Global Warming: 9,136 vs. 1

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Re: Global Warming: 9,136 vs. 1

Postby Indaswamp » Fri Apr 25, 2014 11:07 pm

not brydog.
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56462
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana


Re: Global Warming: 9,136 vs. 1

Postby RockedEm » Sat Apr 26, 2014 3:44 am

Here is what strikes me as funny.

Global Warming...THANK God.

Where I live in Ohio we used to be under a mile of ice due to the glaciers.
The earth warmed up SOOO much that all of these ice caps retreated back to their present condition without one cow farting or one SUV running. The mammoths and sabertooths went extinct due to the climate change.

So. The earth can change that much without the impact of a human being.

Humankind's dirty automobile's have been around for just over 100 years, humankind's record keeping of climate change might be just a hair longer than that. In reality, we have been around for a blink of an eye and we live in a world that ONE large volcano eruption spews more carbon monoxide in one eruption than 100 years of car's running down the road.

Humans seem to like to think they have a larger impact than they do and that we are the center of the world and in control of everything.

Am I saying we should burn down the forests and just let the car's idle in the driveway? No.

What I am saying is that by peeing in the ocean as much as I can, I will never make the level rise.....no matter how much I might like to think I am.

RockedEm
RockedEm
hunter
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2013 8:13 pm

Re: Global Warming: 9,136 vs. 1

Postby beretta24 » Sat Apr 26, 2014 4:36 am

clampdaddy wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:
huntmmup wrote:SpinnerMan instead of sounding stupid, why not learn a little about science? Read the article. All of those authors agree that the warming is caused primarily by man. They do not agree on the very complicated scientific models used to predict what will happen as we keep putting more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, thats what they are all studying and publishing articles about.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: .......says dhunt TO A SCIENTIST!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I was almost thinking brydog.

No way he comes back without calling someone a retardlickin
User avatar
beretta24
State Moderator
 
Posts: 5520
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN

Re: Global Warming: 9,136 vs. 1

Postby SpinnerMan » Sat Apr 26, 2014 4:42 am

RockedEm wrote:Where I live in Ohio we used to be under a mile of ice due to the glaciers.

And was it not also under the ocean at some point in the past like large chunks of the world used to be as well? :huh:

Unless you believe it is not possible to be too warm, you just cannot be that certain that unconstrained CO2 forever will not be a problem.

I don't believe we are anywhere close to that point and there is good evidence that a few degrees of warming are probably a net positive and fairly certainly not something that we cannot and will not easily adapt to even if they are a fairly sizable net negative.

There is not one person that is arguing that ice ages were better, so you have destroyed your strawman quite successfully. This is what both sides do.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15924
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Global Warming: 9,136 vs. 1

Postby Andy W » Sat Apr 26, 2014 5:29 am

Indaswamp wrote:
Andy W wrote:
Rat Creek wrote:Besides, we do have freedom of religion, so the Church of Global Warming should be able to practice their faith just like any other religious order.

Except that other cults don't force you to join them or pay for their nonsense.


*****See the jyiza tax in Islam......

I stand corrected. And by the way, good analogy, they both are terrorist organizations. :thumbsup:
Andy W
hunter
 
Posts: 614
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:30 am
Location: KY

Re: Global Warming: 9,136 vs. 1

Postby cartervj » Sat Apr 26, 2014 9:12 am

Indaswamp wrote:
Rat Creek wrote:Rule Number 1. Follow the money.
Rule Number 2. See Rule Number 1.

Is there more money in (1) grants and professorships associated with human caused global warming or (2) it warms, it cools, and we cannot control it.

Why else would 90,000 liberal activists write papers and then pat each other on the back by "peer" reviewing each other. :lol3:

And by the way, there are many scientists who have and are calling BS on all those so-called peer reviewed papers. But they have real lives and their well being is not dependent upon the hoax. Besides, we do have freedom of religion, so the Church of Global Warming should be able to practice their faith just like any other religious order. :bow: :bow: :bow:

dhunt does not understand how grant money works rat.... follow the propaganda.... :wink:



Since closing my photography studio I've been looking for another business opportunity. So far
The best options involve government monies for startup and operations. Otherwise they seem to regulate or tax one into oblivion.
“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf H, 1930
User avatar
cartervj
hunter
 
Posts: 7258
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: NW AL

Re: Global Warming: 9,136 vs. 1

Postby RustyGunz1960 » Sat Apr 26, 2014 9:34 am

You can fairly accurately predict one's stance on climate change based on their politics. That alone speaks volumes.
RustyGunz1960
hunter
 
Posts: 260
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 7:16 pm
Location: Little Egg Harbor

Re: Global Warming: 9,136 vs. 1

Postby nitram » Sat Apr 26, 2014 2:53 pm

I'm not going to de-rail your thread here but I have two thoughts on this. First and foremost, real science is not up for a vote. Spin spent more time than I would have attempting to explain to you how the scientists and researchers advance their theories and findings within their respective communities.

Secondly, as has been mentioned by several knowledgeable people, follow the money. I admittedly am not qualified to pass judgement as to the validity of the science reported in your article. However, I am a realist and see the effects of their cock-eyed, 'sky-is-falling' theories and what it has done as it attempts to denigrate the American citizen and our way of life.

Please try to follow along as I attempt to explain how both are conjoined. April 22nd was Earth Day, a day that envirofascists have used annually since 1970 to draw attention to their activist agenda. The celebration, which includes events in over 140 countries, has taken on larger significance in recent years as organizations more actively push their global warming fantasy on the American people. Never mind that in the last 17 years, the average temperature of the world hasn’t gone up, but let’s not get tripped up by data here. There’s an agenda to be driven.

The impact of environmentalists on the American economy has also taken on a larger role. For proof, you need look no further than the multi-billion-dollar ethanol industry. The so-called biofuels industry, which came into being as an alternative to traditional fossil fuels, has been mandated and heavily subsidized by taxpayers ostensibly in hopes that it would soon become a self-sustaining economic sector. Not only have biofuels never really cranked up the engine, but a recent study now claims that corn-based ethanol actually creates 7% more greenhouse gases than conventional gasoline. There’s a finger in your eye.

The $500,000 (taxpayer funded) study, which came out Sunday in the Natural Climate Change journal, concludes that corn-based fuels won’t meet the renewable fuel standard mandated by law in 2007. The EPA’s analysis claims otherwise, and the agency immediately attacked the study as flawed because, according to spokeswoman Liz Purchia, it “does not provide useful information relevant to the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from corn stover ethanol.”

The EPA has reduced the proposed amount of biofuels mandated for public use five times. The 2014 production target is now 17 million gallons; when the law was written the agency predicted 1.75 billion gallons. The inability of the fuel to reach commercial viability has not stopped politicians from continuing to push the issue if for no other reason than fat government checks to keep the boondoggle going.

In other energy news, money also appears to be motivating the latest decision to stall the Keystone XL pipeline. Late Good-Friday afternoon before the Easter holiday, the State Department announced that it was indefinitely postponing a decision on whether to build the pipeline, citing a pending court case over land use issues. The pipeline is popular with the public, will create thousand of jobs, and make America less dependent on foreign oil, but all that pales in comparison to political considerations for the Obama administration. Even Terry O'Sullivan, general president of the Laborers International Union of America (LIUNA), called Obama’s delay “gutless” and a “low blow to the working men and women of our country.”

The State Department has found that the pipeline poses no significant environmental risk. But never mind that – it’s all about the campaign cash. Billionaire investor and rabid environmentalist Tom Steyer has offered to throw $100 million into key congressional races for Democrats this year – if Barack Obama stops the Keystone project from taking place. The Canadian oil that would be pumped through the Keystone pipeline will be extracted no matter what quid pro quo exists between the president and his leftist sponsors.

It’s interesting that there is no mention of Steyer when the news media reports on how money is corrupting politics. He spent $11 million on Democrat Terry McAuliffe’s run for Virginia governor in 2013, and now he has essentially paid to shelve the Keystone pipeline proposal in order to deindustrialize America. He is just further proof, like Al Gore before him, that the only green that these activists care about is cash.
Last edited by nitram on Mon Apr 28, 2014 9:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair or f-ing beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back.- Al Swearengen
User avatar
nitram
hunter
 
Posts: 540
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2013 5:54 pm
Location: West OK on the South Canadian Riviera

Re: Global Warming: 9,136 vs. 1

Postby SpinnerMan » Sat Apr 26, 2014 4:58 pm

RustyGunz1960 wrote:You can fairly accurately predict one's stance on climate change based on their politics. That alone speaks volumes.

Politics is binary.

This is what science looks like. Over time as they learn more that spread will tighten up a lot and the models will track the past pretty well and then diverge a lot less in the future. And even after we get the physic understood much better, that is still a long ways from rationally weighing the pro's and con's. For that we need realistic estimates of the costs and if you think the uncertainties about future impacts are large, the uncertainties of the cost are far far greater. Cheap electricity is a life saver, so that means the simple fact is that more expensive electricity is a killer. Sure for wealthy Americans and nearly all of us are wealthy by world standards, the cost is not nearly as high as the cost in third world countries. A few hundred dollars on an electric bill is not a marginal issue if you are living in a country where per capita income's are in the thousands. For them a dirty power plant will save far more lives than the pollution will take. It is far better to build as much of the cheapest thing they can build just like we did a century ago and they will like we did, if they embrace individual freedom and not centralized control, improve their quality of life to the point where cleaner energy is the preferred alternative like has been the case in the U.S. for a long time, but we can do better. We just have to stop being foolish like with ethanol which is bad on so many fronts. One major front is that by driving food prices up, it drives the quality of life down for those same poor countries for what? So we can feel good about ourselves and provide corporate welfare to the agribusiness. Idiotic.

That does not mean we should do nothing. Energy, cleaner, safer, and cheaper energy has great value. To move forward, we have to build things, a wide variety of things, because we do not know what will work nor what exactly we will need. We used to do this when people were not so foolish to think they had a crystal ball. It's too important to not develop them all. It's not that costly either, we just need to focus on building things, many of which will fail, so we can learn, and move on to the next that is much more likely to succeed. All the paper designs in the world will not work. The energy needs a century from now are as unbelievable as the energy needs today were a century ago when horses were still a major mode of transportation.

Image

Image

Image
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15924
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Global Warming: 9,136 vs. 1

Postby Bluesky2012 » Sat Apr 26, 2014 6:56 pm

Sad part is this all stems from huntmmup getting crushed in the last debate. Buddy, I'm sorry, if you want to feel like you're argument is valid and justified head on over to MSNBC where propaganda reigns supreme and truth remains invalid.
"There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion."

"If you don't chew big red, then f- you"
User avatar
Bluesky2012
hunter
 
Posts: 573
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 12:14 pm

Re: Global Warming: 9,136 vs. 1

Postby Rat Creek » Mon Apr 28, 2014 1:41 pm

Indaswamp wrote:
huntmmup wrote:SpinnerMan instead of sounding stupid, why not learn a little about science? Read the article. All of those authors agree that the warming is caused primarily by man. They do not agree on the very complicated scientific models used to predict what will happen as we keep putting more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, thats what they are all studying and publishing articles about.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: .......says dhunt TO A SCIENTIST!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:



Made me laugh also. But not just the scientist part, though that is precious. :lol3: :lol3: :lol3:

I love the part where the hacks disagree on the science, hence the thousands of grant funded papers, but agree 100% that it is man's fault. :clapping: :lol3:

That really does sum up the Church of Global Warming believers. :bow: :bow: :bow:
Rat Creek
Rat Creek
hunter
 
Posts: 4358
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 4:11 pm
Location: Overland Park, KS

Re: Global Warming: 9,136 vs. 1

Postby Indaswamp » Mon Apr 28, 2014 1:56 pm

Rat Creek wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:
huntmmup wrote:SpinnerMan instead of sounding stupid, why not learn a little about science? Read the article. All of those authors agree that the warming is caused primarily by man. They do not agree on the very complicated scientific models used to predict what will happen as we keep putting more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, thats what they are all studying and publishing articles about.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: .......says dhunt TO A SCIENTIST!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:



Made me laugh also. But not just the scientist part, though that is precious. :lol3: :lol3: :lol3:

I love the part where the hacks disagree on the science, hence the thousands of grant funded papers, but agree 100% that it is man's fault. :clapping: :lol3:

That really does sum up the Church of Global Warming believers. :bow: :bow: :bow:

Image

Goremons!!! :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3:
Image
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56462
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Global Warming: 9,136 vs. 1

Postby Indaswamp » Mon Apr 28, 2014 1:58 pm

Image
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56462
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Global Warming: 9,136 vs. 1

Postby Indaswamp » Mon Apr 28, 2014 1:59 pm

Image
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56462
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Global Warming: 9,136 vs. 1

Postby huntmmup » Tue Apr 29, 2014 10:18 am

Bluesky2012 wrote:Sad part is this all stems from huntmmup getting crushed in the last debate. Buddy, I'm sorry, if you want to feel like you're argument is valid and justified head on over to MSNBC where propaganda reigns supreme and truth remains invalid.


No the sad part is that you say you worked with scientists on both sides of the argument, but wont list any. Then I list that 9,136 out 9,137 climatologists are on "one side" of the argument, and you go silent.
huntmmup
hunter
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 3:27 pm

Re: Global Warming: 9,136 vs. 1

Postby huntmmup » Tue Apr 29, 2014 10:19 am

Indaswamp those pictures are pretty, you must have a lot of free time on your hands. But can you find a peer reviewed paper written in the last year or two that denies global warming is happening and is manmade?
huntmmup
hunter
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 3:27 pm

Re: Global Warming: 9,136 vs. 1

Postby ScaupHunter » Tue Apr 29, 2014 10:27 am

your 9136 to 1 number has been thoroughly debunked here. Time to move on to a real number and science based facts in place of your MSM tripe.

Your boring us. Not in an amusing and slightly annoying way. As in completely and irretrievably boring so fully as to put us to sleep way.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6499
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: Global Warming: 9,136 vs. 1

Postby Bluesky2012 » Tue Apr 29, 2014 10:48 am

9136 also believe in man-bear-pig. +1 if you add huntmmup.
Your just starting to sound stupid now.
"There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion."

"If you don't chew big red, then f- you"
User avatar
Bluesky2012
hunter
 
Posts: 573
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 12:14 pm

Re: Global Warming: 9,136 vs. 1

Postby Bluesky2012 » Tue Apr 29, 2014 11:06 am

So to recap huntmmup's argument is essentially a lot of government and lobbyist funded scientists all agree that anthropogenically induced climate change is real based on their models and predictions, yet they cannot create a model that predicts any of the real world data, and they cannot agree on a magnitude or a model capable of proving their assertion. Seem a little fishy and pseudo religious? A little more faith based than evidence based?

huntmmup wrote:All of those authors agree that the warming is caused primarily by man. They do not agree on the very complicated scientific models used to predict what will happen as we keep putting more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, thats what they are all studying and publishing articles about.


They claim we must stop putting out greenhouse gasses because it will destroy the world, but they cannot model what would actually happen in a way that matches models... Hmmmmmmmmm.....
"There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion."

"If you don't chew big red, then f- you"
User avatar
Bluesky2012
hunter
 
Posts: 573
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 12:14 pm

Re: Global Warming: 9,136 vs. 1

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Apr 29, 2014 11:50 am

huntmmup wrote:Indaswamp those pictures are pretty, you must have a lot of free time on your hands. But can you find a peer reviewed paper written in the last year or two that denies global warming is happening and is manmade?

Why would they? Manmade global warming is happening. It's just not a catastrophe in the making. You make the same fatal mistake that those that deny it exist make. It is not a binary choice. We often forget that because the warmers make so many wild claims that we use global warming as a euphemism for the Al Gore and other morons and not the simple physics.

What do you believe?

A) Manmade global warming will be a disaster by mid century
B) Manmade global warming will be bad, but not a disaster by mid century
C) Manmade global warming is real, we don't know but it's likely to be bad
D) Manmade global warming is real, but it's likely about a wash
E) Manmade global warming is real, but it's likely to be a net positive (both good and bad, but more good) through at least mid century
F) Manmade global warming is real, but it's will be a net positive through at least mid century
G) Manmade global warming is not real, more CO2 has zero impact on temperature.

You think most people you disagree with are arguing G :fingerpt: When you ask people carefully, you find out that most are in the D. I personally believe it is E, but that is opinion because the fact is we simply do not know enough and cannot totally rule out B, but am pretty confident that range is C - F, which is why I support open and honest research with the researchers held to the most scrupulous standards.

Where do lie on my scale or rephrase it as you like?

People that "deny" global warming need to be clear that they are denying A and maybe B and not that they believe G. If they do believe G, and many do, they are simply ignorant of the basic physics. However, just because there is an effect, that is far from proof that it is not a positive net effect. It is certainly not proof that it is a huge net negative effect. And it's a long way from proving that the harm from preventing it is not greater than the harm from not.

Manmade global warming can be quite harmful and the best thing we can do is nothing because preventing it would be even more harmful. You will never hear a warmer admit that obvious possibility.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15924
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Global Warming: 9,136 vs. 1

Postby boney fingers » Tue Apr 29, 2014 1:48 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
huntmmup wrote:Indaswamp those pictures are pretty, you must have a lot of free time on your hands. But can you find a peer reviewed paper written in the last year or two that denies global warming is happening and is manmade?

Why would they? Manmade global warming is happening. It's just not a catastrophe in the making. You make the same fatal mistake that those that deny it exist make. It is not a binary choice. We often forget that because the warmers make so many wild claims that we use global warming as a euphemism for the Al Gore and other morons and not the simple physics.

What do you believe?

A) Manmade global warming will be a disaster by mid century
B) Manmade global warming will be bad, but not a disaster by mid century
C) Manmade global warming is real, we don't know but it's likely to be bad
D) Manmade global warming is real, but it's likely about a wash
E) Manmade global warming is real, but it's likely to be a net positive (both good and bad, but more good) through at least mid century
F) Manmade global warming is real, but it's will be a net positive through at least mid century
G) Manmade global warming is not real, more CO2 has zero impact on temperature.

You think most people you disagree with are arguing G :fingerpt: When you ask people carefully, you find out that most are in the D. I personally believe it is E, but that is opinion because the fact is we simply do not know enough and cannot totally rule out B, but am pretty confident that range is C - F, which is why I support open and honest research with the researchers held to the most scrupulous standards.

Where do lie on my scale or rephrase it as you like?

People that "deny" global warming need to be clear that they are denying A and maybe B and not that they believe G. If they do believe G, and many do, they are simply ignorant of the basic physics. However, just because there is an effect, that is far from proof that it is not a positive net effect. It is certainly not proof that it is a huge net negative effect. And it's a long way from proving that the harm from preventing it is not greater than the harm from not.

Manmade global warming can be quite harmful and the best thing we can do is nothing because preventing it would be even more harmful. You will never hear a warmer admit that obvious possibility.



While I completely agree with you on the semantics of the issue; for layman discussion purposes, I identify as a denier. As well, I don't consider someone who believes we are warming, but at an insignificant rate, as a warmer. You either believe in massive power and wealth transfers to correct the problem or you don't; ultimately this is where the line has been drawn in the sand, regardless of an assigned label.
boney fingers
hunter
 
Posts: 806
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:30 pm

Re: Global Warming: 9,136 vs. 1

Postby Glimmerjim » Wed Apr 30, 2014 10:47 am

SpinnerMan wrote: What do you believe?

A) Manmade global warming will be a disaster by mid century
B) Manmade global warming will be bad, but not a disaster by mid century
C) Manmade global warming is real, we don't know but it's likely to be bad
D) Manmade global warming is real, but it's likely about a wash
E) Manmade global warming is real, but it's likely to be a net positive (both good and bad, but more good) through at least mid century F) Manmade global warming is real, but it's will be a net positive through at least mid century
G) Manmade global warming is not real, more CO2 has zero impact on temperature.

I personally believe it is E,
Manmade global warming can be quite harmful and the best thing we can do is nothing because preventing it would be even more harmful. You will never hear a warmer admit that obvious possibility.


Spinner...so you are stating that you do indeed believe in anthropogenic global warmic, and that you also believe that it could possibly have a beneficial impact for possibly the next 36 years? 36 years, yet we should not make changes NOW to attempt to prevent it? And it is NOT a looming PROBLEM? :eek: I don't even have a clue how to respond, except that I am inferring that you consider your personal life as the only one worth concerning yourself over.

Possibly not related, but I thought you might get a kick out of this.....
http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/ ... -religion/

It's from a Pew Research Survey of scientists. The interesting part is in the "Science and Politics" category....

To paraphrase...approximately 6% of all scientists consider themselves as Republican, while approximately 55% consider themselves as Democrat.......well, that's counterintuitive and just....weird, eh?
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10741
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Global Warming: 9,136 vs. 1

Postby ScaupHunter » Wed Apr 30, 2014 11:49 am

Not counterintuitive at all. Most colleges are very liberal in views and leanings. Just exactly where do our scientists get trained? If you want to succeed and get ahead you often have to write, research, and work to meet the expectations of the Doctorate supervising your work.

With that many liberals running around in science circles you still don't think there is a bias?
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6499
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: Global Warming: 9,136 vs. 1

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed Apr 30, 2014 12:34 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:so you are stating that you do indeed believe in anthropogenic global warmic

I have ALWAYS said that. More CO2 will everything else being equal lead to a higher average temperature than otherwise would have existed. That does not tell us how much more for a given level of CO2 increase nor does it tell us the consequences.

Glimmerjim wrote:and that you also believe that it could possibly have a beneficial impact for possibly the next 36 years?

And likely a lot longer than that.

Glimmerjim wrote: yet we should not make changes NOW to attempt to prevent it?
Should we develop technology CAPABLE of preventing it while we gain the understanding necessary to see if the huge harm from higher priced energy is justified or not? Absolutely. If we could make nuclear the most economic form of energy by far, no government action is needed and the cost to society would be nothing and the impacts don't matter unless less CO2 is shown to be very harmful, are you open to that possibility?

Wind, Solar, energy efficiency, etc. are NOT capable of preventing global warming AND maintaining a modern lifestyle the world over. Sure we can force most of the world to live in abject poverty and the powerful jetsetters in the U.S. can live their lifestyles, but not with ever expanding quality of life around the world. Nuclear is the only option that seems plausible. I simply do not believe carbon sequestration is a viable option, but I have no problem doing the research. There is just too many concerns about the cost and environmental impacts. Plus my reason for supporting nuclear is NOT because of CO2. It is all the other health, safety, and environmental reasons. Many of which are greatly improved by using natural gas instead of coal.

Glimmerjim wrote:And it is NOT a looming PROBLEM?
Nowhere did I say it was catastrophic after midcentury :fingerhead: Would it be logic to assume based on what I said that I think we go off a cliff at that point? :lol3: :no: My belief is that we are probably good for a century if not longer for the status quo which includes a lot of economic growth. However, NOBODY KNOWS. So when you do not know if your neighbor is causing you harm, do you hit him with a fine, a tax, take away his property? Hell no! The burden of proof falls on you to prove the harm is real before you can penalize him and you have to do it in a completely open way so he can review and challenge all of your assumptions and validity of your data.

It is a potential problem, but the evidence is far from conclusive. Do you want to live in a world where significant penalties can be imposed without conclusive evidence just because people fear what you are doing? I hope not.

If all technologies capable are far more costly, then the real cost of higher CO2 is necessary to decide which is the least bad of two bad choices. We do not know the cost of the technologies nor do we know the cost of more CO2 or even if that cost is negative in the relevant future. We should figure those out in the most open and honest way possible.

Glimmerjim wrote:I don't even have a clue how to respond, except that I am inferring that you consider your personal life as the only one worth concerning yourself over.
:lol3: If I just cared about my personal life I would be for a massive carbon tax. We wouldn't be building just 5 commercial reactors is the U.S. we would be building dozens. There would be such a flood of research money in my field and my wallet would fatten considerable. Intellectual honest is what I value and regardless of the personal benefit, the evidence is not sufficient to justify the cost. I think we can reduce the cost, if we kept politics out of nuclear regulations, but just like the fear of the unknown drives people to fear higher CO2 levels, when it comes to radiation exposure, fear drives people to insanity.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/
Energy Source Mortality Rate (deaths/trillionkWhr)
Coal – China 280,000 (75% China’s electricity)
Coal – U.S. 15,000 (44% U.S. electricity)
Oil 36,000 (36% of energy, 8% of electricity)
Natural Gas 4,000 (20% global electricity)
Biofuel/Biomass 24,000 (21% global energy)
Solar (rooftop) 440 (< 1% global electricity)
Wind 150 (~ 1% global electricity)
Hydro – global average 1,400 (15% global electricity)
Nuclear – global average 90 (17% global electricity w/Chern&Fukush)

Rooftop solar kills more people per unit energy than nuclear even including Chernobyl which is not any more relevant than using China in the risk of U.S. coal. There are obviously pretty large uncertainties in these, but not so much as likely to change the relative values in a significant way. One major one is a wildly overly conservative estimate of the risk of radiation. That number is probably the absolute max while others are probably closer to best estimate averages. People are driven by fear and not risk and most of that fear comes from the fear of the unknown, the new, the unusual. These numbers will change almost no minds even if they have no doubt of their accuracy.

Glimmerjim wrote:To paraphrase...approximately 6% of all scientists consider themselves as Republican, while approximately 55% consider themselves as Democrat.......well, that's counterintuitive and just....weird, eh?
Not really. Many scientists are unemployable. I went to school with a lot of people who were working to get a Ph.D. in Physics while getting a M.S. in Health Physics (more or less like an Industrial Hygienist, but for workplaces involving radiation sources and radioactive materials). I have an M.S. in Health Physics, but the study was focused more heavily on environmental radiation protection than occupational radiation protection. Is a person who leans Republican or Democrat more likely to pursue a degree with limited prospects for employment? Engineers lean heavily Republican. Most do not identify themselves as scientists.

Personally I don't like being a scientists. It was not my plan. I actually have engineering drawings on my desk for the first time in a long time :banana:

What do they define as a scientist? This seems consistent with my experience if you look at Figure 2.
http://www.psych.umn.edu/sentience/files/Gage_2010.pdf
Biological sciences and social sciences are much like art majors and engineers are much like business/econ majors.

My guess is they do not include every person with at least a bachelor's of science degree, but a select subset and if you look at Figure 2, you see why picking your definition of scientist can so dramatically impact the results. Most engineers look down upon scientists because far too many of them these days are engaged in mental masturbation. Think Big Bang Theory, but mostly people with IQ's around 100 and not 150.

BTW, would you use a poll that shows business/economics majors leaning heavily Republican as proof that their policies are better because as a group, the people with the relevant education lean that way? I doubt it. Pick and choose what supports what you believe :yes:

BTW, I have had many letters to the editor published. I have NEVER used Dr. in front of my name. Too many self-described scientists like to use that label as an appeal to authority so they can avoid an appeal to logic and facts that they do not have. If you cannot make your case without providing your credentials, you cannot make your case and all you are providing is your opinion which is only an expert opinion if it is within the very narrow slice where you are an expert, which most scientists it is a stretch to describe them as an expert. Anything outside of that area of expertise, if it exists at all, is just an opinion and being a scientist is irrelevant. My opinion and personal life are no more or less valid than others. Most people, particular self-described scientists, think their opinion and personal life are more important. Scientists succumb to human nature. It's pretty easy to prove with a reductio ad hitlerium argument and his scientific and intellectual support.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15924
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Global Warming: 9,136 vs. 1

Postby dudejcb » Wed Apr 30, 2014 1:44 pm

Interesting that the Pew Research article aboout scientists and politics revealed that the number of scientists that consider themselves liberal pretty much reflects the split on voter turnout in recent elections: slightly more than half.

"The scientists’ belief that the scientific community is politically liberal is largely accurate. Slightly more than half of scientists (52%) describe their own political views as liberal, including 14% who describe themselves as very liberal. Among the general public, 20% describe themselves as liberal, with just 5% calling themselves very liberal."

This contravenes Scaup's contention that all scientists are liberal.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5243
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Rat Creek, SpinnerMan, WoodyWhiffingMG and 6 guests