given scientific fact can stand alone for years without acceptance of others but in no way is it ever less of proven science because of that. Just as those of us who know man-made climate change is faux science and a big hoax; doesn't make us any less right than what we are. It's just that the political world hasn't come around to accepting what is right because they see no personal financial benefit in it.
DCSki Sponsor: Seven Springs Resort
langleyskier
November 26, 2009
Member since 12/7/2004 🔗
824 posts
like this article , Michael Mann is a prof in our department of meteorology at PSU, kinda sad. if I had to guess, a lot of this is being taken out of context but it is disturbing. Overall, it does not refute that out climate has warmed; a few year trend means nothing in the long term.
langleyskier
November 26, 2009
Member since 12/7/2004 🔗
824 posts
Originally Posted By: bawalker
Which shows it in fact *IS* politically charged faux science.

As I started off above, at the end of the day REAL science doesn't need peer review. It doesn't need the acceptance of others to validate it as proven fact or not. A given scientific fact can stand alone for years without acceptance of others but in no way is it ever less of proven science because of that. Just as those of us who know man-made climate change is faux science and a big hoax; doesn't make us any less right than what we are. It's just that the political world hasn't come around to accepting what is right because they see no personal financial benefit in it.



I actually find that extremely offensive. Many professors that I greatly respect have devoted their work to this (including the DEAN of the department of meteorology at PSU). It is not an exact science but is as true of a science as any other. Some will profit from GW just as some profit from 9/11 or any wars; does not mean anything about the FACTS and SCIENCE that go into it.


really sorry to be argumentative but as a SCIENTIST in the field of atmospheric science I had to post a response.

in other note:
check out the forecast for the end of next week!! snow and colddddd!
jimmy
November 27, 2009
Member since 03/5/2004 🔗
2,650 posts
NASA-GISS-FOIA read more

"Europe is waging war on the boar, whose numbers have been surging as a result of global warming......"
read more

What's next, an epidemic in the coastal villages of the Phillipines? Tsunami's in Kansas? These global warmings have really got me concerned, ever seen the air in china? We need to put up a fence or something to keep their air over there? WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING, ANYTHING, NOW BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE.......

Hmmmm i have an idea, let's put a tax on carbon emissions, oh i don't know, maybe start off with a trillion dollars or so. Ya a trillion would be a good start. Then we'll let Goldman Sachs set up a market to trade them in laugh .



Incredible.....
fishnski
November 27, 2009
Member since 03/27/2005 🔗
3,530 posts
Don't believe everything a Prof tells ya L-ski..Trust but verify!

So the boars are increasing due to the growing of Maize & Rapeseed for biofuel?..Harvesting & making that stuff creates more CO2 than it helps, not to mention the harmful effects of ethanol on engines!..+ what do you expect when you are growing Rapeseed..a whole lot more illigitimate baby boars blush

CK out Canaan's website..Looks like they have replaced all the native Spruce with more western ones..looks like they got a large frozen lake to Slide on also!!...Wut up wit dat??
KevR
December 1, 2009
Member since 01/27/2004 🔗
786 posts
One thing you do get with fields of rapeseed are lots of pretty little yellow flowers which look very nice from the road.

Look there is obviously a pretty signinificant subset of folks that simply do not want global warming to be a real phenom -- doesn't matter what the data says, the analysis thereof and so forth -- criticism will always be leveled against such "theories" in some way.

A slight variation on this is that even if GW is a real phenom say -- that there isn't really anything we can do about it, or there's no reason to think mankind is the reason for it.

In the other corner which I think is a slight but very narrow majority in this country are the folks that think that indeed you can analyze and explain things and show how over time these things have happened and even have pretty good estimates of where things are likely to go...

And given this, it is possible to adjust the likely end results by tinkering with the driving forces that are causing it.

So which catagory are you in?



jimmy
December 1, 2009
Member since 03/5/2004 🔗
2,650 posts
OK kev i'll bite.

So i suppose you are part of the subset that DOES want globalwarm, er climate change to be a real phenom? You have not been listening to me, let me


e x p l a i n


v e r y


s l o w l y



so you will understand my connotations because i understand yours and don't quite fit in any of your categories.

Try to keep up.

I think there is plenty we should do about our environment. It is the WORLD'S problem and the whole world should be involved in the solution.

I think it is unfair to imply that if someone does not agree with you and the politicientists that they are silly selfish fools who don't care about the world we live in.

I do not believe that the proposed solution, borrowing more money from the Chinese, taxing me to pay them back and giving the money away to third world countries and connected folks like algore, the winterization scammmers, energy star, GE and goldman sachs is going to solve any problems, climate change wise.

I am open minded enough however to accept that there is a probability that the proposed solution to the theoretical threat might be in our best interest so here's what i propose. Every believerer should adopt a skeptic. I won't have to move in with you or borrow the Prius on Friday's or anything like that. All i ask is when you send in your check in the amount of $7,800 for your share of the solution, send an extra $7,800 in for me. That should make us both feel better. I'll pay you back if you're right, if you're not, no harm no foul. wink
fishnski
December 1, 2009
Member since 03/27/2005 🔗
3,530 posts
I'm a believer in Manmade GW..just look at all the pavement man has put down,the massive cities we have built & all the heat that they produce....& all the Temperature Guages that sit in the middle of it all collecting crucial Data that definetely prove Man made Global warming...I'll Adopt ya jimmi...the Cks are in the mail crazy
bawalker
December 2, 2009
Member since 12/1/2003 🔗
1,547 posts
LOLOL. Classic. wink
fishnski
December 2, 2009
Member since 03/27/2005 🔗
3,530 posts
KevR
December 2, 2009
Member since 01/27/2004 🔗
786 posts
I don't want or believe anything about it.

The data is the data, it has been or continues to be analyzed, the analysis produces the best explanation possible over time -- from there we can take some action based on that to produce a different result (if we can)...

That's it.

No religion in it for me at all.

I don't see where want, desire or belief comes into it - other than you know, sure who wants bad things to happen?

Along those lines, I've never liked how the term "belief" has been injected into the discussion on this topic.

Either it is a real phenom or it is not -- the facts should be enough.

If the facts are not enough for you or doubt how they were arrived at, that's ok with me but you should be able to clearly spell out what your issues are with them.
comprex
December 2, 2009
Member since 04/11/2003 🔗
1,326 posts
Originally Posted By: KevR

The data is the data, it has been or continues to be analyzed,


But not by us. We are therefore presented with a choice of which analyzer to believe.

Therefore this statement is not useful, except to hide
an act of belief.

Quote:

the analysis produces the best explanation possible over time --


Through criticism.

Quote:

Either it is a real phenom or it is not -- the facts should be enough.



Conclusions, extrapolations, press releases and predictive models are not "facts" except as their own entities (the fact that a conclusion was drawn, the fact that an extrapolation was made, the fact that a press release was done, the fact that a predictive model exists with such and such output).

I also find the dichotomy either/or very misleading here. It avoids the possible scenarios of

"real, but not for the reasons stated"
"real, but completely overwhelmed by other, unrelated phenomena with larger variation"
"real, but resulting in different effects than predicted"


Quote:

If the facts are not enough for you or doubt how they were arrived at, that's ok with me but you should be able to clearly spell out what your issues are with them.


The burden of proof is on the person making the assertion.
KevR
December 2, 2009
Member since 01/27/2004 🔗
786 posts
I think it is possible to get your hands on some of the raw data and to read about the techniques used to analyse it.

so no, this is not a faith exercise.

Overtime, it may be more an more transparent, I don't claim full transparency now though.

But most of the data is collected by publically funded entities, so in the end it should be fully open and accessable to anyone.

The algorithms and so forth that are used to produce results I think are more fully available than ever too, and in general should fall into the same catagory.

Is this 100% right now, probably not but this seems to be changing in the right direction.

A couple of taps into google and this came up - there may be more:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

I look forward to your report after a suitable time period of review and further analysis.
comprex
December 2, 2009
Member since 04/11/2003 🔗
1,326 posts
Originally Posted By: KevR

so no, this is not a faith exercise.


Of course it is, for anyone who hasn't done the calculations.

Originally Posted By: KevR

I look forward to your report after a suitable time period of review and further analysis.


Your supercomp, tonight, then?

Of course, even so we still won't have "facts".

Merely predictions.
jimmy
December 2, 2009
Member since 03/5/2004 🔗
2,650 posts
Every dog has it's day.



Hows about we lighten it up with a little bit o Neil Diamond?



"Now I'm a believer
Not a trace
Of doubt in my mind
Now I'm a believer
Yeah, yeah, yeah
Yeah, yeah, yeah
I'm a believer"

KevR
December 2, 2009
Member since 01/27/2004 🔗
786 posts
I'm giving up on this one -- some last comments:

1 - the stakes are high on this unlike some other science esoterica. So the skeptics should not be shut out... but they should also not just be obstructionists

2 - the data, methods and so forth should be 100% transparent (let the skeptics fund their own analysis if they want but it should also be open)

3 - I have no interest myself in convincing anyone GW is real, that is to proselytize... to me we have the data, the analysis -- we proceed with the best info we have until this changes. For example the curve downward in mean temps suggests the models need further tweaking...

4 - here's another example of free data, just have to register

Probably more accessable than the other stuff to the avg person

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/

Note that it mirrors the global mean temp graph from the Der Spiegel article, (which means "The Mirror" in german...)

Maybe they copied... ;-)

Snow is coming, feels like a colder winter. I'm up for it!
hockeydave
December 2, 2009
Member since 06/30/2004 🔗
773 posts
Jimmy,

Neil Diamond penned it, the Monkees made it a hit. (I do have a Neil Diamond sung version of it and like it much better).

As far as the GW debate is concerned, I was really bummed when astronomers deplaneted Pluto. I find it a great opportunity to demonstrate with a timely and easy example that scientific knowledge is provisional and changes as our understanding changes. It's one of the best ways to steer learning minds clear of absolutism and dogma, which is often confused with actual science. At least deplaneting Pluto won't cost me more money to heat my home (which I keep at 68 when I'm home and 62 when I'm gone).
fishnski
December 2, 2009
Member since 03/27/2005 🔗
3,530 posts
Originally Posted By: KevR
I think it is possible to get your hands on some of the raw data and to read about the techniques used to analyse it.


Unfortunately they deleteted years of raw data that didn't fit into there scheme...Thats a crime..& a shame!
langleyskier
December 2, 2009
Member since 12/7/2004 🔗
824 posts
Unfortunately.... I agree with John Stewart, although it hurts to say it.

Data is not deleted.. they apparently deleted some of their tree core data; this does not mean that all of a sudden there is no data to analyze. When they refer to "Mike's Trick" they are referring to when Prof Mann (PSU scientist in question) substituted recorded data from the past ~30 years to replace the tree core data. The tree cores showed a decline in temperatures which was obviously not the case, real recorded temps show an INCREASE.

As a result, what SHOULD happen is that we go back and review tree core data. Could this possibly mean that tree core data is not a good predictor of global temperatures? However, the argument is so so politicized that doing so all of a sudden makes skeptics go crazy. The method he used for publishing this paper was sound and WAS pier reviewed and approved by a national science foundation (cant remember which one).

And as for when they talked about the "peer review" debacle; what happened was the scientist who's paper they were seekeing to block was eventually allowed to publish. What happened was that his paper was so poorly supported, with results not matching data, that the editor of the Journal (who decides what gets published) was fired.

I cant say much beyond this but IMHO this thing has been blown way way out of proportion. Truth is that I can't beleive that anyone could possibly doubt the hard FACTS of global warming. If you are a skeptic, read the IPCC reports. The reports are compiled by hundreds of climatologists, geologists, meteorologists, ect. if you truly believe they are all part of some major conspiracy theory you have to be a bit crazy or purely in denial.


Challenge to skeptics:

The internet has TONS of raw data. When I was a freshman in high school I did a complete analysis on the Urban Heat Island Effect using raw data from the past ~100 years from DC, Balt, and Dulles in order to prove the effect locally. You can do the same with worldwide data. Pick ~15+ sites from around the world (scattered, not localized in any one area/latitude/hemisphere) and graph their annual average temperature over the past 100 years. Its really not hard to do.
langleyskier
December 2, 2009
Member since 12/7/2004 🔗
824 posts
Oh and BTW.... it really needs to snow, we are all so pent up that we are gnawing each others heads off over stupid climate emails..... SNOW!!!!! (maybe some in DC this weekend)
fishnski
December 2, 2009
Member since 03/27/2005 🔗
3,530 posts
Its snowed 2 years in a row way south in Texas..in early Dec! Just listening to a couple of Weather folks, this has not ever happened since records began. The Arctic Ice is growing very nicely..even with all the CO2 & made made heat products...Thats all I need to know..everything else is just political propaganda...which is what I'm sniffing up at "The Manns" camp up at Penn State...

So you think that we are in Bad shape do ya L-ski with all due respect?..are you prepared & convinced that if we commit to more money than you can imagine & surrender some of our sovereignty up in Copenhagen that we can even reverse this calamity that has been promised us by these folks with these "Stupid harmless E-mails"?..Are you feeling that much heat?



langleyskier
December 3, 2009
Member since 12/7/2004 🔗
824 posts
Originally Posted By: fishnski
So you think that we are in Bad shape do ya L-ski with all due respect?


Yeah, were not in the best of shape. Really brings it home when you think what even a 4 degree rise in avg temps would do to ski areas in our region. Even the "best case" model, warming of 1.5 degrees C are expected given CO2 levels remain constant.


Originally Posted By: fishnski
commit to more money than you can imagine


I am a passionate supporter of capitalism, it can be done with little impact. Oil will not last forever, would benefit us greatly and help lesson our dependence on unfriendly nations for a vital commodity (actually Canada is our biggest supplier of oil, but from tar sands... extremely high emissions). Providing loans (to be paid back) to companies to finance new nuclear power plants (they are not dangerous, wast can be stored safely.. not a worthwhile debate) or other "green" technologies.

Originally Posted By: fishnski
surrender some of our sovereignty up in Copenhagen


There are THOUSANDS of international accords. It has noting to do with "sovereignty," there are accords on whaling, fishing, flying, toxic chemicals, ect. ect. ect. It takes an international effort

Originally Posted By: fishnski
reverse this calamity that has been promised us by these folks with these "Stupid harmless E-mails"?


Never said harmless... it is partly taken out of context but I am concluding that regardless of ANY of their research there is still a plethora of data that leads me to conclude that GW is a real and anthropologically driven occurrence. There are investigations going on at the individual universities, I will let that play out until I form a complete opinion on their actions.

Originally Posted By: fishnski
Are you feeling that much heat?


Not sure what your referring to. Just feel that as the resident meteo major I should voice my professional opinion. This is a subject in which I have conducted substantial research so feel I come from a background in which I can defend my stance on the issue, I am not following some professor through blind faith.




I really dont see why this is such a heated debate, its not a "belief" its a science that is accepted internationally and throughout the scientific community.
langleyskier
December 3, 2009
Member since 12/7/2004 🔗
824 posts
Originally Posted By: fishnski
Its snowed 2 years in a row way south in Texas..in early Dec!


Also had our earliest snow ever here in state college this October but now ski resorts all along the east coast are suffering. This does not say that GW did not exist in october but was prominent in november. Long term & global trends need to be used as indicators, not short spikes or declines.
fishnski
December 3, 2009
Member since 03/27/2005 🔗
3,530 posts
You make me feel Bad L-ski..I throw out a minutes worth of easy thoughts & then I see your up late at night working hard on a response. I really did mean "With all due respect" there Buddy!
bawalker
December 3, 2009
Member since 12/1/2003 🔗
1,547 posts
With the fact that with the IPCC emails having been leaked indicating fully that not only was that there was a political agenda to push, data was also fully manipulated to promote and push that political agenda. To try and say that those emails have been taken out of context is at best a far and long stretch to preserve any last credibility that these scientists have left. Though even that is virtually gone now.

The thing is, this isn't an interpretation of emails, this isn't an 'alternate' interpretation of the data. The fact is that data was manipulated to give a given outcome, data was deleted, and a agenda was pushed. Not only that but now source code that has been released and reviewed indicates that the computer models they use was designed to give an intended favorable output.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-computer-codes-are-the-real-story/

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesd...global-warming/


In the end, this completely destroys any credibility that the IPCC and or any other scientific agency has that worked with them has. To completely manipulate the data to make it favorable towards the outcome they wanted and now to see that the computer models themselves were not giving a true output based on raw data shows that nothing regarding global warming by the IPCC can be trusted.

The scientific process itself was destroyed and these scientists, their years of research, and their data lost all credibility in one moment. Now if someone wants to restart that all over from scratch without an agenda somewhere, they are more than welcome to do so.

However I know because the earth since it's creation 10,000 years ago has survived absolutely positively just fine without man's intervention in affecting the climate, GW is just another 'generational fad'. Yes climate change exists in the sense of cyclical phases of the earth warming and cooling based solely on earth in relation to the sun, sunspots, and solar winds.

I have to chuckle because of all the scientists and all the fancy degrees, they all focus on man being the source of global warming when they ignore the one and only source of ALL heat on this earth... the sun. Boy good ole common sense makes so much sense. wink
comprex
December 3, 2009
Member since 04/11/2003 🔗
1,326 posts
Originally Posted By: langleyskier

I am a passionate supporter of capitalism, it can be done with little impact. Oil will not last forever, would benefit us greatly and help lesson our dependence on unfriendly nations for a vital commodity (actually Canada is our biggest supplier of oil, but from tar sands... extremely high emissions). Providing loans (to be paid back) to companies to finance new nuclear power plants (they are not dangerous, wast can be stored safely.. not a worthwhile debate) or other "green" technologies.


Oil resource conservation should happen on purely industrial grounds, we need it for things other than fuels.

In this instance, I am NOT a supporter of straight-up capitalism. Tax the living daylights out of fuels. I'd far rather have plastics and rubbers and a million other synthetic chemicals.

Quote:

There are THOUSANDS of international accords. It has noting to do with "sovereignty," there are accords on whaling, fishing, flying, toxic chemicals, ect. ect. ect. It takes an international effort


Sovereignty is a bad word to use here because it carries the meaning of intrusion onto the rights of the state (as in "the federal US"). A better term would be "forcing a framework that -isn't- capitalism around the economy of each signatory country, a framework that cannot be changed unilaterally".

That framework, especially if "economic development goals for Second and Third World Countries" are used to form it, merely reduces the caged area for capitalism in each country to play in.
Quote:

Not sure what your referring to. Just feel that as the resident meteo major I should voice my professional opinion. This is a subject in which I have conducted substantial research so feel I come from a background in which I can defend my stance on the issue, I am not following some professor through blind faith.


You're not, perhaps. Everyone who hasn't had your training and experience has nothing but smooth words and stories to rely on.

Quote:

I really dont see why this is such a heated debate, its not a "belief" its a science that is accepted internationally and throughout the scientific community.


The only way to prevent it being an issue of belief is to give every taxpayer the exact same measure of training and experience you have had.

Otherwise we have to choose to believe you and your compadres.

(Heck, even priests in mediaeval villages would hold Bible class. Would you care to start Sunday school for the meteo laity?)

comprex
December 3, 2009
Member since 04/11/2003 🔗
1,326 posts
Originally Posted By: bawalker

I have to chuckle because of all the scientists and all the fancy degrees, they all focus on man being the source of global warming when they ignore the one and only source of ALL heat on this earth... the sun. Boy good ole common sense makes so much sense. wink


A child takes an elevator every day for years. Let's also say the child has a yo-yo that is particularly fun on elevators. Let's say the position of that yo-yo is something we can measure.

Just because the engineers changed the motor on the elevator or the parents moved to a different unit in the building doesn't mean the child hasn't grown since measurements started.



fishnski
December 3, 2009
Member since 03/27/2005 🔗
3,530 posts
I love throwing out the Bait & then watching you all go to work...You guys, both pro & con or in the middle have made reply posts that a guy like me could only dream about making..I have always been in awe at some of your posts over the years & can only dream of making that kind of contribution to various threads blush..Anyway thanks for letting me play with you all & keep up the good work!

The latest Sea Ice graph is heading straight up(Great) at the moment & There is the kind of cold building up in Canada that will finally have an impact down here..El Nino & the NAO & GW & lower solar activity are all tugging at each other..lets enjoy the ride & let God sort em out...time to ski!
jimmy
December 3, 2009
Member since 03/5/2004 🔗
2,650 posts
Originally Posted By: langleyskier
Originally Posted By: fishnski
So you think that we are in Bad shape do ya L-ski with all due respect?


Yeah, were not in the best of shape. Really brings it home when you think what even a 4 degree rise in avg temps would do to ski areas in our region. Even the "best case" model, warming of 1.5 degrees C are expected given CO2 levels remain constant.

..........................

I really dont see why this is such a heated debate, its not a "belief" its a science that is accepted internationally and throughout the scientific community.



Hey langleyskier, welcome back to the discussion. Sorry about those dudes, jones and was it mann, it's a cold cruel world outside the lab, eh? anyways I've stated before that i'm curious by my nature. My primary learning methods are reading and asking people who know more about a subject than I do questions. Right now i'm wondering about a couple of things that you or someone else involved in this friendly discussion may know the answers to:


How long is this best case warming model expected to take to manifest itself, theoretically speaking?


Do you suspect that this warming will have a negative effect on our regional ski areas?


edit to add, andy you are the FISHer, you bin throwin bait as long as i've known you. You are too humble, noone know the APPs any better, when you call it i'm gone. They'd have to shut down dcskee in the off season if not fer you.

Sincerly(seriously mang), j
langleyskier
December 3, 2009
Member since 12/7/2004 🔗
824 posts
Originally Posted By: fishnski
You make me feel Bad L-ski..I throw out a minutes worth of easy thoughts & then I see your up late at night working hard on a response. I really did mean "With all due respect" there Buddy!


No problem man... and no worries, its a worthwhile discussion and provides me something to do besides thinking about skiing (or lack thereof). And I'm in college, late night is after 2 am!
langleyskier
December 3, 2009
Member since 12/7/2004 🔗
824 posts
Originally Posted By: jimmy
How long is this best case warming model expected to take to manifest itself, theoretically speaking?


Most models hat we currently rely upon have a benchmark for comparison at 2100. Warming, in this case, will be gradual throughout the century.


Originally Posted By: jimmy
Do you suspect that this warming will have a negative effect on our regional ski areas?


Yes, just look at an average year here where local resorts (especially low elevations) struggle to have more than a few runs open by Christmas and might not be in full operation until mid-late January. If temps were 3 degrees higher (very conservative estimate) on average, the amount of snowmaking time for local areas would probably be reduced by 1/3 or more.

Really is (selfishly) one of my greatest concerns.
langleyskier
December 3, 2009
Member since 12/7/2004 🔗
824 posts
Originally Posted By: bawalker

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-computer-codes-are-the-real-story/

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesd...global-warming/


In the end, this completely destroys any credibility that the IPCC and or any other scientific agency has that worked with them has. To completely manipulate the data to make it favorable towards the outcome they wanted and now to see that the computer models themselves were not giving a true output based on raw data shows that nothing regarding global warming by the IPCC can be trusted.

The scientific process itself was destroyed and these scientists, their years of research, and their data lost all credibility in one moment. Now if someone wants to restart that all over from scratch without an agenda somewhere, they are more than welcome to do so.

However I know because the earth since it's creation 10,000 years ago has survived absolutely positively just fine without man's intervention in affecting the climate, GW is just another 'generational fad'. Yes climate change exists in the sense of cyclical phases of the earth warming and cooling based solely on earth in relation to the sun, sunspots, and solar winds.

I have to chuckle because of all the scientists and all the fancy degrees, they all focus on man being the source of global warming when they ignore the one and only source of ALL heat on this earth... the sun. Boy good ole common sense makes so much sense. wink


One: Problem is you are trusting blogs more than data. For example:
"James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything. He is the author of numerous fantastically entertaining books including Welcome To Obamaland: I've Seen Your Future And It Doesn't Work, How To Be Right, and the Coward series of WWII adventure novels. His website is www.jamesdelingpole.com"

that is who you are using as a source?

Two: GW is not a "fad" I beg you to look at actual data. Why would you not believe the ENTIRE scientific community? And where do you see this as a political agenda or a bolster for corporate America? The US has done jack sh** about GW as of now and the party that favors big business (republican, my party) cares even less about the issue. This is all simply an attempt by a select few to try and throw out ridiculous opinions to sway people who type "global warming is a lie" into google to look for sources.
comprex
December 3, 2009
Member since 04/11/2003 🔗
1,326 posts
Originally Posted By: langleyskier

Two: GW is not a "fad" I beg you to look at actual data. Why would you not believe the ENTIRE scientific community?


For one thing, he has no way of doing so.

He can believe one reporter reporting about "the ENTIRE scientific community?" or he can believe some other talking head.

I am not kidding when I say you should start 'Sunday weather school for dummies', with readings and assigned questions.



Quote:

And where do you see this as a political agenda or a bolster for corporate America? The US has done jack sh** about GW as of now and the party that favors big business (republican, my party) cares even less about the issue.


Puhleeze. The money that's been thrown at GW through "alternate energy" development, from fuel cells to hydrogen to alcohol fuels, through big business, is no end of sick.


langleyskier
December 3, 2009
Member since 12/7/2004 🔗
824 posts
Originally Posted By: comprex

Puhleeze. The money that's been thrown at GW through "alternate energy" development, from fuel cells to hydrogen to alcohol fuels, through big business, is no end of sick.


Like I said, oil for fuel will not last forever. I am a supporter of nuclear as the answer as I said before. Combine that with a transition of the grid to support electric cars and your answer is there. Needs be a combo of gov & private sector investment in the project. More than anything, politics favor the current coal, natural gas, & oil economy.

Agree about alcohol fuels but that has noting (or little) to do with GW, that is supposed to be an answer to our dependence on fossil fuels from other nations. Corn ethanol is a waste (big waste) of $$$, very true. But that stems a lot from the Iowa caucus. In reality, corn for fuel really screws the economy and world food supplies (shortages of corn stock in mexico a good example). Also, it is miserably bad for the environment and not even remotely efficient.

As of now, only algae has proven to be a real answer for creating ethanol but there are still major hurdles with that. There has been little to no gov investment in these projects, it has mainly been funded by universities and big business. Actually proves very efficient if combined with steam producing plants (warm water that would be discharged is run through the algae to speed growth rates).... still long way to go with this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae_fuel


Overall, gov investment is helpful to spur new technologies. Problem is that it is often allocated not based off science but as pork barrel spending (Corn for Ethanol) or political favors for supporters. Oh and "clean coal" is like saying "sexy walrus," just does not work real well.
langleyskier
December 3, 2009
Member since 12/7/2004 🔗
824 posts
Apparently you can now find literally anything on the internet:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YixbtSADLyk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uevBMKW3BT8&feature=related

sorry... big tangent but proves my point, it just does not work. haha
KevR
December 3, 2009
Member since 01/27/2004 🔗
786 posts
You ain't seen nothing yet... I think pretty soon there will be an accord by the major industrialized countries to try to put a value (or cost) on green house gas emmisions in some manner.
comprex
December 3, 2009
Member since 04/11/2003 🔗
1,326 posts

When we starting Weather School, then?

Originally Posted By: langleyskier

More than anything, politics favor the current coal, natural gas, & oil economy.


Heh. Find me a swing state that is not a coal producing state.
jimmy
December 3, 2009
Member since 03/5/2004 🔗
2,650 posts
Not selfish at all, langleyskier. So the theory is the average temp is going to rise between 1.5 and 4.0C gradually over the next 100 years, resulting in the potential closure of ski areas in the mid-atlantic in that time frame, ya?

I told you I'm just full o questions laugh .

So what do you think will happen to some of the marginal players in the mid-atlantic ski industry when their utility costs double, hypothetically, over the next 10 years? Do you think Tussey or Timberline will survive?

How much do you think Snowshoe's $55.00 Early/Late season lift ticket will cost then? $100.00-110.00? We cannot say with any sense of certainty?


[quote=langleyskier] I really dont see why this is such a heated debate, its not a "belief" its a science that is accepted internationally and throughout the scientific community. [quote]

I think what the debate is about is mis-understood or mis-represented. The debate should be about what remedy at what cost. The scientists would prefer to paint folks like me as uneducated, unworthy to question their conclusions. Just read the emails, i can smell the disdain. The polititians take the ball and run with it while most folks are distracted by the "debate" and BANG a TRILLION DOLLARS goes down the drain faster than a Senator's Aide runs to the free shrimp and chardonnay buffet. Ski resorts close and a 100 years from now we get to see what?


To quote my buddy KevR



Amazing......
KevR
December 3, 2009
Member since 01/27/2004 🔗
786 posts
I think skepticism is a good thing, and pragmatism too - the skeptical pragmatic in me says to wait really to do anything until we really really are sure it's a real problem and then do something about it when we are really really (really) sure.

For example think about this - given that the real temp data only goes back so far and the past is modeled as best as possible indirectly, and the modeling of future temps is well -- as all things modeled something that should be shown to track reality really well.

But to the best of my knowledge the ability to re-create the 20th century's overall temp trends using the models and a set of inputs is what we have in terms of validation that when run forward in time show the temp changes -- which is pretty good but perhaps we could give it a bit more time to verify it does match what our predictions are sort of thing...

Given all that, it would be really nice to wait a bit and see -- take a wait and see attitude. I like that myself. That's my preferred course of action if we could just do that...

Problem is there's not an obvious and easy way to put the genie back in the bottle once we are really really really sure, so we are stuck with trying to determine a course of action based on the best analysis we can have because everyone knows and respects the enourmous changes that will have to occur globally to mitigate the issue.

In a way we can't afford to wait much if the analysis is correct as those changes take time to filter through the system. Some think even now think we've missed certain points of "no return" and some effects will occur regardless.

It would be ideal to have some assurance that we could clear the green house gases in the atmosphere should we prove beyond anyone's doubt that there's an issue. If such a technology exists, we could wait to do much... we could weigh the costs of building and running these scrubbers if you will vs the costs of not using coal or converting over to all solar say -- just to use and example...

But so far, such possibilities seem to be very unlikely to happen, we don't seem to have very good fall back positions so that a wait and see attitude does not seem the right way to proceed.

I think, that's one thing you -- you talk about feeling like you are being talked down to and your opinion does not count -- but also I often detect the flip side of this coin on the skeptic's side.

The folks making these predictions do live here too, they have cars, houses, children, take plane flights and all that -- it's not like they don't realize the various issues surrounding this whole thing, the costs and changes and disruption in folks' lives ... they are in the end just like everyone else, you have to respect that too.

And no doubt this is where we really differ -- not particularly ideological driven...
Murphy
December 3, 2009
Member since 09/13/2004 🔗
618 posts
Originally Posted By: langleyskier

(warm water that would be discharged is run through the algae to speed growth rates)


You been using my shower recently?
langleyskier
December 3, 2009
Member since 12/7/2004 🔗
824 posts
Originally Posted By: KevR
Problem is there's not an obvious and easy way to put the genie back in the bottle once we are really really really sure, so we are stuck with trying to determine a course of action based on the best analysis we can have because everyone knows and respects the enormous changes that will have to occur globally to mitigate the issue.

In a way we can't afford to wait much if the analysis is correct as those changes take time to filter through the system. Some think even now think we've missed certain points of "no return" and some effects will occur regardless.


Great post.. Agree completely, major issue here is the possibility that once green house gas levels hit XXX (not agreed upon) then there is no going back. IS a hypothesis but generally makes sense given that many of the world's ecosystems are very fragile and a minor global change really could have drastic effects.

This is why IMHO the best plan would be to mitigate our risk today rather than have the possibility of a social and economic disaster down the road. I don't think wait and see really is an option in this case. We do not need to invest "trillions"... it can be done economically and in a way that does not alter "our (American) way of life."
langleyskier
December 3, 2009
Member since 12/7/2004 🔗
824 posts
Originally Posted By: jimmy
Not selfish at all, langleyskier. So the theory is the average temp is going to rise between 1.5 and 4.0C gradually over the next 100 years, resulting in the potential closure of ski areas in the mid-atlantic in that time frame, ya?


Problem is that GW is not spatially homogeneous (equally distributed around the globe) and I do think models that predict 2100 temps for specific regions need to be analyzed with a grain of salt.

However, given the global average... assuming we are in the middle range (lets say 2 C), local areas (low elevation) would be quite screwed and DC would be the capital of cold rain. Just think about how borderline all of our mnts are already for snowmaking and decent snowfalls (like I already outlined). Overall, it worries me.

As for timberline and other such areas. Likely that economics will allow for sufficient investment (lots of assumptions here) in snowmaking and other technologies to allow the industry to continue to thrive at higher elevations.

With current trends and my expert analysis, I predict snowshoe lift tickets to be 110 by 2025 (actually i bet if you developed a trend line for their lift ticket prices by year this is not far off)... not the biggest fan of that place.

This is mostly blind guessing on my part just fyi... if it was economical to have a snowgun every 2 feet you could have a ski resort in Richmond!... many many things come into play, who am i to guess on the state of the local ski scene in 90 years? But simply given a rise in temps.. outlook is poor
langleyskier
December 3, 2009
Member since 12/7/2004 🔗
824 posts
Just fyi...

our climate is not really "cooling" as many want you to believe. It is really hard to argue with the below data, our planet is warmer than any other time on record. No one ever said that GW means that each sequential year will be warmer than the last or that the arctic will loose ice on a yearly basis. Overall, decadal trends are what is best to look at. Even if you are a skeptic, please admit that this is alarming.

Surface (combo of the NASA GISS and Hadley Center temps)

1 1998 0.56
2 2005 0.55
3 2003 0.51
4 2002 0.51
5 2009 0.50 (through Oct.)
6 2007 0.49
7 2006 0.48
8 2004 0.47
9 2001 0.44
10 2008 0.38



Satellite (combo of the UAH and RSS temps)

1 1998 0.53
2 2005 0.36
3 2002 0.32
4 2003 0.32
5 2007 0.30
6 2006 0.27
7 2009 0.24 through Oct.
8 2004 0.22
9 2001 0.22
10 1995 0.13
jimmy
December 3, 2009
Member since 03/5/2004 🔗
2,650 posts
Man we really need some cold weather and snow, ever notice the calming effect of the flake wink ?


Originally Posted By: langleyskier
This is why IMHO the best plan would be to mitigate our risk today rather than have the possibility of a social and economic disaster down the road. I don't think wait and see really is an option in this case. We do not need to invest "trillions"... it can be done economically and in a way that does not alter "our (American) way of life."



My friend if you really believe that this can be done economically, without investing "trillions", you better get busy calling whomever claims to represent you in DC, better get everyone you know to do the same because they are preparing to designate CO2 a "Poisonous Greenhouse Gas" and put a $800,000,000,000.00, yup almost a trillion, tax on carbon emissions. The Dems are ramming it through and the GOP is trying to blame the EPA and accept it while getting some concessions for their "constituents."

Is that your idea of economical? Do you not think that doubling the cost of electricity will alter "our (Amerikan) way of life?" Do you think the bullwheels are gonna keep on turnin?

Langley you think you have "representation" in Washington; a constituent to your Congressman and your Senators is someone who sends them a check for $1000 and convinces one hundred of their friends to do the same every year. Call me a cynic, I prefer realist.

I hear the train a comin, it's comin round the bend and i ain't seen the sunshine since i dont know when, i'm stuck inside this prison........
comprex
December 3, 2009
Member since 04/11/2003 🔗
1,326 posts
Originally Posted By: langleyskier
No one ever said that GW means that each sequential year will be warmer than the last or that the arctic will loose ice on a yearly basis.


As I attempted to show in my yo-yo in an elevator analogy, I certainly expect no such obvious trend of directly comparable values.
comprex
December 3, 2009
Member since 04/11/2003 🔗
1,326 posts
Most sensible suggestion I've heard in the last 5 years:

Wanna do something about AGW? Prepare -all- (100%) of your own food for one year, from grocery to mouth.
langleyskier
December 3, 2009
Member since 12/7/2004 🔗
824 posts
Originally Posted By: jimmy
You really believe that this can be done economically, without investing "trillions", you better get busy calling whomever claims to represent you in DC, better get everyone you know to do the same because they are preparing to designate CO2 a "Poisonous Greenhouse Gas" and put a $800,000,000,000.00, yup almost a trillion, tax on carbon emissions. The Dems are ramming it through and the GOP is trying to blame the EPA and accept it while getting some concessions for their "constituents."

Is that your idea of economical? Do you not think that doubling the cost of electricity will alter "our (Amerikan) way of life?" Do you think the bullwheels are gonna keep on turnin?

Langley you think you have "representation" in Washington; a constituent to your Congressman and your Senators is someone who sends them a check for $1000 and convinces one hundred of their friends to do the same every year. Call me a cynic, I prefer realist.


You are taking my words out of context. I am saying that this can be done economically, not that it will. I am not supporting ANY specific legislation because i really dont have the time to review all of that as of now. My perspective is that there is an economical solution. Truthfully, I dont at all trust congress with this, they will allocate money in some crappy way and give it as grants instead of loans (to be paid back). Needs sufficient oversight from NGO's... congressional oversight commissions are inefficient and stall every process they can get their hands on.
langleyskier
December 3, 2009
Member since 12/7/2004 🔗
824 posts
This debate is very conductive to my plan for spending the day at the library.... bah
KevR
December 3, 2009
Member since 01/27/2004 🔗
786 posts
If the GW changes were more tangible now you might support the upfront costs whatever they are.

But significant changes you and I would feel (or perhaps our children) are off in the future, and to us now these changes are only predictions based on those pesky models again.

It would be ideal to make small changes now that both had a positive effect on this problem, and helped the economy.

Cap and trade is a pretty free-market-ey approach though, based on your posts from before I'm surprised you would not support it.

Regardless -- a free market approach would be best, driving innovation and job creation in the private sector would be ideal while helping mitigate the issue.

If we do nothing -- let's say we do nothing and just wait for the changes to really kick in more obviously, we may find that only extreme measures are in order to overt the worst changes of GW, and the approaches taken then might be surprisingly unfree market.

With that in mind, I kinda like the first approach because we get the biggest bang for the buck, and we have time to take incremental steps that can be adjusted as we go.
langleyskier
December 3, 2009
Member since 12/7/2004 🔗
824 posts
Originally Posted By: KevR

Cap and trade is a pretty free-market-ey approach though, based on your posts from before I'm surprised you would not support it.



I am a fan of cap and trade. Works well. Only issue, reason I support an international accord, is that countries like China and others need to play a part.... we are not the complete answer. Cap and trade would work and encourage the free market development of new, cleaner, technologies.
KevR
December 3, 2009
Member since 01/27/2004 🔗
786 posts
In the end, all it amounts to is putting a cost on emissions that up to this time were considered to be a free ride. there are any number of ways to do it.

Cap n' trade is free-market-ish but the cap is a limit set by some governement entity. It's basically a speed limit I guess in essence. And then there options to trade credits if you are over or under it, or innovate to get lower.

You could also just put a tax on "carbon" to make it cost something.

Cap and trade would work best if everyone all over the planet were in it. Regional cap n' trade would be ok ...

Country by country seems like a good way for any one country cheat to me...

And once we get to the bottom of this pesky GW conspiracy, we can remove the cap and go about our business... :-)
fishnski
December 3, 2009
Member since 03/27/2005 🔗
3,530 posts
Flash forward in time..the year is 2309, An eskimo looking Dude steps out of his Igloo. Its 20 below out & a little hard to breath in the fresh air as he scans the scene before him...he sees abandoned shells of large buildings caked in ice & ryme...there are some polar bears rummaging thru an opening in one of the large buildings & a piece of paper flys out & bounces along in the wind as it makes its way toward him. He grabs it just in time as it begins a quick dart away...He opens it up & reads it (he is edgumakated)..He sees it is a brochure for a large climate pow wow in a place called Copenhagen..There is a photo of a man close to his color with large exposed ears preaching to a large cult...Large Letters spelling CO2 with x's over them are across the whole page (Planet of the Apes music begins)....He looks up & in front of him is the big pencil..the monument of a once great & proud nation..Tears freezing on contact with the dropping temps bulge out of his eye sockets...FOOLS he yells out!..The CO2 was saving you all from the next Ice Age mad.....THE END....
langleyskier
December 3, 2009
Member since 12/7/2004 🔗
824 posts
Hopefully we can create a system (if we do) that factors the mistakes made across the pond.
David
December 3, 2009
Member since 06/28/2004 🔗
2,444 posts
What you guys don't realize is that none of this is important. Global Climate change is going to take too long to even matter...

2012

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_calendar
KevR
December 4, 2009
Member since 01/27/2004 🔗
786 posts
If you don't like C&T, how about a direct tax on carbon which is favored by the CEO of Exxon. Or you don't like that, prorate a fee based on emission output - transportation, electric generation, others?

You can surely figure out a pretty good estimate for emissions output from the mileage and vehicle type for transport (seems like it should work for all for forms of transportation since mileage is always tracked).

No changes needed but a sort of tail pipe emission meter approach.

Smokestacks, not sure -- but it must be calculable based on uptime.

Then the biggest producers pay the biggest fees.

In europe since no one else is really doing C&T elsewhere, they've been pretty liberal in giving away credits too -- that's worse than the VAT scam (we don't have VAT here by the way) because it makes the whole point of C&T pointless. (if everyone gets credits, there's no speed limit)

C&T would almost assuredly only work if all the big economies are in it together ... say the G20. And there is some overall framework everyone agrees to.

Cheating will occur, of course. Just look at any market, and you have cheaters to deal with.

Personally -- not sure I care. Actually I like the "tail pipe emission meters", above -- since I just came up with it.

;-)

Nice thing about that one, the individual has FAR MORE CONTROL over how much they pay out, and that control will produce side effects (innovation) in the economy.

It's a win win.
jimmy
December 4, 2009
Member since 03/5/2004 🔗
2,650 posts
Originally Posted By: langleyskier

Originally Posted By: KevR

Cap and trade is a pretty free-market-ey approach though, based on your posts from before I'm surprised you would not support it.


I am a fan of cap and trade. Works well. Only issue, reason I support an international accord, is that countries like China and others need to play a part.... we are not the complete answer. Cap and trade would work and encourage the free market development of new, cleaner, technologies.


I am all for free markets. There's nothing Free Markety about Cap and Trade. Remember back on page four or five when I offered to let Kev "adopt me?" That would be a choice to respond to the theory. Here's a free market way to invest in the globalwarmings/climatechange solution. Look how many alarmists are ready to put their money where there mouth is. That's a "free" market, putting my money where the alarmist/scientist/politians mouth is, well there's nothing free markety about that.

Cap and Trade is a TAX, exxon massey aep consol don't care one way or the other about cap and trade; they will pass the increased costs on to consumers, by the time alternative forms of energy come on line we'll be out of coal anyway.
fishnski
December 4, 2009
Member since 03/27/2005 🔗
3,530 posts
You know it Jimmi..pass the cost along!...
Nobody liked my excerpt from the movie I'm going to make.."Planet of the Ice"?...theres a few Scientist that are warning of that scenerio....I don't know who's funding them though... smirk
I go down to the waters edge at the end of my street every morn walking my dogs & in the last 10 years I have not noticed the slightest rise in the tide lines but I'm sure its coming since the Scientific facts prove it. I'm just worried that there will be a sunami because we are pretty backlogged in sea rises...
Tucker
December 4, 2009
Member since 03/14/2005 🔗
893 posts
I have only skimmed through one or two of the posts on this topic,,,but I assuming it is on global warming...first I don't know why anyone is waistn' valuable time on this site talking about global warming when we could be bitching about mid-atlantic resorts and there shortcomings...2nd in my opinion whether the discussion is about global warming or the energy crisis it all comes down to the "footprint" left by individuals or societies...its not an energy problem its a consumption problem,etc...if everyone is so concerned about it they would be living within in their means, they would watch what they consume and limit the waste they produce, live in smaller houses, buy local products, and maybe even stop wasting gas driving/flying to ski dozens of times a winter, maybe even start hiking/earning some turns instead of riding a lift...sometimes it comes down to putting your money where your mouth is I guess???
KevR
December 4, 2009
Member since 01/27/2004 🔗
786 posts
No, a tax is a tax -- and that would be one approach.

C&T is another way to put a value or try to put value on emissions but it's not quite the same as a tax which would be set directly by a govt entity.

But both would add costs.

Once again, emissions are largely considered to be a free no cost item today.

Science says -- "yeah there really is a cost".

So how do you calculate the cost?

C&T is one suggestion, a direct tax is another. Between the two, C&T is more of a free market approach although yes, someone sets the speed limit or the cap.

And give me a break about costs, every cost is always passed to the consumer if possible for every good and service in every facet of the economy.

No company absorbs costs if they can help it for anything.

The point I was trying to make and I think you'll like this -- is that if you put a cost on emissions -- it should be done in such a way as to give the average person the most control for getting out of those costs (by changing goods/services/behavior).

At least that is my opinion -- and you two should be happy about that kind of approach as far as I can see from previous posts.

Not only can consumers get out of costs but businesses as well -- although not by doing nothing at all, that is true.

That kind of control is important and better than a one size fits all speed limit (i.e. tax) in my opinion.
jimmy
December 4, 2009
Member since 03/5/2004 🔗
2,650 posts
Fish knowing that the polar bears survive brought a tear to my eye. While the hero of your story wonders about who the big eared brownskin and the what denmark is, the story continues out west in the rockies..............

You know I've wondered the same thing aobut what cataclism will occur when we run out of carbon based fuel, CO2 levels drop to dangerous levels, some dude with a nuke sitting on the last mountain top that hasn't been removed, mad max and the boys tryin to topple him so they can burn the last million tons of coal trying to keep good ole mother earth from turning into a great big ice cube...............

Meanwhile the venitains are having a meeting in copulahaven to consider their fate if they don't do something about climate change on Venus, they're hoping to send an expedition to earth to bust up some of the thick glacial ice covering and use it to reduce the temps on their planet to a sustainable level............

While all that's going on, the mercurite science institute is just preparing to release its findings on the 1000 year long study on whether to continue with the dePlanitization of the rock formerly known as Earth, as they suspect that it is just a big vapor cloud. The skeptics propose mounting an expedition to verify that earth is a solid mass and not a vapor cloud at all.



Stay tuned...........
JimK - DCSki Columnist
December 4, 2009
Member since 01/14/2004 🔗
2,739 posts
I haven't been paying much attention, but looks like both Langleyskier and Denis have dogs in this fight wink Personages 3 and 4 respectively. I guess the last guy on the list is Jimmy's dog. whistle
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Who_s-who-on-climate-frad-8625428-78462462.html
jimmy
December 4, 2009
Member since 03/5/2004 🔗
2,650 posts
Hey Jim that's great she says my dog should never be trusted again; I cannot imagine anyone trusted him in the first place. What kind of tabloid is this examiner anyways?

Remember the hole in the ozone layer? Guess where the guy who invented.....err i mean discovered that ended up?

Peer review???????
KevR
December 4, 2009
Member since 01/27/2004 🔗
786 posts
It was amazing, the verdict went down and the hole suddenly dissappeared.

Give me a break dude.
langleyskier
December 4, 2009
Member since 12/7/2004 🔗
824 posts
Originally Posted By: jimmy
"adopt me?" That would be a choice to respond to the theory.

we'll be out of coal anyway.


thats not going to make a lick of a difference... i am not going to adopt you, my neighbor, or anyone. Regardless of what happens, tax/whatever, of course it is going to be passed off to the consumer. I am not thinking that the gracious fossil fuel companies will all of a sudden kill any and all profit margin to absorb a new tax.



and actually we have a good 250 years of coal left... so no worries on that front... we can increase CO2 levels by 10000% if we really want to.
langleyskier
December 4, 2009
Member since 12/7/2004 🔗
824 posts
Originally Posted By: JimK
I haven't been paying much attention, but looks like both Langleyskier and Denis have dogs in this fight wink Personages 3 and 4 respectively. I guess the last guy on the list is Jimmy's dog. whistle
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Who_s-who-on-climate-frad-8625428-78462462.html


"Gore's case rests on the now-discredited theory that carbon dioxide emissions (which are increasing) are heating up the Earth's atmosphere, even though actual global temperatures have been declining for at least a decade."

Really??? please stop using articles with no factual data to back them up. We can not actually debate a topic when ppl are getting "news" from sources with far more of an agenda then those they are bashing.

I cant stand gore, he is a pompous a$$.. like nothing about the guy. But this trend (CO2) has NOTHING at ALL to do with the data these scientists in question dealt with. Please dont make me defend him. I am a conservative, but get my news from reputable sources (not fox OR cnn/nbc). Try maybe the BBC or other places that have less of an agenda.
KevR
December 4, 2009
Member since 01/27/2004 🔗
786 posts
Actually I would like to ask you guys what your plan is to deal with GW if you are wrong about it is not being an issue? And what do you need to see to be convinced it is a true phenom?

I mean you can admit you might be wrong, right?

(my plan if GW is proved not true would be to raise the cap on emissions or remove it entirely -- assuming we end up with a C&T system)
Tucker
December 4, 2009
Member since 03/14/2005 🔗
893 posts
It requires major change at the consumer level as well as the industry level...problem is people won't give up the comforts and industry won' give up the cash...it's a big hot death spiral...atleast the industry can cash in again on the "green industry"...
KeithT
December 4, 2009
Member since 11/17/2008 🔗
383 posts
We need some snow!!!! Poor JimK throws in a joke and gets a chair across the back.


.....running out the bar room door now as the beer bottles fly at me.

Opening day can't come soon enough.
David
December 4, 2009
Member since 06/28/2004 🔗
2,444 posts
Originally Posted By: Tucker
It requires major change at the consumer level as well as the industry level...problem is people won't give up the comforts and industry won' give up the cash...it's a big hot death spiral...atleast the industry can cash in again on the "green industry"...


Exactly my thoughts. And if we are wrong and emissions have nothing to do with global climate change then what did we lose?? Probably help out this country's weight problem in the process...
comprex
December 4, 2009
Member since 04/11/2003 🔗
1,326 posts
Originally Posted By: langleyskier
Try maybe the BBC or other places that have less of an agenda.


You do realize that the BBC is the Brit state television and the mouthpiece for their government, right?

And that the Brits are about as heavily invested in an AGW agenda as it is possible to be?
KevR
December 4, 2009
Member since 01/27/2004 🔗
786 posts
Yes clearly this all idealogically driven. I think that's a pretty unfortunate position to take.

But, you could still try to answer my question -- what if you are wrong?

What specifically would you do to address the issue and what kind of evidence would you need to be convinced that the phenom is real, manmade and possibly changable?
comprex
December 4, 2009
Member since 04/11/2003 🔗
1,326 posts
Originally Posted By: David

Exactly my thoughts. And if we are wrong and emissions have nothing to do with global climate change then what did we lose??


Jobs

Growth economy

Possibility for investments to support pensions and retirement for all workers who do invest, instead of investment being a /shrinking/ sum game.

Foreign investment (so currency value drops)

Fuel price trading in own currency (so gasoline prices shoot up every time the Dow trends down)

The ability to pay off domestic loans (T-bills falling behind inflation rates, frex)

...

Shall I go on?







comprex
December 4, 2009
Member since 04/11/2003 🔗
1,326 posts
Originally Posted By: KevR

What specifically would you do to address the issue


I've already told you:

Tax the living stink out of oil-based consumer-ready fuels, much as is done with cigarettes.

Tax the living stink out of restaurant and ready-prepared foods.

Introduce a nationwide government health care plan (paid for by the above taxes) so medical costs are -not- hit by inflation then allow inflation to happen on consumer goods.

Introduce source-materials legislation to demand computerized tracking of ingredients (like, did the "protein" part of the chicken feed/baby mix come from China?).

Tax double shipping based on the above (i.e. shipping of materials for processing abroad then reimport as finished goods).





KevR
December 4, 2009
Member since 01/27/2004 🔗
786 posts
Absolutely you should go on and explain in more detail your ideas that supports your contentions. You are basically sure GW effects are CHEAPER to deal with?

In fact, I would argue that putting a cost on emissions is in the end a growth creator, it will create more jobs than it loses mainly because it will force innovation, resulting in new goods and services.
comprex
December 4, 2009
Member since 04/11/2003 🔗
1,326 posts
Originally Posted By: KevR
You are basically sure GW effects are CHEAPER to deal with?


No, I am saying that the Cap and Trade system is an insanely pricey pacifier that won't even come close to fixing or even lessening the effects of GW.

The onus of proof is on you. Show me that C&T of human CO2 emissions can do squat to fix anything about GW,

(let alone leave an economy that isn't so crippled it can't deal with the costs that are coming anyway)

NONE of my proposals has anything to do with reducing overall CO2, and everything to do with creating an environment for production parity between countries that doesn't rely on cheap oil.
KevR
December 4, 2009
Member since 01/27/2004 🔗
786 posts
I'm not advocating C&T, I was just pointing out that it is a more free-market approach -- as it was stated as being a tax, which I think you'd agree is not true. A tax, is well a tax after all.

Anyway -- I'm still trying to understand your positions on the following:

1 - what you would personally need to see in order for you to be confinced that GW is in fact occurring or will occur

2- and once this has happened what you would do to try to fix it (assuming its man made)

Your throughts on "Tax the living stink out of oil-based consumer-ready fuels" doen't really answer the question as when you would impart such a tax which is important.
comprex
December 4, 2009
Member since 04/11/2003 🔗
1,326 posts
Originally Posted By: KevR
I'm not advocating C&T, I was just pointing out that it is a more free-market approach -- as it was stated as being a tax, which I think you'd agree is not true. A tax, is well a tax after all.


It is a volume cap. How would you feel if there was a volume cap on NYSE trading each day?


Quote:

1 - what you would personally need to see in order for you to be confinced that GW is in fact occurring or will occur


You're not reading my posts. I am already convinced that a CO2-linked warming trend exists.

Quote:

2- and once this has happened what you would do to try to fix it (assuming its man made)


We can't do jack to fix it without worldwide slaughter of humans.

Quote:

Your throughts on "Tax the living stink out of oil-based consumer-ready fuels" doen't really answer the question as when you would impart such a tax which is important.


Right now. For reasons that have nothing to do with CO2.
KevR
December 4, 2009
Member since 01/27/2004 🔗
786 posts
Well I try to read them -- ok so you would institute a direct tax right now for other reasons but it's going to occur anyway regardless, so you believe nothing can really be done.

Sort of a contrarian appoach!

Hey, at least one of you answered the dang question.
comprex
December 4, 2009
Member since 04/11/2003 🔗
1,326 posts
Originally Posted By: KevR
ok so you would institute a direct tax right now


Including on oil -burned abroad- for goods consumed here, did you notice that part?

Quote:
it's going to occur anyway regardless, so you believe nothing can really be done.


That's right. Because it's implicit in the way we use resources, grow food and live life.

Should nuclear power become sufficient to allow sequestration of carbon back into fossils, then that's a step ahead.

Quote:

Sort of a contrarian appoach!


Yup.

I firmly believe that there are no controversies that aren't created by in-the-box thinking.
David
December 4, 2009
Member since 06/28/2004 🔗
2,444 posts
Originally Posted By: comprex
Originally Posted By: David

Exactly my thoughts. And if we are wrong and emissions have nothing to do with global climate change then what did we lose??


Jobs

Growth economy

Possibility for investments to support pensions and retirement for all workers who do invest, instead of investment being a /shrinking/ sum game.

Foreign investment (so currency value drops)

Fuel price trading in own currency (so gasoline prices shoot up every time the Dow trends down)

The ability to pay off domestic loans (T-bills falling behind inflation rates, frex)

...

Shall I go on?


I was just suggesting starting small. Like riding a bike or walking instead of driving a 1/2 mile to the store...
comprex
December 4, 2009
Member since 04/11/2003 🔗
1,326 posts
Originally Posted By: David

I was just suggesting starting small. Like riding a bike or walking instead of driving a 1/2 mile to the store...


I'm good with starting small.

Starting small in my book would be not eating _any_ ready-packaged or ready-prepped food (or coffee or fountain drinks frex) for a year.

Get 3 million people in the US (one in 100) to commit to that challenge and you will have a bigger effect on CO2 emissions (and health, and land use, and the economy) than by having 3 million cyclists.
fishnski
December 4, 2009
Member since 03/27/2005 🔗
3,530 posts
I'm really enjoying this exchange!..OK..Here is what I have allready done....Bought 2 09 cars that are extremely fuel sufficient & Complying with Very strict Emission controls & I bought a new Engine for my Boat that gets incredible fuel milage with unheard of emissions..All of these replacing polluting fuel hogs .Total price...$55 Grand....Thats my Gift to me & the envirement..I don't want anybody to force me to pay a dime more.All you all Freaky Cats that are so alarmed by the intense heat & Sea rise that I'm assuming will hit us one day should put your money where you your freak is & start forking over!..meantime we got a good run of snow & cold here & i'm going to enjoy it & Ck out this Graph...how is that possible..it defies all science!
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
comprex
December 4, 2009
Member since 04/11/2003 🔗
1,326 posts
Here's another free idea for starting small:

100% compostable waste streams at ski resorts.

Keep the durable plastics out of the food and paper and biodegradable trash, primarily by not selling durable plastics in a food consumption area.
bawalker
December 4, 2009
Member since 12/1/2003 🔗
1,547 posts
Originally Posted By: langleyskier
Really??? please stop using articles with no factual data to back them up. We can not actually debate a topic when ppl are getting "news" from sources with far more of an agenda then those they are bashing.


HOT DOG!!! We can finally ignore the global warming scientists and their factual data!!!! *w00t*!
fishnski
December 4, 2009
Member since 03/27/2005 🔗
3,530 posts
You almost got my Vote Comprex but you are trying to get votes from the Greenies..
http://www.prisonplanet.com/scientist-predicts-ice-age-within-10-years.html
The Colonel - DCSki Supporter
December 4, 2009
Member since 03/5/2004 🔗
3,107 posts
Originally Posted By: KeithT
We need some snow!!!! Poor JimK throws in a joke and gets a chair across the back.

Opening day can't come soon enough.



I agree with Keith, we need snow and sliding on snow. For those so consumed by the GW issue, why not take it off line to another forum, and let's all DCSkiers spend a lot more effort writing about what we know best, and have factual data on...sliding on snow, our local resorts, etc. Pretty soon Scott is going to cut this GW "debate" off if we do not do it ourselves.
The Colonel smile
fishnski
December 4, 2009
Member since 03/27/2005 🔗
3,530 posts
Your not responding to any of the other posts Colonel.....Watts Up with That?...With all Due respect..& I do respect ya Sir!..its interesting..don't fight it!
Tucker
December 4, 2009
Member since 03/14/2005 🔗
893 posts
Startin' small is good...we have to start somewhere...I suggest all DC SKI skiers only ski at Timberline this season in order to save on electricity and to save the planet...the lifts at T-line run on an environmentally friendly method fueled by mice, cheese, and a small wheel made of recycled plastics...dude, imagine if all the resorts where as eager to address the GW...
jimmy
December 4, 2009
Member since 03/5/2004 🔗
2,650 posts
KevR as to answering your question, i assume that you are asking what, personally, i would do? Or do you mean what do i think should be done?

Colonel, with all due respect, if you want to talk about something please start a new thread, I'm sure lots of us would enjoy that; if you don't want to participate in this, don't. I think this has been a friendly discussion that has some relevance to winter sports. It has caused me and i hope others to reconsider some things regarding this issue, lots of good information has been shared and the posters have treated one another with respect. If Scott wants this cut off it will be.

Kev, I was raised to believe that if i worked hard, played by the rules and didn't waste stuff i would be sucessful in life. I may re-evaluate my definition of waste from time to time but i don't see me changing much personally. If you are asking if I were King of the world or President, the answer would be nothing, at least before 12/13/2012.
jimmy
December 4, 2009
Member since 03/5/2004 🔗
2,650 posts
Hey animal power, I think Tline's onto a real moneymaker there.

You ever seen a grain mill, the kind where the horse walks around and around and around in a circle, harnessed to a bar that drives the mill? I'm thinking replace the grinder with a generator and the horse(s) with some thing that doesn't produce methane and has mythical powers, maybe a couple o unicorns would do the trick?
Tucker
December 4, 2009
Member since 03/14/2005 🔗
893 posts
...I just heard this week that they were trying to engineer some sheep that burped less methane...because turns out they are finding the methane comes out the northern end of the digestive track and not the south end...man if they pull that off those sheep are going to have some stank breath...
fishnski
December 4, 2009
Member since 03/27/2005 🔗
3,530 posts
Quit Horsin around Jimmi..Get on Point!..Its uncool to have as many posts as I have made today/tonite..so I will have to refrain from any more responses...Ok..Ok Keep the cheering down...
jimmy
December 4, 2009
Member since 03/5/2004 🔗
2,650 posts
Fish how'd you get two stars back i got a feeling i'll be starting over in the morning.

Tucker, There's a WV joke somewhere in that engineered sheep post, gotta be.......anyways do you know how a sheep rides switch in the bumps?
Tucker
December 4, 2009
Member since 03/14/2005 🔗
893 posts
...yeah, the same way a skier does...awkwardly...yeah I know, damn snowboarders...
jimmy
December 5, 2009
Member since 03/5/2004 🔗
2,650 posts
Baaa BAAA BAaaaaaaDLY laugh
fishnski
December 5, 2009
Member since 03/27/2005 🔗
3,530 posts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gefSwMCTjuc

I use Fishnski but my real name is Bob..Bob-a-Bouy...Now you know how I really feel....
fishnski
December 17, 2009
Member since 03/27/2005 🔗
3,530 posts
Just a quick update from Copenhagen,Denmark where the GW..Climate change (Handout to 3rd world countries by Taxing US) conference is taking place..Its 23 degrees with low blowing snow this aft..normal high is 37 with a low of 30..Temps running about 8 degrees below normal for the next few days. Al Gore is making statements Like the Arctic ice all gone in 5 years(looking very healthy right now)..Mosquitos having to climb higher up in elevation(been recorded at high places for decades), trees dying all over the place..floods ,droughts & the coming Sunami & the greenies & huggers are a little cold but just lovin the speeches...
snowsmith - DCSki Supporter
December 17, 2009
Member since 03/15/2004 🔗
1,377 posts
Is this post really necessary. It's ski season and most of us would prefer to hear about skiing rather than someone's personnal political opinions which we really don't care about. We all have our opinions on this subject, but I'm not sure we really all want to hear about them. There are other forums that you can express your opinion on this subject.
Thank you and Happy Holidays!
fishnski
December 17, 2009
Member since 03/27/2005 🔗
3,530 posts
Whats up with that?..(Freezing cold funny face)
jimmy
December 17, 2009
Member since 03/5/2004 🔗
2,650 posts
I was glad, seriously, to see some deal on stopping the deforestization of the rainforest. The carbon emmission negotiations are going way more better than i had hoped wink .

edit to add Andy I LOL everytime you write that you are going to Gore, going to Gore for Christmas (is it still ok to say Christmas here in the Republik) going to Gore for new years....... wuts this going to gore like going to the dawgs, Dog?

Merry Christmas
snowsmith - DCSki Supporter
December 17, 2009
Member since 03/15/2004 🔗
1,377 posts
I come to this site to escape reality, not to be constantly reminded of it. I can go to politico.com, etc., etc, etc. Skiing is our passion, not politics...correct?
fishnski
December 17, 2009
Member since 03/27/2005 🔗
3,530 posts
You cannot Ski unless there are winters Snowsmith. I started to Study Global Warming back when the hoopla started because I was scared to death that a major investment for me in Canaan was going to just burn up & the place I loved would be ruined by the warming. I tried not to panic & to chill for awhile & just study the situation instead of listening to others..like the lady in my office who told me today that Al Gore was a great man & knew very much & that if I didn't believe her I should just go out & watch "an inconvenient truth"...Thats the kind of brain washing I was trying to avoid!...If I thought that we were really in trouble I would have a place in NH right now..No Problem..but I'm hangin tough!..my main reason for posting this stuff is to give folks hope..that there is time to correct some problems & to NOT PANIC!...

Here is my politics...this map shows a northern Hemisphere about as healthy a it gets...actually above ave..chill..thats what the planet is doing!
http://www.natice.noaa.gov/pub/ims_gif/DATA/cursnow.gif

PS..+..everyone knows what this thread is about..you included Snowsmith..if you really wanted to escape you could have just ignored it..
Scott - DCSki Editor
December 17, 2009
Member since 10/10/1999 🔗
1,149 posts
I get sick of pointing out that politically-based global warming discussions have no place on DCSki. I'm once again receiving e-mails from readers upset by this type of thread who are coming to DCSki expecting to see ski-related discussions and coverage, and seeing this junk instead.

Let it rest. I've made it clear that these kinds of "discussions" have no place on DCSki because they only drive away readers; there are other venues for this kind of crap. Posting in the forums is a privilege, not a right, and I have pretty straightforward and reasonable guidelines on what is or isn't acceptable. If individual(s) continue to have trouble understanding where the line is, I'm not going to waste my limited time trying to explain it over and over; next time, I'm simply going to disable account(s).

Yeah, I have a short fuse right now. If I had had more than a dozen hours of sleep in the past week I might be more diplomatic. This is starting to feel like Groundhog Day. For the sake of the silent majority of DCSki readers and my own sanity, this stops now.
DCSki Sponsor: Seven Springs Resort

Ski and Tell

Speak truth to powder.

Join the conversation by logging in.

Don't have an account? Create one here.

0.25 seconds