timd354
Elite Member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2008
- Professional Status
- Certified Residential Appraiser
- State
- Maryland
One that does not care about anything except closing another sale.
Last edited:
The Premier Online Community for Real Estate Appraisers!
-
Welcome to AppraisersForum.com, the premier online
community for the discussion of real estate appraisal. Register a free account to be able to post and unlock additional forums and features.
All Solar, Et Al, In 12 Years?
- Thread starter Terrel L. Shields
- Start date
- Status
Randolph Kinney
Elite Member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2005
- Professional Status
- Retired Appraiser
- State
- North Carolina
Is there anyone you believe Randy, professional skeptic (and prolific cutter and paster)?
Interesting about cut and paste - just as good as calling some ignorant.
Randolph Kinney
Elite Member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2005
- Professional Status
- Retired Appraiser
- State
- North Carolina
Is there anyone you believe Randy, professional skeptic (and prolific cutter and paster)?
Meandering
Elite Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2006
- Professional Status
- Real Estate Agent or Broker
- State
- Pennsylvania
ExxonMobil probed on climate science
1 hour ago
New York (AFP) - ExxonMobil is being investigated by New York state over whether it lied to the public about the risks of climate change, the oil giant said Thursday.
Ken Cohen, a vice president for public affairs at ExxonMobil, described the demand for documents as a "broad subpoena" and said the company was still reviewing how to respond to it.
A person familiar with the New York prosecutor's thinking said Schneiderman believes ExxonMobil knowingly understated the risks of climate change to consumers and shareholders.
Schneiderman's subpoena demands documents dating back to 1977 on ExxonMobil's climate science, its marketing and advertising materials that discuss climate change and its funding of climate science inside and outside the company, said a person familiar with Schneiderman's probe.
The probe comes on the heels of investigative stories by the website Inside Climate News and the Los Angeles Times that recounted how scientists at the oil giant as early as the 1970s recognized climate change as a potentially grave problem caused by fossil fuel use.
Even so, the stories showed, ExxonMobil in the 1990s and early 2000s campaigned against that idea and fought the Kyoto Accord and other major policy efforts to regulate carbon emissions. It also funded lobby groups that questioned the link between fossil fuel emissions and climate change.
Some ExxonMobil critics have likened the oil giant's conduct to that of tobacco companies that suppressed evidence linking tobacco use to cancer.
Cohen rejected those comparisons. He said in a conference call with reporters that ExxonMobil has a long record of trying to understand the complexities of climate science and has worked to reduce emissions and develop innovative technologies that are good for the environment.
"We unequivocally reject allegations that ExxonMobil suppressed climate change research contained in media reports that are inaccurate distortions of ExxonMobil's nearly 40-year history of climate research," Cohen said.
Cohen said ExxonMobil has also been vocal on leading policy debates, as when it fought US enactment of the Kyoto Protocol in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Part of that campaign questioned climate science.
"We felt the science needed further development to take such a step that would have handicapped the US" compared with other countries that would not have been required to cut emissions, he said.
Cohen said ExxonMobil has been disclosing the business risk of climate change to the oil industry in securities filings since 2007.
Greenpeace applauded Schneiderman’s move as an effort "to further expose the hypocrisy of fossil fuel companies like ExxonMobil and hold them accountable for denying climate change to the public and blocking necessary action for decades."
Greenpeace called on the US Department of Justice to initiate its own probe into ExxonMobil.
http://news.yahoo.com/exxonmobil-pr...vbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDQjExNjZfMQRzZWMDc2M-
.
1 hour ago
New York (AFP) - ExxonMobil is being investigated by New York state over whether it lied to the public about the risks of climate change, the oil giant said Thursday.
Ken Cohen, a vice president for public affairs at ExxonMobil, described the demand for documents as a "broad subpoena" and said the company was still reviewing how to respond to it.
A person familiar with the New York prosecutor's thinking said Schneiderman believes ExxonMobil knowingly understated the risks of climate change to consumers and shareholders.
Schneiderman's subpoena demands documents dating back to 1977 on ExxonMobil's climate science, its marketing and advertising materials that discuss climate change and its funding of climate science inside and outside the company, said a person familiar with Schneiderman's probe.
The probe comes on the heels of investigative stories by the website Inside Climate News and the Los Angeles Times that recounted how scientists at the oil giant as early as the 1970s recognized climate change as a potentially grave problem caused by fossil fuel use.
Even so, the stories showed, ExxonMobil in the 1990s and early 2000s campaigned against that idea and fought the Kyoto Accord and other major policy efforts to regulate carbon emissions. It also funded lobby groups that questioned the link between fossil fuel emissions and climate change.
Some ExxonMobil critics have likened the oil giant's conduct to that of tobacco companies that suppressed evidence linking tobacco use to cancer.
Cohen rejected those comparisons. He said in a conference call with reporters that ExxonMobil has a long record of trying to understand the complexities of climate science and has worked to reduce emissions and develop innovative technologies that are good for the environment.
"We unequivocally reject allegations that ExxonMobil suppressed climate change research contained in media reports that are inaccurate distortions of ExxonMobil's nearly 40-year history of climate research," Cohen said.
Cohen said ExxonMobil has also been vocal on leading policy debates, as when it fought US enactment of the Kyoto Protocol in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Part of that campaign questioned climate science.
"We felt the science needed further development to take such a step that would have handicapped the US" compared with other countries that would not have been required to cut emissions, he said.
Cohen said ExxonMobil has been disclosing the business risk of climate change to the oil industry in securities filings since 2007.
Greenpeace applauded Schneiderman’s move as an effort "to further expose the hypocrisy of fossil fuel companies like ExxonMobil and hold them accountable for denying climate change to the public and blocking necessary action for decades."
Greenpeace called on the US Department of Justice to initiate its own probe into ExxonMobil.
http://news.yahoo.com/exxonmobil-pr...vbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDQjExNjZfMQRzZWMDc2M-
.
Randolph Kinney
Elite Member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2005
- Professional Status
- Retired Appraiser
- State
- North Carolina
Is there anyone you believe Randy, professional skeptic (and prolific cutter and paster)?
So Pete, did you ever make any money on your Zaio zones?
Duped definition, a person who is easily deceived or fooled.
Dolt refers a person who isn't very smart. You might be called a dolt if you do something dumb.
Meandering
Elite Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2006
- Professional Status
- Real Estate Agent or Broker
- State
- Pennsylvania
From Yale:
1970s ‘Global Cooling’ Concerns Lacked Today’s Scientific Rigor and Relevance
By Zeke Hausfather on Nov 11, 2007
But was there really a scientific consensus in the 1970s that global cooling was imminent? And is it comparable to current concerns about global warming? An examination of the scientific literature suggests that the 1975 Newsweek piece relied on highly speculative articles that did not reflect the consensus of the time, whereas the current concern over climate change is supported by the vast consensus of the scientific community.
View larger image
Northern hemisphere surface temperature trend as seen in 1968.
Falling global temperatures from 1940 to 1975 were one of the prime drivers of popular concern about global cooling. We now know, and suspected at the time, that the cooling was indeed strongly influenced by humans as a result of industrial emissions of aerosol particles (see Wikipedia).
These aerosols, primarily in the form of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide, scatter and reflect incoming light, cooling Earth’s surface. As cloud condensation nuclei, aerosols also help increase the amount of clouds covering Earth’s surface and reflecting additional sunlight away from the planet. These aerosols, coupled with increased volcanic activity, led to a period of falling global temperatures.
View larger image
Attribution of observed 20th century climate change. Note the strong negative sulfate (aerosol) forcings from 1940 onward.
In 1971, S. Ichtiaque Rasool and Stephen H. Schneider published a paper in Science titled “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate.” They predicted in the paper that rapidly increasing levels of sulfate in the atmosphere could cause the global temperature to continue to fall.
In retrospect, however, it is clear that they both overestimated the cooling effect of aerosols and underestimated the positive forcing of greenhouse gas emissions (primarily CO2 and methane), emissions of which were beginning their rapid rise at the time.
Additionally, Rasool and Schneider’s scenario for aerosol emissions proved overly pessimistic, as concern over local air quality and acid rain led to federal action requiring the widespread adoption of smokestack scrubbers, significantly reducing the sulfate emissions from many power plants.
In addition to concerns over aerosols, the global cooling worries were stoked by emerging research on the role of changes in orbital variations (called Milankovitch cycles) in driving periodic ice ages. Scientists noticed that, compared with past glacial and interglacial periods, the current warm period had lasted an unusually long time. Calculations at the time suggested that Earth was due for another ice age, though it was projected to be a gradual process over the next 10,000 years.
More recently, however, these projections have been considerably revised. As William M. Connolley writes, “Interpretations of future changes in the Earth’s orbit have changed somewhat. It now seems likely that the current interglacial, based purely on natural forcing, would last for an exceptionally long time: perhaps 50,000 years.”
In 1975, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences weighed in on the debate, arguing that “… we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate …”. While a few articles speculated on the cooling trend at the time, the potential role of aerosols in the atmosphere, and the long-term glacial cycles, there was little grounds for a firm consensus that Earth was poised to experience a new ice age in any time span relevant to human kind.
Since the 1970s, our understanding of the earth’s climate system has increased enormously. In 2001, the National Academy of Sciences released a report on another growing climate concern: global warming. The Academy’s 2001 report says:
Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities …
The current support for the theory of human-caused global warming is far more robust scientifically than anything seen in the 1970s. Surveys of the peer-reviewed literature have shown little fundamental disagreement with the consensus position.
While a few papers in the 1970s speculated on potential cooling, billions of dollars have been spent researching current warming, producing thousands of scientific papers and massive periodic synthesis reports by thousands of climate scientists.
The speculation on aerosol-driven cooling in the 1970s was legitimate in an atmosphere of vast uncertainty. Using it to cast doubt on projections of current warming in the face of mounting scientific understanding is an entirely different matter. Journalists should not be lulled into thinking otherwise.
http://www.yaleclimateconnections.o...lacked-todays-scientific-rigor-and-relevance/
Here we are not even 10 years later, and the;
"Falling global temperatures from 1940 to 1975" have become increasing temperatures since 1900.
.
1970s ‘Global Cooling’ Concerns Lacked Today’s Scientific Rigor and Relevance
By Zeke Hausfather on Nov 11, 2007
But was there really a scientific consensus in the 1970s that global cooling was imminent? And is it comparable to current concerns about global warming? An examination of the scientific literature suggests that the 1975 Newsweek piece relied on highly speculative articles that did not reflect the consensus of the time, whereas the current concern over climate change is supported by the vast consensus of the scientific community.
View larger image
Northern hemisphere surface temperature trend as seen in 1968.
Falling global temperatures from 1940 to 1975 were one of the prime drivers of popular concern about global cooling. We now know, and suspected at the time, that the cooling was indeed strongly influenced by humans as a result of industrial emissions of aerosol particles (see Wikipedia).
These aerosols, primarily in the form of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide, scatter and reflect incoming light, cooling Earth’s surface. As cloud condensation nuclei, aerosols also help increase the amount of clouds covering Earth’s surface and reflecting additional sunlight away from the planet. These aerosols, coupled with increased volcanic activity, led to a period of falling global temperatures.
View larger image
Attribution of observed 20th century climate change. Note the strong negative sulfate (aerosol) forcings from 1940 onward.
In 1971, S. Ichtiaque Rasool and Stephen H. Schneider published a paper in Science titled “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate.” They predicted in the paper that rapidly increasing levels of sulfate in the atmosphere could cause the global temperature to continue to fall.
In retrospect, however, it is clear that they both overestimated the cooling effect of aerosols and underestimated the positive forcing of greenhouse gas emissions (primarily CO2 and methane), emissions of which were beginning their rapid rise at the time.
Additionally, Rasool and Schneider’s scenario for aerosol emissions proved overly pessimistic, as concern over local air quality and acid rain led to federal action requiring the widespread adoption of smokestack scrubbers, significantly reducing the sulfate emissions from many power plants.
In addition to concerns over aerosols, the global cooling worries were stoked by emerging research on the role of changes in orbital variations (called Milankovitch cycles) in driving periodic ice ages. Scientists noticed that, compared with past glacial and interglacial periods, the current warm period had lasted an unusually long time. Calculations at the time suggested that Earth was due for another ice age, though it was projected to be a gradual process over the next 10,000 years.
More recently, however, these projections have been considerably revised. As William M. Connolley writes, “Interpretations of future changes in the Earth’s orbit have changed somewhat. It now seems likely that the current interglacial, based purely on natural forcing, would last for an exceptionally long time: perhaps 50,000 years.”
In 1975, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences weighed in on the debate, arguing that “… we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate …”. While a few articles speculated on the cooling trend at the time, the potential role of aerosols in the atmosphere, and the long-term glacial cycles, there was little grounds for a firm consensus that Earth was poised to experience a new ice age in any time span relevant to human kind.
Since the 1970s, our understanding of the earth’s climate system has increased enormously. In 2001, the National Academy of Sciences released a report on another growing climate concern: global warming. The Academy’s 2001 report says:
Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities …
The current support for the theory of human-caused global warming is far more robust scientifically than anything seen in the 1970s. Surveys of the peer-reviewed literature have shown little fundamental disagreement with the consensus position.
While a few papers in the 1970s speculated on potential cooling, billions of dollars have been spent researching current warming, producing thousands of scientific papers and massive periodic synthesis reports by thousands of climate scientists.
The speculation on aerosol-driven cooling in the 1970s was legitimate in an atmosphere of vast uncertainty. Using it to cast doubt on projections of current warming in the face of mounting scientific understanding is an entirely different matter. Journalists should not be lulled into thinking otherwise.
http://www.yaleclimateconnections.o...lacked-todays-scientific-rigor-and-relevance/
Here we are not even 10 years later, and the;
"Falling global temperatures from 1940 to 1975" have become increasing temperatures since 1900.
.
Randolph Kinney
Elite Member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2005
- Professional Status
- Retired Appraiser
- State
- North Carolina
During the 1970s the media promoted global cooling alarmism with dire threats of a new ice age. Extreme weather events were hyped as signs of the coming apocalypse and man-made pollution was blamed as the cause. Environmental extremists called for everything from outlawing the internal combustion engine to communist style population controls. "Pollution Prospect A Chilling One"
You can believe them then and you can believe them now.
Randolph Kinney
Elite Member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2005
- Professional Status
- Retired Appraiser
- State
- North Carolina
Randolph Kinney
Elite Member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2005
- Professional Status
- Retired Appraiser
- State
- North Carolina
Meandering
Elite Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2006
- Professional Status
- Real Estate Agent or Broker
- State
- Pennsylvania
The thing is that in the '70's scientists noted drastic temperature drops since the 1940s, but today, those drastic temperature drops are being stated as temperature increases.
In the 70's the thought of freezing to death, did not scare enough of the population to drive a "green" industry toward floating a bad economy. In 2009, raising the average daily temperature 2 degrees is not scary enough to float a bad economy.
Throughout the 50's-70's we were made to practice air raid drills and nuclear attacks by hiding under the desks at school. We were conditioned young to accepted the government's "scare the population" tactics. None of my parents or their friends ever had to practice air raid drills or nuclear attack drills at work. We the children would be saved while our parents toiled away at making pennies. As a child, it was an accepted thought of other children that in the event of nuclear attack. Those magic hallways would save us if we kept our heads down between our knees and held on. The aftermath for us, was expected to be a new world where the teachers would be the new parents and lead us into a world devoid of all the previous ills of the world.
Conditioning. It is all about conditioning.
.
In the 70's the thought of freezing to death, did not scare enough of the population to drive a "green" industry toward floating a bad economy. In 2009, raising the average daily temperature 2 degrees is not scary enough to float a bad economy.
Throughout the 50's-70's we were made to practice air raid drills and nuclear attacks by hiding under the desks at school. We were conditioned young to accepted the government's "scare the population" tactics. None of my parents or their friends ever had to practice air raid drills or nuclear attack drills at work. We the children would be saved while our parents toiled away at making pennies. As a child, it was an accepted thought of other children that in the event of nuclear attack. Those magic hallways would save us if we kept our heads down between our knees and held on. The aftermath for us, was expected to be a new world where the teachers would be the new parents and lead us into a world devoid of all the previous ills of the world.
Conditioning. It is all about conditioning.
.
- Status