Steve Lewis

Steve Lewis 3 weeks, 4 days ago on Sureva Towler: 1970s were ‘groovy’

Thanks Sureva. I was glad to catch some of that flavor arriving in '79. The typical vehicles on Lincoln then were old pickups and beat up Subarus. That seemed emblematic of priorities better placed, on cows, hay meadows and mountain trails. Steamboat has taught me so much and there's more to learn. Have a wonderful reunion.

0

Steve Lewis 1 month, 2 weeks ago on Steamboat City Council takes step toward adding riverside park on Yampa Street

"Sonja Macys didn't want to act on any of the Yampa Street recommendations until the council was presented with a clear plan for what it would take to maintain the new amenities."

Thank you Sonja. I support that council is trying to do what 2A ballot proponents promised - purchase of park space on Yampa. But before making such a purchase, I believe council must clearly establish who will be paying to maintain it.

0

Steve Lewis 1 month, 3 weeks ago on City of Steamboat Springs will create new environmental sustainability committee

Local foods and efficient use of resources are good goals, not bad goals. We all have our view of conditions 10, 20 and 30 years out, and while the views are different each of us does apply them to our planning. That to me is the meaning of "sustainability".

My own view favors economic stability in these futures, and self-sufficiency in our remote setting would be some defense for that. I'm nervous about disruption and expect a big one when the flights become a marginal business proposition.

We may disagree about sustainable practices, yes. But the topic belongs on the table.

0

Steve Lewis 3 months, 4 weeks ago on Ben Beall: Where are GenXers, millennials?

Fred, SB700, if its annexation had passed, would be a series of bankrupt entities today - sunk by the road/sewer infrastructure and other contracts made as the recession hit. Danny might be long gone, but the City would have a pile of litigation and one or two upside down municipal taxing districts to sort out.

The City is currently sending the message that more taxes are needed for servicing the City we already have, so the demands on the next annexing property will also be very costly. Why would the City take the risk with another partner? Same reason as before. Maybe we'll call it "available housing".

Sorry to disagree with you Ben, but I think allowing new landowners into the UGB can be a good thing.

0

Steve Lewis 4 months, 3 weeks ago on David Moss: Climate change context

My hysteria mongering… ? Comrade …? You don't sound like a scientist, Steve.

From what I read, Dr. Curry believes as I do - 1) the earth is getting warmer, 2) humans are contributing to the warming, and 3) we should try to reduce our impacts. None of your links indicate she is recanting any of these views. She mainly argues the models are too sensitive and need correction. Her most recent article link refers to a period of flat temperatures, which she calls a "hiatus" from a warming trend which she expects to return.

Is she hysterical? Where is the fraud? Steve, you are the one cherry picking Dr. Curry's text to make claims she herself would deny.

0

Steve Lewis 4 months, 4 weeks ago on David Moss: Climate change context

Steve Mendell,

You quote Dr. Curry several times in your arguments. Surely you have come across the larger body of her commentary. If she does not agree with your position, this inconvenient fact should be worth your acknowledgment as you quote her. No?

0

Steve Lewis 4 months, 4 weeks ago on David Moss: Climate change context

"Lomborg gets it right when he calls for an ambitious public investment program in clean-energy technologies. But he mistakenly assumes that existing technologies and strategies can't make a big dent in carbon emissions at an affordable price. We're developing hybrid and electric cars, building wind farms and ocean wave energy stations. New batteries, fuel cells and solar panels are smaller, better and cheaper than they were just a few years ago. I am in awe of the new technologies that I see being developed at Georgia Tech, and such research is happening at the nation's major research universities and in the private sector."

"As scientists continue to challenge and improve the quality and understanding of climate records and models, skepticism by scientists conducting such research is alive and well. But oversimplifying the situation, using misleading information and presenting false choices is not useful in the public debate over global warming."

"... a sensible debate has begun on how to best respond to global warming -- in national and local governments, universities and the private sector -- in the U.S. and around the world. There is no easy solution to this problem; the challenge is how best to develop options that are feasible, efficient, viable and scalable. Lomborg is correct to be concerned about the possibility of bad policy choices. But I have yet to see any option that is worse than ignoring the risk of global warming and doing nothing."

0

Steve Lewis 4 months, 4 weeks ago on David Moss: Climate change context

"I have yet to see any option that is worse than ignoring the risk of global warming and doing nothing." - Dr Judith Curry

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/10/AR2007101002157.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Interesting lady. She seems adamant that a tribal approach to the science of climate change is bad, on both sides. The above quote comes from her rebuttal of climate change skeptic, Bjorn Lomborg. From the same article by Curry:

"In his Outlook essay "Chill Out," Bjorn Lomborg rightly notes that skepticism about climate change is no longer focused on whether it the earth is getting warmer (it is) or whether humans are contributing to it (we are). The current debate is about whether warming matters, and whether we can afford to do anything about it."

"Lomborg's attitude toward risk is also troubling. He focuses only on the middle range of the panel's projections, dismissing the risk from the higher end of the range. But if the risk is great, then it may be worth acting against even if its probability is small. Think of risk as the product of consequences and likelihood: what can happen and the odds of it happening. A 10-degree rise in global temperatures by 2100 is not likely; the panel gives it a 3 percent probability. Such low-probability, high-impact risks are routinely factored into any analysis and management strategy, whether on Wall Street or at the Pentagon."

"The rationale for reducing emissions of carbon dioxide is to reduce the risk of the possibility of catastrophic outcomes. Making the transition to cleaner fuels has the added benefit of reducing the impact on public health and ecosystems and improving energy security -- providing benefits even if the risk is eventually reduced."

0

Steve Lewis 4 months, 4 weeks ago on David Moss: Climate change context

Huh. Melting ice at the North pole is allowing new shipping through through the area. Global cooling?

0

Prev