Jump to content


SnowJapan Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by coldcat

  1. It's part of geophysics the study of the atmosphere and its climate. You can look it up. Akasofu is quite renowned within the climate community, and his notes on climate change are taken into account by many climatologists and have inspired many students and professors, you can look this up too.


    To say that he is not an expert it's like if you say that a mathematician doesn't know crap about computer science.


    Originally Posted By: Go Native

    You can say all the times you want that there is no consensus on Global Warming but the fact is that within the climate science community there has been a consensus for many years, certainly before and after the political crackpots started getting in the mix. The actual magnitude of the effects of AGW are certainly in debate and will continue to be so for some time.


    And frankly I see no reason to be civil with fools, so get used to it.


    Anyway, so you can be satisfied these are CLIMATOLOGISTS who oppose the so-called global warming consensus :


    - Fred Singer (University of Virginia, and inventor (if I recall well) of the instruments for measuring ozone in orbital satellites.)


    - Hendrik (Henk) Tennekes (director of research at the Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute) - now retired


    - William M. "Bill" Gray (piooneer of the hurricane prediction science, Emeritus professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University.)


    - William Kininmonth (australian methereologist, headed Australia's National Climate Centre from 1986 to 1998)


    - George Kukla (retired professor of climatology at Columbia University and a researcher at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory)


    - Marcel Leroux (French climatologist, a former Professor of Climatology at Jean Moulin University in France, and director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risk, and Environment)


    - Tim Patterson (paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada)


    - John Christy (professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports)


    - William R. Cotton (Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University)


    - Richard Lindzen (Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences)


    It seems the only one who speaks out of ignorance here is you.

    Rather than having others call you fool, you are doing a great job at making one of yourself.


    I've no interest in keeping arguing with you, you insulted me, you despised me, and you talked to me as if I am a paranoid lunatic who doesn't know what he is talking about. I won't continue this argument anymore because you don't deserve my time.

    But whenever I consider that some people may find an article about global warming interesting I'll keep on posting with the permission of the SJ moderators, and always respecting others who don't share my views as best as I can.

  2. Originally Posted By: keba
    Originally Posted By: coldcat
    I am just being flamed because I have skeptic views on Global Warming.

    No, you are being flamed because of the reasons you give for being skeptical about global warming.

    They are not my theories. If you read a little you would know that many have talked about it, and being flamed about it too.

    Fred Singer who is an American athmospherist and Professor Emeritus at the University of Virginia is one of them. He talks about third world kleptocrats.

    I guess he is also one of those not within the climate science community that GoNative talks about.
  3. Right, right, so I guess the Founding Director of the International Arctic Research Center, Syun-Ichi Akasofu is not within the climate science community.


    "Akasofu is one of the 400 scientists listed in a report issued by the Republican minority of the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works entitled Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007 who were said to dispute the theory of anthropogenic global warming."

  4. GoNative, you don't know me, so please don't talk about me like if you knew me. I have a right to have my opinion and express it without being called a 'lunatic' or someone who has to be ignored, as long as I don't atack or insult others in the forum. Who are you to talk about me in such a despising way? You may have a major in methereology but you lack basic education on civism.


    I am just being flamed because I have skeptic views on Global Warming.


    It's a well known fact that Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace, left greenpeace and the environmentalists scene for reasons similar to the ones I give.

    He has also been called a lunatic, someone paid by the oil companies,... and many worse things.


    I'll say it one more time there is no scientific consensus on Global Warming.


    There are many scientists who don't agree with the mainstream GW views, some of them have been named without their consent by the UN as supporting mainstreem GW views, and subsequently asked to be pulled off. Many others scientists disagree but are afraid to say so for fear of losing jobs, or being flamed (like has happend with my posts).


    I think someone asked this so I'll say it, I was 8 years old first time I went to Africa with my parents, I have been going to Africa several times in my life since then. One time I was near death from drinking contaminated water. I have also been to South/Central America. Nowadays, it's more cool to care about polar bears than people who die from drinking contaminated water, and many other problems for which they have resources to solve, but are not allowed because of Global Warming. Everyone, even Bush, is agreeing that developing countries have to cut their CO2 emissions and stop using oil. Global Warming is not new, but neither is the fact that these countries have huge oil assets in their territories.

  5. "Self sufficient industry"???


    Ha ha ha! Don't make me laugh brother! Does Monsanto ring a bell? Well if you didn't know, Monstanto is an american multinational, a huge corporation of biotechnology and agriculture. Who do you think is going to acquire (actually HAS ALREADY DONE ) the crops of sugar cane in Brazil?? Yes, Monsanto.


    Keep it on, keep the BS on, we will believe everything from the nice blonde guys from the West dressed in their environmentaly friendly customes. They are so cute, and well intentionted. They care so much about our planet. Let them save us all. Of course, the poor people of the third world are out, they don't count.


    Edit: For those who don't know, what Mantas is talking about is known as ethanol which is obtained from sugar cane.

    By the way its energy efficiency is still disputed, and according to the latest studies, it poses a significant risk to the health, as one of the studies says: "if every vehicle in the United States ran on fuel made primarily from ethanol instead of pure gasoline, the number of respiratory-related deaths and hospitalizations likely would increase" (Stanford University). To top it all, ethanol and biofuels are causing and have caused in the past global food prices to considerably rise. This is horribly wrong, and it just benefits us: the rich and the multinationals. The poor will starve like always or worse.

  6. I remember reading on the press a few weeks ago something like according to latest studies by scientists at the University of Nevada strectching before excercise is bad for your muscle. What??!!! They were telling us over and over how important is stretching before starting any activity and now is actually bad?


    Scientists are always contradicting themselves. Now CO2 is very bad, tomorrow they may tell us it has nothing to do with the heating of the world, and we people are like sheeps who just believe and follow whatever someone in a white coat tells us without actually reflecting on it by ourselves or trying to compare it with other opinions.


    Scientists are the "prophets" of our time, and we are to believe whatever they tell us without ever questioning. This is especially true with the CO2 issue.


    It's hard for me to think that all this hysteria that they want us to feel, has nothing to do with the Muslims having most of the oil available in the world and the fact that their countries, who are now controlled by the west through dictators imposed by us, may wake up one day and start saying: our oil is for us like Mr. Chavez did.


    It's also hard for me to think that thirld word economies rapists from the west are not keen on preventing the thirld world countries from using their recently discovered oil assets and having them rather buy our expensive and inefficient solar panels so that they can keep on being completely dependant on us to barely survive, and of course, keep on making cheap workers, almost slaves, for the west.


    But nah, those nerdy prophets dressed in white coats would never lie for the sake of keeping our luxuries, not even if their thirld world rapist and rich governments ask them and pay them to do so.


    Don't think, the UN will do for you. And don't care about those poor people in the thirld world and their right to develop like we have, care about the poles melting in summer.


    Afterall, we need the snow if we want to have fun on the slopes, who cares how they live in their undeveloped countries!


    Sorry, but for me all this topic is very hypocritical. Some people need to travel more and watch less tv, and maybe their opinions will change when they see in which horrible conditions people are living.



  7. It is not such long standing trend it seems. The 1930s were actually the warmest decade, although as the article says they didn't want you to know that.


    It has nothing to do with whether October was cold or not, but rather with the inconsistencies of the major data sets used over and over to proof that the world is heating more than ever. It was easy to find the contradiction this time, because this year's october happened to be especially cold around the world and North Pole (not only UK, or Europe) so it was bizarre when they said it was actually the hottest. But how many inconsistencies are there that we know not about in other years where it wasnt as especially cold?

  8. Originally Posted By: Matt
    Originally Posted By: Charles Broad
    I was steered away from Hakuba because I heard that the snow is not as good as Hokkaido. My friend was there 2 years ago and it was warm enough to ski in shorts and it was only February.


    If you want the highest possibility of well below zero temperatures I hear Oymyakon is your best bet


    nice answer lol
  9. What I wanted to say is that since there are plenty of people who prefer hakuba to niseko (as there are plenty of people who prefer niseko to hakuba) it means that the difference is not as extreme as (I understood at least) the person who asked meant i.e. "Hokkaido, powder paradise VS hakuba, ski in shorts and bad quality snow". If Hakuba were like his friend told him, then no-one would prefer hakuba to niseko.


    However, since both are good, you have people who choose one or the other. They are both competitive.


    I hope this explains my point better.


    GN, I really agree with you on that point. I think, especially these past seasons, people are getting really sensitive about what other people write about their resort in these forums. I think it's not secret to anyone that a website like this, and particularly what people say on these forums, will have a considerable influence on the amount of visitors that each resort gets.


    The debate Niseko vs Hakuba is a really good example of this, although obviously not everyone who writes on that topic is doing it out of fear of losing customers, but I do believe a few do.


    I personally prefer hakuba, although to be frank with people, if they come to Japan and want to experience the true Japan snow experience they should visit both if they can, because each has its own good and bad points.



  10. Originally Posted By: Charles Broad
    I was steered away from Hakuba because I heard that the snow is not as good as Hokkaido. My friend was there 2 years ago and it was warm enough to ski in shorts and it was only February.

    I was in Hokkaido (niseko) at Xmas 2 years ago and it was raining omg A one time experience tells almost nothing about a resort. You'd get a much more objective view if you look at the daily reports on this site for several years. Hakuba is not known for lack of snow or skiing in shorts in February nor is niseko for raining in January.

    In fact, if you search through this site you'll see that there are many people who prefer hakuba to niseko.

  11. For Japan I prefer orange or yellow, because low visibility days are relatively commom, and because of the 'nighta'.


    Last year I tried Gold colored and they also worked well in low visibility.


    This year I am thinking of buying a pair of Oakley Crowbar or A-Frame, with golden tint or VTR28 (which is sort of pink), that's because they are sort of for all kind of conditions and I have sensitive eyes to light, but orange or yellow is the best for low visibility or night skiing, if you are not too sensitive to light.

  12. Intermediate advanced riders do better with a normal board. They are going to be riding in-bounds most of the time, so a powder board is completely unnecessary. I know hhnz has already decided to buy a powder board. He must have the budget so it's ok, but if someone else reads this thread and is facing the same questions my sincere advice is to spend the money instead on a good pair of goggles, gear to keep them warm/dry, etc... They are going to appreciate it much more.

    From what I am used to read about kumapix in these forums he is a really experienced rider both inbouds and in the B.C. He is the kind of guy who can make the most of a powder board, but for intermediate people who are coming to Japan and read about lots of powder and all that stuff they should know that they'll be O.K. without a powder board. If you don't know how to ride powder I doubt a powder board is going to change that anyway, so you might as well spend some energy and time in learning the in and outs of snowboarding first, and then head for the more advanced gear.


    I just remembered the first time I went to niseko. They guy at the hostel tried to convinced me that I needed to rent a longer board from him because the powder is so deep in niseko that with my own board I would be helpless.

  13. I vote for Hakuba. Better terrain, lots of snow, and more variety.


    I am not saying Niseko is not good. I love it. But if I have to choose between Hakuba or Niseko, Hakuba has more to offer.


    If you can visit both. And if you do go to Hokkaido make sure you hit the other resorts apart from Niseko. Furano is really beautiful and has very good snow. Asahidake is amazing, cold and deep. Hokkaido has much more to offer than just Niseko.

  14. Ok means that you can ride powder reasonably well if you switch your bindings as far back as possible. You shouldn't get too much leg burn, unless you are very out of shape.


    I'd say if someone is planning on hiking almost everyday or very often to the back-country they'll do better with a powder board, but for the resort rider who sometimes adventures off-piste a normal all-mountain board with the proper binding set-up is more than enough. I'm 175cm, and I've ridden with a 155cm normal board the back-country in Hakkouda and Asahidake with no problems.

  15. If you don't have a visa that allows you to work is not that easy to find a job even teaching English.


    Also, if I remember well, companies/schools can't sponsor a visa for non-natives to teach English. i.e. they can sponsor you to teach German but not to teach English. Most non-natives teaching English in Japan that I know are doing it on a spouse visa, or another kind of visa.


    If you want to work in Japan or stay longer 90 days take the safest route which is to go back to Germany and get the working holiday visa, that way when you are in Japan it'll be much easier for you to find a job. Even at the ski hills.

  16. I've been to all of those places except for Rusutsu.


    Furano is cold and beautiful but you can get tired of it if you are going to stay 3 months. However there are other resorts near the area so you can take day trips. I wouldn't get a season pass at furano. As for back-country, no allowed off-piste in furano, however Asahidake is not that far away, and there's great backcountry there. If you have your own means of transport Furano might be your best choice. By the way, Furano has a nice Japanese town vibe to it, that niseko doesn't.


    Niseko is a bit flat for my taste, but back-country options are very varied. If you are not very advanced skier/rider it might keep you happy.


    Hakkoda is powder heaven, but hakkoda is not a resort, it's just for back-country enthusiasts. Also accomodation in Hakkouda is scarce and expensive, and there's no town in Hakkouda, just the place where you stay, the onsens and the mountains. Nice place to get away from everything though.


    My personal choice wouldn't be any of those resorts though. Nagano resorts are more fun in my opinion, especially if you are going to be staying 3 months.

  • Create New...