Jump to content
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.
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?
"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."
"I have yet to see any option that is worse than ignoring the risk of global warming and doing nothing." - Dr Judith Curry
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."
Huh. Melting ice at the North pole is allowing new shipping through through the area. Global cooling?
I believe the "7th Street" parcel is 655 Yampa St. - at least it was called that in one Mainstreet email.
Some portion of the other park area, the "6th Street parcel", is City property. I think that park may all already be City property.
The best column takes no side - it presents facts and lets the reader think to arrive at his/her own conclusions. This is also the hardest writing to do. Thanks Rob for a column very well done.
And this is the first State of the City Report I've heard of for Steamboat Springs. Thanks Deb. Great work as well. I'm not so pleased when you write to promote Council choices, like building a new police station. In my view Council President Bart Kounovsky should author such letters and own those arguments. But this report is great stuff. Also not very easy. Property taxes are not a welcome idea for many, but good on you for presenting the challenge we face.
These are more straightforward conversations on a local level. On the national level there are so many layers to the spending that the real culprits underneath can go unnoticed. For instance Health Care is a growing fiscal impact. More and more evidence shows that special interests are driving too much medical testing, too many medical procedures, too many drugs prescribed, and too much being paid for those drugs. Weeding out those is a smarter course than arguing comprehensive Health Care is good or bad policy overall. Ditto for other expenses on other discretionary expenses like the military, where congressional districts are forcing unwanted equipment expenditures on the military.
The original Trails Proposal's 5 project areas are:
Buffalo Pass Trail System, Emerald Mountain Trail System, Mad Creek Trail System, Rabbit Ears Pass Trail System, and Town Pathways and Amenities.
In my view forest trails should be, by far, the predominate use of the funds. The most beautiful things about Steamboat Springs are found outside the city limits. Please build awesome memories with this money. Thank you to the Lodges who are making this possible.
As Scott Ford said, this is our town. We should have government in the light of day. Either an item deserves the secrecy of executive session or it does not deserve any secrecy at all.
From the earlier County meeting, the county judged the Solar Garden investment will have a payback of about 16 years. The panels lose about 1% generating capacity a year, so it matters that CEC guarantees 80% or better of the original capacity, for the life of the contract. The panels are insured for damage.
This is a better investment for longterm local stakeholders, given that after about "16 years" the panel's electricity is all bonus.
For commercial property, I could not establish how this outlay fits in my taxes. I'd like some depreciation to offset where I previously had electric utility deductions. The 30% rebate requires CEC to "own" the panels for 5 years. Not sure how to treat a new asset I do not own in my tax return.
Last login: Tuesday, August 26, 2014
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2014 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.