zaphod
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 210
|
Post by zaphod on Jan 11, 2015 16:41:10 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 11, 2015 17:17:42 GMT
Maybe they will get lucky and withdraw at the bottom?   |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 11, 2015 19:29:21 GMT
I have a better idea for Stanford. Withdraw from any fossil fuel supplied energy. It should be easy enough for the energy company only to supply power from windmills and solar farms to Stanford at the costs for those power supplies and at their reliability and the proportion of power given to the grid. I wonder how long they would last before they _gasp_ had to use their standby 'fossil fuel' generators to keep their computers running? Academics do not make good engineers. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 21, 2015 17:32:30 GMT
www.wsj.com/articles/holman-jenkins-climate-reportings-hot-mess-1421802468News reporting of the latest climate alarm was not uniformly bad. Among hundreds of publications in the Factiva database, exactly one—the Mail on Sunday, one of those derided London tabloids—injected the phrase “statistically significant” into consideration of whether 2014 was in any meaningful sense the “hottest year on record.”
|
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Jan 21, 2015 17:51:29 GMT
The Stanford boys should simply stop consuming the stuff, as its evil. The companies will stop producing oil for them with out any further dialog. Its not mandatory to consume the stuff.
|
|
zaphod
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 210
|
Post by zaphod on Jan 27, 2015 4:25:43 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 1, 2015 20:07:40 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 1, 2015 20:10:31 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 1, 2015 21:26:52 GMT
Yep, and its a model projection. No doubt using pretty much the same computer models they used in 2008 to predict arctic ice would be gone by 2013. This nonsense will not stop until the flow of money stops. |
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Feb 2, 2015 15:37:49 GMT
Climate of Hate: His children are urged to kill him, he's compared to Adolf Hitler and labelled a 'denier' – even though he's Jewish.
Disturbing article reveals what happens if you dare to doubt the Green prophets of doom Journalist David Rose has been labelled a 'climate change denier' Wrote article about scientists covering up data in 'climategate' scandal He believes 'renewable' sources such as wind and 'biomass' are futile One online commenter urged Mr Rose's own children to murder him By David Rose for The Mail on Sunday Published: 17:07 EST, 31 January 2015 | Updated: 04:48 EST, 1 February 2015 www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2934540/What-happens-dare-doubt-Green-prophets-doom.html
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 11, 2015 5:24:44 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 12, 2015 22:30:00 GMT
|
|
zaphod
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 210
|
Post by zaphod on Feb 15, 2015 16:35:21 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 15, 2015 18:00:46 GMT
The research continues. During the early 80's, my cousin was a pilot. Guess what he did? And every govt agency denied they were doing anything. However, the farmers who got all the dog gone rain, (records to this day), during harvest didn't think this was so funny. Reason he confirmed it was his dad had just as much trouble with harvest as I did. We left a lot of crop in the fields, and what we harvested was poor quality. 20+ inches of rain in 3 weeks during our "drier" season. And by the time it was all said and done, it was over 30", in six weeks time. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 15, 2015 18:37:34 GMT
David Small | February 15, 2015 at 1:11 pm | Reply
I started a PhD program in Environmental Engineering because I worried about climate change. It didn’t take long for me to become a skeptic. My first paper, a study about precipitation intensity over the U.S., was rejected by reviewers because it contradicted the climate model projections. Though they could find nothing wrong with the methodology, they decided observational data must be flawed because climate models couldn’t possibly be wrong and wrote that the paper could not be published. I then started reading the atmospheric science literature about precipitation trends. It was clear to me that the theory about changes in precipitation intensity were designed to explain climate model results that didn’t mesh with observations. When I found that changes in observed precipitation were largest in autumn, and did not find the same patterns of precipitation in climate models outputs, I really became skeptical about the use of climate models. When I started working with climate models and saw how poorly they reproduce precipitation patterns, I was forced into the realization that the “science” was being fit to the models and that the models were not very realistic. From my perspective, this runs contrary to the scientific method. After finishing my PhD in Environmental Engineering, I earned a M.S. in Atmospheric Science and started working on a PhD. As I learned more about meteorology and atmospheric dynamics, I started to see the contradictions in the climate change discussion. I had another paper refused by a high profile journal because it showed that cold air is required to produce the conditions that cause storm surges in the western Canadian arctic. That suggestion really seemed to upset the editor (an engineer) who wouldn’t even send it out for review. My later research has shown the importance of strong jets and cold air in building the blocking ridges that cause the extreme weather we’ve seen over the last two autumns/winters. The claims that are being made that a warming of the arctic will lead to warmer conditions in the mid-latitudes because it will cause more blocking are preposterous because strong jets are needed to support the blocking ridges. I received dozens of letters saying my published paper must be wrong because I suggest that strong jets, not weak jets, cause blocking. Most of the claims being made by climate change advocates appear to run contrary to basic meteorology. As I’ve been attacked personally and professionally for offering contrary views, I decided to leave the field. I will defend my Atmospheric Science PhD thesis and walk away. It’s become clear to me that it is not possible to undertake independent research in any area that touches upon climate change if you have to make your living as a professional scientist on government grant money or have to rely on getting tenure at a university. The massive group think that I have encountered on this topic has cost me my career, many colleagues and has damaged my reputation among the few people I know in the field. I’m leaving to work in the financial industry. It’s a sad day when you feel that you have to leave a field that you are passionately interested in because you fear that you won’t be able to find a job once your views become widely known. Until free thought is allowed in the climate sciences, I will consider myself a skeptic of catastrophic human induced global warming.
|
|
