WEATHER »

Comments by 14noscams

Page 1 of 172 | Next

Posted on May 28 at 10:31 p.m.

chastity - The right-wing elite bankers finance the left wing. Taxes aren't a wise topic - Abe Moldanado owed the IRS around a million in back taxes, including a significant amount that were illegally deducted - a pricey salt-water aquarium as a business expense, etc.
Plains isn't an oil drilling or oil exploration company; they're a pipeline owner and operator of 6000 miles of pipeline. tabatha's strawman argument of Amazon environmental damage due to oil drilling is only that; a non sequitur. So is the environmental destruction in Tibet resulting from lithium mining for batteries for EV's - but that's green environmental destruction; not worth mentioning.
This is a January 2013 GAO report on pipeline safety. Valves aren't required or used by the majority of pipeline operators that contributed info to the report. I posted the link on the article about the letter written by Capps, Feinstein and Boxer.
http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/651408.pdf

On Huge Oversight Gap on Refugio Pipeline

Posted on May 28 at 10:09 p.m.

"Since then, for a host of reasons, the county jail’s average daily population has gone down, down, down. The jail remains terrible, but overcrowded it’s not."

Well, actually, no. Crime has gone down, but the ADP of unsentenced prisoners has increased annually since 2010; the ration of unsentenced prisoners to convicted offenders has increased annually since Brown started heavily lobbying for a north county jail. The county's cost for this policy over the 61/2 years from 2007-2013 was $135,526,913. But according to this April 2015 report, Brown hasn't been providing county sups with accurate information. It's probably not an issue, though, since POA and CCPOA are by far the largest contributors to local elections, and money not spent on campaigns is money in the bank.
I wonder if Sheriff Brown's refusal to comply with or acknowledge the county Civil Grand Jury's recommendations for improvements at the Coroner's Office to provide safe working conditions for staff will ever be on the table. I imagine there'll be a private sector vendor who can be blamed if there's ever an incident involving exposure of staff to a pandemic-causing pathogen due to inadequate ventilation and air filtration. I imagine staff cost has increased since Brown replaced Sandra Brown with a less experienced retired deputy.
In any case, Rosser International, the contractor who designs and plans jails, referred to the successful alternative sentencing program currently in place as the reason for inflated cost and capacity of the new jail, due to the "inefficacy of Alternative Sentencing programs”. An increase in ADP of .75% between 2000 and 2010, less than half of Rosser's projection, increased their projected cost by 10%. Go figure.
http://www.sbjailfacts.info/Cost_of_O...
http://www.sbjailfacts.info/Rosser.html

On One Dog Too Many

Posted on May 28 at 8:59 p.m.

I don't know if this is relevant, but this Jan 2013 GAO report to Congressional committees mentions that valves can fail and result in high enough pressure to cause pipeline failure, so they're not generally installed. Several pipeline operators contributed to this report. There are automated "smart pigs" that travel the length of the pipeline internally and monitor the pipeline for corrosion and other problems. Valves aren't required by law.
"37 Federal regulations require hazardous liquid and natural gas pipeline operators toconsider measures to prevent and mitigate the consequences of a pipeline failure thatcould affect a high-consequence area, including installing automated valves on individual pipeline segments if the operator determines such a valve would add protection and enhance public safety. As part of this determination, operators must consider certain factors at a minimum. These factors relate to descriptive characteristics of individual pipeline segments—such as pipeline profile and operating pressure—and consideration of the possible safety and environmental outcomes. See 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.935, 195.452(i)."
http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/651408.pdf

On Senators Demand Answers About Refugio Response Delays

Posted on May 28 at 6:58 a.m.

"this is the basis of the "97% consensus of climate scientists in support of global warming theory"

This is a mistake. It should say there's a 97% consensus of climate scientists who support the belief that there's a global warming crisis due to anthropogenic causes and is dangerous.

another 1000 scientists who don't support critical AGW here
http://cfact.org/pdf/2010_Senate_Mino...

And there are thousands of professional trolls spreading disinformation.

On Community Demands Transparency in Refugio Spill

Posted on May 27 at 9:46 p.m.

The IPCC claims that its 2500 scientists support the statement ""human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems", but only 41 of its scientists were involved in the section of the IPCC report that addresses anthropogenic effects on climate. IPCC doesn't list the degrees held by its scientists, and many have their various UN agency jobs listed as qualifications. AR5 Chapter 11, Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use, for example, includes lead author Frank Sperling, whose qualifications are listed in different IPCC publications as World Wildlife Foundation and also as African Development Bank. Francesco Tubiello, another lead author, is a member of UN Food and Agriculture Program.
Adding IPCC's stated number of scientists to the total so far, 1744, gives a grand total of 4244 scientists supporting some form of AGW, although the support ranges from 'humans responsible for some warming' or 'humans responsible for most warming', and an impact of this warming that ranges from unstated to dangerous.

Now, none of these surveys is represented quite correctly, because all of them omit the published research of many scientists who are well-known for their lack of support for AGW-alarmism; scientists whose published research may not have been included because neither of the terms "global warming" or "climate change" appeared in the abstracts of their publications, and there are probably AGW supporters whose research was excluded for the same reasons. None of these “consensus” surveys was designed to include all of the published research on climate science or to include the publications of all climate scientists.
In any case, this is the basis of the "97% consensus of climate scientists in support of global warming theory" meme, and I've inflated the number of scientists in this consensus by using the largest number possible in each survey.
The total number of scientists in all the consensus surveys combined, 4244, in less than half the number of PhD scientists who signed the Oregon Petition, 2.9% of the scientists who signed the petition.
Consensus is as relevant to physical science as ballet dancing is to oil rig roustabouts. The introduction of the concept of consensus in the global warming discussion smells as bad as the odor observed at the beginning of the Plains pipeline leak.
http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10...
http://www.ipcc-wg3.de/assessment-rep...

On Community Demands Transparency in Refugio Spill

Posted on May 27 at 9:41 p.m.

This 2.9% of scientists who signed the Oregon Petition Project petition and have PhD's is a much larger number of scientists than those represented by all of the 97% and 98% consensus surveys based on database surveys of abstracts of published research combined; all of the sources of the "consensus" of scientists that are cited frequently to justify a radical change in the lifestyles of the population of the earth and the economy of the US and the necessity of ending the use of fossil fuels to avoid the destruction of life on the planet.
History professor and "Merchant of Doom" publisher Naomi Orestes' 75% consensus was based on 928 abstracts published between 1993 and 2003. Her "consensus" is 696 scientists.
The Zimmerman-Doran 97% consensus is based on 79 climate scientists - the only "consensus" that included either "scientist" or "climate scientist" in its count of abstracts supporting AGW. Grad student Zimmerman's 97% is 79 out of the 3,146 respondents, or .025%
Stanford student Anderegg based his 97% to 98% "consensus" on the 200 scientists with the largest number of research publications on climate change. This choice excluded most scientists researching climate change. 98% of 200 is 196 scientists.
skepticalscience owner John Cook's "97% consensus" is actually 0.3% of the 11,944 abstracts returned in his search - a total of 41 scientists.
That's a total of 1012 scientists so far.
Some scientific societies polled members, and there are a few other polls of several hundred scientists that don't include a large enough number of scientists to bias the total much either in favor of or against AGW.
The American Meteorological Society's poll found that 39.5% of its 1854 members, 732, thought man-made global warming was dangerous.
That's a total of 1744 scientists. Maggie Kendall Zimmerman's master's thesis is the only "consensus" survey limited to climate scientists.

On Community Demands Transparency in Refugio Spill

Posted on May 27 at 9:37 p.m.

(this a 3-part comment)

ibid - "Oh, re: the Global Warming Petition Project - note that a whopping 1% of the signers have an educational background in Atmosphere, Earth, or Environment science. And look at the other info about signers, and then check out what journalists have to say about the group. It's not hard to find 31,000 uninformed, fundamentalist, and/or right-wing people to sign something when they don't understand the issue - as long as it aligns with the party line."
I'm really glad you mentioned this. It's an important example of the perception manipulation that's effective in the population of qualitative thinkers and emotional decision-makers in the public,the same issue that has resulted in the representation of this oil spill as The Return of the Platform A Blowout. Climate science is based on quantitative thinking and rational, not emotional, decision-making. The "only 1%" meme is a disinfo tactic created to misrepresent the number of PhD scientists who reject the Kyoto Treaty as a very small number compared to supporters of AGW. The actual percentage is almost 2.9, 9029/31487, not 1%, but this is a minor point.
The educational background of any signers is also a moot point; all have at least the appropriate amount of education as IPCC scientists, many of whom aren’t scientists at all. Many of the sources you probably consider qualified scientists, such as GISS director Gavin Schmidt, a computer modeler whose degrees are in math, aren’t either. You omitted the physicists who signed the petition; one of the most important fields of science in climate science research.
The comments of journalists is irrelevant; the names of the scientists are public, and strawman arguments and "party lines" are really only phenomena exhibited by AGW-alarmists. If you think there's a partisan bias in the Oregon Petition, specify what it is.

On Community Demands Transparency in Refugio Spill

Posted on May 26 at 6:25 p.m.

sacjon - "explain the dying marine animals (inverts and mammals) that are covered in oil."

There have been many oil-covered birds on the shore in southern California since last winter. There haven't been any with oil traced to this oil spill; there have been 5 dead pelicans found, and their cause of death hasn't been determined yet or traced to the oil spill. The same for the dolphin found in Santa Barbara harbor and the seal pup taken to San Diego. I haven't read anything about invertebrates.

I realize that making unbiased statements isn't compatible with your agenda, but local seabirds can't tell the difference between oil that came from Plains' pipeline and oil that came from seafloor faults when they land on the water. The ones I see at the beach frequently are ignored, and these are counted only because of the pipeline leak. If there's evidence of animals killed by the oil spill, I can't find it - only that causes of death are currently undetermined, and I'm not surprised that you provided no reference for your allegation.
" and as you seem to believe, this whole oil spill thing is not such a big deal" - more narcissism. I've posted comparisons of this oil spill with the natural conditions in the area due to natural spills.Opinions are irrelevant to the environment.

On Refugio Oil Spill a Crime Scene?

Posted on May 26 at 4:41 p.m.

sacjon - " Life EVOLVES to be able to adapt to a certain ecosystem (seep field) over the thousands of years it's been there" An irrational fabrication. The benthic organisms in the seep field are genetically identical to those in the oil spill area. The problem with egocentricity like yours that makes you fabricate excuses to support your ego and your confirmation bias is that your lies DON'T MATTER TO THE ORGANISMS IN THE ENVIRONMENTyou're referring to.

On Refugio Oil Spill a Crime Scene?

Posted on May 26 at 2:31 p.m.

tabatha - The Coal Oil Point seep field field is 6.94 sq miles and leaks 100 barrels/day; 4200 gallons/day in a 6.9 sq mile area. The oil from this pipeline leak was spilled in a few hours - much less than a day.

This oil spill has dumped 2100 gallons in a 10 sq mile area.

1. Which one is the source of the larger amount of oil per square mile?
2. Which one is the source of the higher rate of oil emission into the ocean?

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10...
http://www.scpr.org/news/2015/05/26/5...

On Refugio Oil Spill a Crime Scene?

Page 1 of 172 | Next

event calendar sponsored by: