Bill Wallace

Bill Wallace 6 days, 17 hours ago on Sports Authority to close Steamboat store

Scott -- Please read my comment closely, and next time think more carefully before you reply. I didn't say that local sporting goods stores were driven bankrupt. What I did say was that local sporting goods stores had the business savvy to identify the special market niche of Steamboat sporting goods buyers and avoid competing head to head with Sports Authority. That niche is a substantial group of sporting good buyers who want good equipment and high quality service.

My reference to Walmart was the "Walmart Effect", not to the Walmart store in Steamboat Springs. The "Walmart Effect" is a term coined by author Tom Friedman, in which he describes big box stores and their potential negative effects on local businesses in small towns. Staples was the comparison I made, although I didn't elaborate.

0

Bill Wallace 1 week ago on Sports Authority to close Steamboat store

Another example of the "Walmart effect": Big box store comes into town, operates on a business model that sells stuff on the cheap, takes market share away from local stores (and frequently forces them out of business), finds that the "sell stuff cheap" business model doesn't work nationally, goes bankrupt, closes stores. Think Staples.

Thankfully, there are many good, savvy sports equipment stores in Steamboat Springs that maintained their niche in the local market by providing high quality goods and excellent service.

0

Bill Wallace 2 months, 4 weeks ago on Jim Erickson: Letter based on false premise

For those of you who are still looking up climate change stuff on the Internet to make your points, may I suggest locating The Berkeley Earth Project at http://berkeleyearth.org. This project started as an effort to, once and for all, show that climate change wasn't happening. The largest contributor to the project was the Charles G. Koch Foundation, a philanthropic arm of those rich and famous climate change deniers and funders of conservative causes, the Koch brothers.

Following the "Nixon-goes-to-China" strategy, the Koch brothers selected a credible climate change scientist/skeptic, Dr. Richard Muller, from UC Berkeley (a known bastion of liberalism) to run a study that for the first time would pull together all of the Earth’s temperature data from multiple sources. At the time, that amounted to 1.6 billion data points. After analyzing the data, Dr. Muller wrote an op-ed for the New York Times stating that based on his analysis the data he is no longer a climate change skeptic. He concluded that climate change is real and humans are the cause. Since then, the Koch Foundation dropped its sponsorship.

Whoops!

0

Bill Wallace 3 months ago on Jim Erickson: Letter based on false premise

Thanks, Eric. I get responses like that all the time, predominantly from people whose world is replete with conspiracies and get their science from Fox News. One would think that, given what the scientists see as extraordinarily negative consequences posed by climate change, the conspiracy theorists would take the time to investigate the issue more throughly. Instead, they just find some article or website that supports the conclusions they want. And, sometimes they misinterpret the conclusions.

0

Bill Wallace 3 months ago on Jim Erickson: Letter based on false premise

As I was reading Jim Erickson's letter on the Steamboat Pilot website, I was also going through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC's) most recent assessment report on climate change mitigation. (I teach an on-line sustainable engineering graduate course and I'm in the process of updating it.) This report is one of dozens of reports produced and vetted by literally thousands of credible climate scientists from all over the world. Incidentally, that's what the IPCC does: bring together the best climate science knowledge from around the world, assess the current state of the science on climate change, and make recommendations to policy-makers.

Climate science will never be "certain", especially in the minds of those whose jobs depend on it not being certain. Regardless, based on what I'm reading in this and many other vetted scientific reports, the people who have credibility in this field believe that climate change is happening, is mostly human-caused, and will devastate our economy many times more than what might happen as we switch out of fossil fuels. Switching out of fossil fuels will provide an enormous boost to the U.S. economy by creating many new jobs in new industries based on renewable energy. That's from a former colleague, Dan Arvizu, who runs the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, CO.

So, Jim. Yes, the climate has undergone natural changes. In fact, it warms and cools on 100,000 year intervals, during which the temperature cycles about 8 degree C., tracking with atmospheric CO2 concentrations of between 200 and 300 ppm. Within those cycles there are occasional temperature hiccups, short lived. We know how CO2 contributes to global warming. The scary part is that CO2 is now at 400 ppm, and concentrations are increasing at unprecedented rates that oceans and forests cannot absorb. As a result, the temperature increases, the weather gets wilder, and the cost of dealing with that change gets incredibly expensive.

0

Bill Wallace 5 months, 1 week ago on Kevin Copeland: Read up on climate

Holy conspiracy theories, Barry! I think you've watched too many episodes of the X-Files.

0

Bill Wallace 5 months, 1 week ago on Kevin Copeland: Read up on climate

So, you would rather trust the oil and gas industry that makes its money but pushing and perpetuating the ever increasing use of non-renewable resources. What I teach in my sustainable engineering course is that global climate change is real, significant and negates current assumptions on environmental conditions, assumptions used by civil engineers to design public infrastructure.

Happy trails!

0

Bill Wallace 5 months, 1 week ago on Kevin Copeland: Read up on climate

So, we can continue to play “Dueling Factoids” in this discussion thread, or play “Who Do You Trust.” My tendency is to trust the people who are recognized experts in this field, just as I tend to trust my tax accountant to deal with my taxes or my IT guy to deal with my computer systems. Also, I think I’m a decent engineer and I teach graduate courses in sustainability engineering. I continue to track the climate research and the associated empirical evidence, which continues to show overwhelmingly that climate change is real, human caused and is an urgent problem.

Now, I’ve made this point a number of times and the usual response from the “How do I know, Rush Limbaugh told me so” climate change denier set that you can’t believe the Societies or National Academies. They’re just a bunch of researchers whose sources of research $$$ would dry up if they took a position against the prevailing notion that climate change is real. My response is OK, if you want to, let’s play “Follow the Money.” Who stands to gain the most? Is it the researchers who may get a few hundred thousand dollars each to do their research, or those connected to the fossil fuel industry supply chain whose $20 trillion of existing hard assets will be turned into stranded assets if meaningful action is taken to mitigate climate change.

0

Bill Wallace 5 months, 1 week ago on Kevin Copeland: Read up on climate

Kevin Copeland is practicing what social scientists call the Scientific Certainty Argumentation Method, also known by the delightfully appropriate acronym, SCAM. Science is filled with uncertainty and ambiguity, which was clearly true in the case of climate change. So, if you wanted to delay actions that might address climate change (and if you’re in a fossil fuel-related industry, save a whole bunch of money), the SCAM tactic is very useful and effective. It plays on our sense of fairness. We tend to give the benefit of the doubt, not wanting to take actions outside the norm until all reasonable doubt is removed and we are really “certain” that such actions are fully warranted. You apply SCAM to the issue by bringing up points, factual or otherwise, that cast doubt on the current scientific consensus on climate change.

Today, an additional problem with Copeland's argument is that their isn't any uncertainly left unless you want to take Barry Goldkind's whacko Internet references seriously. What we need to take seriously is how credible scientists address technical issues of import. Since it was set up by President Lincoln, over 150 years ago, the National Academies has been advising the government and the public on important issues pertaining to science, engineering and technology. To address these sorts of issues, The Academies draw on the best scientific and engineering minds in the country. On the issue of climate change, the position of the National Academies is that the climate change science is settled, and this nation’s (and the world’s) task should now focus on the hard part: dealing with climate change mitigation and adaptation. See http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/. The equivalent organizations in may other countries have reached the same conclusions. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), to which National Academy members are a part, has reached the same conclusions, and has assembled a vast and compelling set of peer-reviewed research and publications to back it up.

In the U.S. since 2007, the 40 or so other professional science and engineering societies have issued policy statements that either agree that climate change is a real, human caused and an urgent problem. Seven have been neutral. Interestingly, the last group to go from negative to neutral was the American Society of Petroleum Geologists. Go figure.

0

Prev