WWTBAM Bored

A home for the weary.
It is currently Fri May 26, 2017 2:45 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 334 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 14  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun May 22, 2011 10:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:37 pm
Posts: 7172
Location: South Carolina
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2011 ... ouse-gases

Quote:
“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, one by one.”


Quote:
We conclude that atmospheric CO2 levels should be above 150 ppm to avoid harming green plants and below about 5000 ppm to avoid harming people. That is a very wide range, and our atmosphere is much closer to the lower end than to the upper end.

_________________
Suitguy is not bitter.

We will never get to The Jetsons by going back to The Flintstones

When governments are capable of errors of judgment on this scale it’s little wonder the public has grown weary of experts. We should not be surprised at this distrust of politicians who outsource vital decisions to mediocrities and act on sentiment rather than evidence


Last edited by themanintheseersuckersuit on Wed Mar 02, 2016 6:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun May 22, 2011 3:10 pm 
Offline
Queen of Wack
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
Posts: 8096
Location: Location.Location.Location
themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/05/the-truth-about-greenhouse-gases

Quote:
“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, one by one.”


Quote:
We conclude that atmospheric CO2 levels should be above 150 ppm to avoid harming green plants and below about 5000 ppm to avoid harming people. That is a very wide range, and our atmosphere is much closer to the lower end than to the upper end.


Just a random fact that has nothing to do with this discussion, other than elements hanging around, oxygen, silicon, aluminum and carbon are the earth's crust's most abundant. I blame the errant carbons that are popping up as we walk our dry pathways right now. Hey! It could happen.

_________________
Oh please.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun May 22, 2011 4:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:37 pm
Posts: 7172
Location: South Carolina
Any chance of rain this week?

_________________
Suitguy is not bitter.

We will never get to The Jetsons by going back to The Flintstones

When governments are capable of errors of judgment on this scale it’s little wonder the public has grown weary of experts. We should not be surprised at this distrust of politicians who outsource vital decisions to mediocrities and act on sentiment rather than evidence


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun May 22, 2011 4:49 pm 
Offline
Queen of Wack
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
Posts: 8096
Location: Location.Location.Location
themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:
Any chance of rain this week?


Actually, the usual 20-30 percent on Thursday or something. We had a sprinkle the other day. It's rather scary. We've had maybe an inch since January. Houston had a 95 day between 1/2 inch events (from the website) since January to April. We have no water restrictions yet, which I attribute to the extreme fire danger. Because, I guarantee you that if this were in the summer after a normal spring, including the usual 14 or so inches of rain for four months, we would have been on an every other day. I figure they want peeps to keep their immediate vicinity semi-wet. It's crazy.

_________________
Oh please.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun May 22, 2011 4:52 pm 
Offline
Queen of Wack
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
Posts: 8096
Location: Location.Location.Location
And, even though Dot is ridden with dust we don't water our backyard dirt (i.e. natural area) just to do so. So, we gotchur billowing clouds'o'dirt ala Grapes of Wrath.

_________________
Oh please.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun May 22, 2011 7:39 pm 
Offline
FNGD Forum Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 6:09 pm
Posts: 3655
Beebs52 wrote:
themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:
Any chance of rain this week?


Actually, the usual 20-30 percent on Thursday or something. We had a sprinkle the other day. It's rather scary. We've had maybe an inch since January. Houston had a 95 day between 1/2 inch events (from the website) since January to April. We have no water restrictions yet, which I attribute to the extreme fire danger. Because, I guarantee you that if this were in the summer after a normal spring, including the usual 14 or so inches of rain for four months, we would have been on an every other day. I figure they want peeps to keep their immediate vicinity semi-wet. It's crazy.



Please take some from us. Stephen Harper will build you a canal. The ^&*^))*( Richelieu River is still in spring flood condition, and I am sure the farmers are saying they can't get to their fields. Apparently only the apple trees are happy.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun May 22, 2011 7:54 pm 
Offline
FNGD Forum Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 6:09 pm
Posts: 3655
Oh, one piece of advice:

Don't give away your rowboats yet.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon May 23, 2011 8:43 am 
Offline
Bored Pun-dit
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 6:36 am
Posts: 3093
themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/05/the-truth-about-greenhouse-gases

Quote:
“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, one by one.”


Quote:
We conclude that atmospheric CO2 levels should be above 150 ppm to avoid harming green plants and below about 5000 ppm to avoid harming people. That is a very wide range, and our atmosphere is much closer to the lower end than to the upper end.

You're joking, right? You keep posting links and I'm not sure why I keep bothering to follow them, but maybe one will actually have something of real value that will support your position instead of misdirection and logical fallacies.

BTW, count me in the delusional set of those who follow the herds in such concepts as a heliocentric solar system, the atomic theory, the germ theory, the theory of electro-magnetic radiation, plate tectonics, gravitational theory, evolutionary theory, and so on and on…

Even the quote you highlighted in your post has nothing to do whatsoever with ‘Global Warming’ but both you and William Happer try to confuse the issue. It is in regards to what level of CO2 is toxic to people from the point of breathing it in. To my knowledge, concerns that people have about C02 emissions has never been about it hitting levels that it would kill us to breathe it in. So his (and yours) inclusion of this is only to throw in more FUD and is irrelevant to the potential cause and effects of climate change, which is the discussion at hand.

The article is riddled with such misdirection that it has to have been intentional, which tells me he is not an honest scientist on this subject but trying to win a scientific argument using tricks to fool non-scientists in the court of public opinion. Shame on him.

In addition, he peddles himself as an expert in the area without stating that he is a physicist whose work has been in optics not in climate – but he states he is:
Quote:
a working scientist with a better background than most in the physics of climate.

I tried to find any published, peer-reviewed papers of his in the area of climate, I came up blank (granted it was a quick search, but the only hits seemed to be statements before congress and opinion pieces like this one). If I’m wrong and he has done extensive (or even minimal) scientific research on the subject and published his results, I’m sure you would be able to point them out to me. So, when he says that he has a ‘better background than most’ clearly he is talking about the lay public – not the people who spend their careers working in the area he is challenging. Again, he is playing the game of misdirection to mislead the lay reader.

My only conclusion that still seems to hold as to why you keep posting this nonsense is that your are, in a subtle way, trying to discredit the deniers.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon May 23, 2011 9:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:35 pm
Posts: 7206
Location: City of Champions Once More (Well, in spirit)!!!!
For me, the first clue is that it was published in First Things.

_________________
1979 City of Champions 2009


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon May 23, 2011 9:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:37 pm
Posts: 7172
Location: South Carolina
Point one CO2 toxic? yes or no?

Point 2 Are CO2 levels near the higher or lower end of concentrations over geologic time? higher or lower?

Point 3 there is very little correlation between the estimates of CO2 and of the earth’s temperature over the past 550 million years? yes or no?

Point 4 Was there a LIA and MWP?

Point 5 Do you agree with Madison "no man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time.”

Point 6 The combination of a slightly warmer earth and more CO2 will greatly increase the production of food, wood, fiber, and other products by green plants, so the increase will be good for the planet, and will easily outweigh any negative effects.
Agree or disagree

Point 7 The frightening warnings that alarmists offer about the effects of doubling CO2 are based on computer models that assume that the direct warming effect of CO2 is multiplied by a large “feedback factor” from CO2-induced changes in water vapor and clouds, which supposedly contribute much more to the greenhouse warming of the earth than CO2. But there is observational evidence that the feedback factor is small and may even be negative. The models are not in good agreement with observations—even if they appear to fit the temperature rise over the last 150 years very well. True or False

_________________
Suitguy is not bitter.

We will never get to The Jetsons by going back to The Flintstones

When governments are capable of errors of judgment on this scale it’s little wonder the public has grown weary of experts. We should not be surprised at this distrust of politicians who outsource vital decisions to mediocrities and act on sentiment rather than evidence


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon May 23, 2011 9:45 am 
Offline
Bored Pun-dit
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 6:36 am
Posts: 3093
themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:
Point one CO2 toxic? yes or no?
Irrelevant to its effect on climate
themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:
Point 2 Are CO2 levels near the higher or lower end of concentrations over geologic time? higher or lower?
In regards to having a direct effect on human health, irrelevant. To its effect on climate, I'm not the expert, but we live in a different ecosystem now then 100 million years ago (or any other timeframe that you might want to cite as having different CO2 levels) - so a single data point of how much was the concentration of CO2 was back then is not all that important by itself.
themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:


Point 3 there is very little correlation between the estimates of CO2 and of the earth’s temperature over the past 550 million years? yes or no?
I honestly don't know. Is correlation the only thing that the climatoligests are using to base their conclusions on?
themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:


Point 4 Was there a LIA and MWP?
Appears to have been. So what?
themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:

Point 5 Do you agree with Madison "no man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time.”
That is why we have peer review. Scientists are more sensitive to unpercieved bias than probably any other group of professions on Earth. The entire 'scientific method' is based on trying to find even more and more ways in which bias might slip in and methods to prevent it from occurring or corrupting the process. Scientists are not only acutely aware about it but actively work to mitigate it. Lawyers and politicians, from what I've seen, seem to work to exploit a bias if it benifits their argument or position.
themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:


Point 6 The combination of a slightly warmer earth and more CO2 will greatly increase the production of food, wood, fiber, and other products by green plants, so the increase will be good for the planet, and will easily outweigh any negative effects.
Agree or disagree
No idea
themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:


Point 7 The frightening warnings that alarmists offer about the effects of doubling CO2 are based on computer models that assume that the direct warming effect of CO2 is multiplied by a large “feedback factor” from CO2-induced changes in water vapor and clouds, which supposedly contribute much more to the greenhouse warming of the earth than CO2. But there is observational evidence that the feedback factor is small and may even be negative. The models are not in good agreement with observations—even if they appear to fit the temperature rise over the last 150 years very well. True or False

No idea if what you what you wrote is factual or not.

My point is, why should I take anything in the article seriously when it is clear that is full of misleading arguments, contains no references to any scientific papers to support is positions and is trying to appeal to the lay person in clearly a misleading fashion.

I can make-up tons of 'valid' arguments that seem to make sense on the surface to 'disprove' a wide range of accepted scientific knowledge - e.g. Scientists claim we are traveling at 155 miles/sec around the Milky Way. If I go in my car and drive even at 45 miles/hour with the windows down, the force of the wind is huge. If scientists are correct we would be experience wind forces thousands of times more powerful than the worst hurricanes ever recorded, all the time. Clearly these so-called scientists are wrong.

Why is my argument invalid? Is it obvious, especially to the lay person? If the scientific response was provided, do you think it would be hard to provide another 'logical' and 'obvious' reason they were wrong?

If he published some real research, did the hard work, show the supporting evidence to back his claims, then I would take the time to see if there was anything to what he is claiming.

The problem with most of the stuff that I've seen you referenced (and I try to read nearly all of it), is it falls into the same type of approach as the creationists use - that is an appeal to the public and politicians without anyone really doing the hard work of real science to back it up. The fact that nearly all of it contains such elemental logical fallicies does not inspire me to accept what they are saying at face value.

The point of doing the work through the rigours of science is exactly the point Madison was making that you quoted above. They don't follow that approach and are taking the lazy way out. They might be right, but they have to show the rigor and integrity that working scientists need to do for me to pay any attention to them.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon May 23, 2011 9:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:35 pm
Posts: 7206
Location: City of Champions Once More (Well, in spirit)!!!!
frogman042 wrote:
The point of doing the work through the rigours of science is exactly the point Madison was making that you quoted above. They don't follow that approach and are taking the lazy way out. They might be right, but they have to show the rigor and integrity that working scientists need to do for me to pay any attention to them.


Even worse...not only do these folks not do their own research...they make the (not so) subtle implication that the AGW scientists don't either- i.e. that they just ASSUME that correlation between increasing CO2 and increasing temperatures means causation, and haven't actually set out and done actual science to attempt to establish that.

That is...these guys don't do any research themselves, and then belittle those who actually DO.

Always with the fallback excuse of- "Well, we DO try to do research, but the powers that be conspire against us, so we can't get our findings published".

_________________
1979 City of Champions 2009


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon May 23, 2011 12:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:37 pm
Posts: 7172
Location: South Carolina
thank you for your response

Now name one prediction that the proponents of CAGW have gotten right?

_________________
Suitguy is not bitter.

We will never get to The Jetsons by going back to The Flintstones

When governments are capable of errors of judgment on this scale it’s little wonder the public has grown weary of experts. We should not be surprised at this distrust of politicians who outsource vital decisions to mediocrities and act on sentiment rather than evidence


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon May 23, 2011 12:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:37 pm
Posts: 7172
Location: South Carolina
frogman042 wrote:
themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:
Point one CO2 toxic? yes or no?
Irrelevant to its effect on climate


Image

_________________
Suitguy is not bitter.

We will never get to The Jetsons by going back to The Flintstones

When governments are capable of errors of judgment on this scale it’s little wonder the public has grown weary of experts. We should not be surprised at this distrust of politicians who outsource vital decisions to mediocrities and act on sentiment rather than evidence


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon May 23, 2011 1:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 2656
Location: Lacey, Washington
themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:
frogman042 wrote:
themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:
Point one CO2 toxic? yes or no?
Irrelevant to its effect on climate


Image


Another stupid politician that got himself elected. His main qualification: He knows how to get people to vote for him. He has no clue about anything else.

_________________
Arkansas Gulls -2007 BBBL Champions


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon May 23, 2011 3:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:35 pm
Posts: 7206
Location: City of Champions Once More (Well, in spirit)!!!!
themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:
frogman042 wrote:
themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:
Point one CO2 toxic? yes or no?
Irrelevant to its effect on climate


Image


Um...trying to see where that sign refers to regulating CO2.

Instead it talks about not weakening the Clean Air Act...something the Bush Administration tried to do.

_________________
1979 City of Champions 2009


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon May 23, 2011 4:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:37 pm
Posts: 7172
Location: South Carolina
Jeemie wrote:
themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:
frogman042 wrote:
Irrelevant to its effect on climate


Image


Um...trying to see where that sign refers to regulating CO2.

Instead it talks about not weakening the Clean Air Act...something the Bush Administration tried to do.


Jeemie, are there any ongoing proposals to weaken the Clean Air Act, other than reversing the Endangerment Finding regarding CO2? If not why the political ads by a charity that receives grants from the US government?

_________________
Suitguy is not bitter.

We will never get to The Jetsons by going back to The Flintstones

When governments are capable of errors of judgment on this scale it’s little wonder the public has grown weary of experts. We should not be surprised at this distrust of politicians who outsource vital decisions to mediocrities and act on sentiment rather than evidence


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon May 23, 2011 4:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:37 pm
Posts: 7172
Location: South Carolina
frogman042 wrote:
[That is why we have peer review. Scientists are more sensitive to unpercieved bias than probably any other group of professions on Earth. The entire 'scientific method' is based on trying to find even more and more ways in which bias might slip in and methods to prevent it from occurring or corrupting the process. Scientists are not only acutely aware about it but actively work to mitigate it. Lawyers and politicians, from what I've seen, seem to work to exploit a bias if it benifits their argument or position.


Here is your peer reviewed paper of the day.

http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/8/4/985/pdf

_________________
Suitguy is not bitter.

We will never get to The Jetsons by going back to The Flintstones

When governments are capable of errors of judgment on this scale it’s little wonder the public has grown weary of experts. We should not be surprised at this distrust of politicians who outsource vital decisions to mediocrities and act on sentiment rather than evidence


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2011 9:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:37 pm
Posts: 7172
Location: South Carolina
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=aJ ... 4%2C139587


Quote:
Leona Marshall Libby Dies; Sole Woman to Work on Fermi's 1st Nuclear Reactor
November 13, 1986

Leona Marshall Libby, the only woman to work on Enrico Fermi's first nuclear reactor at Stagg Field at the University of Chicago--which brought about the atomic age--has died, it was reported Wednesday.

Mrs. Libby, most recently an adjunct professor of environmental science and engineering at UCLA, was 67.

Her son, John Marshall III, said she died Monday night at St. John's Medical Center in Santa Monica. He did not disclose a cause of death but said his mother had been ill for some time.


http://articles.latimes.com/1986-11-13/ ... ar-reactor

_________________
Suitguy is not bitter.

We will never get to The Jetsons by going back to The Flintstones

When governments are capable of errors of judgment on this scale it’s little wonder the public has grown weary of experts. We should not be surprised at this distrust of politicians who outsource vital decisions to mediocrities and act on sentiment rather than evidence


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2011 10:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:55 am
Posts: 27658
Location: Elsewhere
Is there a reason within the linked articles that you didn't quote, explaining why you're listing an obituary from 1986?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2011 11:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:44 am
Posts: 1570
"Werewolf?"

"There, wolf."

http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

Quote:
There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.


Quote:
Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.



Newsweek, 1975.

But I'm sure they got it right this time...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2011 11:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:37 pm
Posts: 7172
Location: South Carolina
MarleysGh0st wrote:
Is there a reason within the linked articles that you didn't quote, explaining why you're listing an obituary from 1986?


In the first graf of the 1979 article, the late Ms. Marshall shows some skill as a climate forecaster

Quote:
The forecast is for continued cool weather over the Earth through the mid 1980s with a global warming trend setting in thereafter for the rest of the century followed by a severe cold snap after 2000, a cold snap that might well last throughout the first half of the 21st century.

_________________
Suitguy is not bitter.

We will never get to The Jetsons by going back to The Flintstones

When governments are capable of errors of judgment on this scale it’s little wonder the public has grown weary of experts. We should not be surprised at this distrust of politicians who outsource vital decisions to mediocrities and act on sentiment rather than evidence


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2011 2:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:44 am
Posts: 1570
"Wolf!"

Hmm, "they" didn't get this quite right.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110527/sc_nm/us_australia_cows

Quote:
SINGAPORE (Reuters) – Australia's huge cattle herd in the north might be burping less planet-warming methane emissions than thought, a study released on Friday shows, suggesting the cows are more climate friendly.


One wonders what else "they" didn't get right (besides that global cooling "they" insisted was going to occur in 1975).

Quote:
Scientists say changing the diets of sheep and cattle can reduce emissions from agriculture.


Whew, thank goodness "they've" got a solution.

Quote:
And such steps could also earn carbon credits in a new emissions trading program being debated in the Australian parliament.


Ah, could this be the reason? Plain old fashioned greed?

What would Al do?

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/11/03/al-gore-the-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire/

Admittedly, it's a bit dated now - 2009 - but it does show a possible motive for the whole schtick:

Quote:
As a private citizen, Gore does not have to disclose his income or assets, as he did in his years in Congress and the White House, but when he left government in early 2001, he listed assets of less than $2 million, including homes in suburban Washington and in Tennessee. "Since then, his net worth has skyrocketed, helped by timely investments in Apple and Google, profits from books and his movie, and scores of speeches for which he can be paid more than $100,000, although he often speaks at no charge," Broder reports.

Today, Gore does not reveal his net worth, but the fact that he was able to single-handedly make a $35 million investment in Capricorn Investment Group, a private equity fund started by his friend Jeff Skoll, the Silicon Valley entrepreneur and film producer, speaks volumes about the magnitude of his wealth.

Some of Gore's private sector green tech activities include:

· Founder of, and investor in, London-based Generation Investment Management, which is run by David Blood, a former head of Goldman Sachs Asset Management

· Partner at, and investor in, Kleiner Perkins.

· Invested in partnerships and funds that try to "identify and support companies that are advancing cutting-edge green technologies and are paving the way toward a low-carbon economy."

· Stake in "the world's pre-eminent carbon credit trading market and in an array of companies in bio-fuels, sustainable fish farming, electric vehicles and solar power."

· Adviser to high-profile technology companies including Apple and Google, "relationships that have paid him handsome dividends over the last eight years."

· Capricorn has invested in Falcon Waterfree Technologies, the world's leading maker of waterless urinals.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jun 20, 2011 12:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:37 pm
Posts: 7172
Location: South Carolina
I love a good rant http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... te-masada/

Quote:
The Man Made Global Warming industry is a crock, a scam on an epic scale, fed by the world’s biggest outbreak of mass hysteria, stoked by politicians dying for an excuse to impose more tax and regulation on us while being seen to “care” about an issue of pressing urgency, fuelled by the shrill lies and tear-jerking propaganda of activists possessed of no understanding of the real world other than a chippy instinctive hatred of capitalism, given a veneer of scientific respectability by post-normal scientists who believe their job is to behave like politicians rather than dispassionate seekers-after-truth, cheered on by rent-seeking businesses, financed by the EU, the UN and the charitable foundations of the guilt-ridden rich, and promoted at every turn by schoolteachers, college lecturers, organic muesli packets, Walkers crisps, the BBC, CNBC, Al Gore, the Prince Of Wales, David Suzuki, the British Antarctic Survey, Barack Obama, David Cameron and Knut – the late, dyslexic-challenging, baby polar bear, formerly of Berlin Zoo.

_________________
Suitguy is not bitter.

We will never get to The Jetsons by going back to The Flintstones

When governments are capable of errors of judgment on this scale it’s little wonder the public has grown weary of experts. We should not be surprised at this distrust of politicians who outsource vital decisions to mediocrities and act on sentiment rather than evidence


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jul 28, 2011 11:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:37 pm
Posts: 7172
Location: South Carolina
Quote:
NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.


http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-ga ... 34971.html

_________________
Suitguy is not bitter.

We will never get to The Jetsons by going back to The Flintstones

When governments are capable of errors of judgment on this scale it’s little wonder the public has grown weary of experts. We should not be surprised at this distrust of politicians who outsource vital decisions to mediocrities and act on sentiment rather than evidence


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 334 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 14  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: kroxquo, silverscreenselect and 13 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Americanized by Maël Soucaze.