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 ScaupHunter » Wed Apr 30, 2014 2:03 pm

Who said they are all liberal? Not I. Might want to read that post again.
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: 6503
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am


Re: Global Warming: 9,136 vs. 1

Postby dudejcb » Wed Apr 30, 2014 2:18 pm

ScaupHunter wrote:Who said they are all liberal? Not I. Might want to read that post again.

Oh. Sorry, I thought you wrote this: "... 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?"

Apparently I mistakenly took that to mean you thought most scientists were 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

Re: Global Warming: 9,136 vs. 1

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed Apr 30, 2014 2:26 pm

dudejcb wrote: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.

Engineers, not scientists, I believe he probably said, but it gets into the semantics quickly. Engineering majors versus other science majors. Hard science versus soft science is another major distinction. Applied science versus theoretical science is another.

Does a political science degree make you a scientist? :huh:

Does an engineering degree make you a scientist? :huh:

Does a computer science degree make you a scientist? :huh:

What about the host of social science degrees? :huh:

Would it surprise anyone that people that pursue a social science degree lean hard left? :no:

Did they include them in the poll? Image

Break it down by major and I'll bet I can give a pretty good breakdown of political leanings and other than a few so can most people.

If Scaup did say scientists, I'm sure he did not include political and social science degrees in his group. However, there are many legitimate (for a lack of a better word) science majors where liberals are attracted to those fields disproportionately and that is the key factor.

The political leanings of the freshman class is not that different than the graduating class nor that different than mid career nor end of career professionals in those field. The politics they had before they were a scientist will be the primary determining factor of their politics once they officially become scientists. It's not what they learned. It's who they were at 18, which is largely determined by who their parents were and what their political leanings were.

Liberals that go into engineering do not en masse become Conservatives. Conservatives going into fine arts do not en masse become liberals. A good scientist would know this if they are interested in these kind of polls.

One thing that does happen is that people outside of the mainstream of the field tend to disproportionately leave the field making the fields a little more homogeneous than the incoming Freshman class over time. Granted the if you are not a liberal at 18, you don't have a heart, and if you are not a conservative at 30, you don't have a brain, still applies and there is some shift with age in some fields. However, the key is still the selection bias of the incoming Freshmen.

A detailed breakdown by major would be very interesting, but I have never seen it.

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: 15942
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Global Warming: 9,136 vs. 1

Postby dudejcb » Wed Apr 30, 2014 3:03 pm

Sorry Spinner. You lost me at "hard science." :grooving:
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

Re: Global Warming: 9,136 vs. 1

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:01 pm

dudejcb wrote:Sorry Spinner. You lost me at "hard science." :grooving:
Not surprising. Even with Al Gore's initiative at your fingertips, you still can't look up simple phrases.

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Hard_science
Any of the natural or physical sciences wherein facts or truths are derived from empirical investigations or experiments based on scientific method.


http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Soft_science
Any of the specialized disciplines based on qualitative analysis or scientific investigations for which strictly measurable criteria may be difficult to establish.


I hope Jim and others read this piece. It is very good.
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-04-28/poor-people-have-carbon-footprints-too

So here are the questions that Hayes should have asked and didn't: Should we invade China to prevent it from heating the planet? Should we send troops into Saudi Arabia to seize the oil fields? Should we recolonialize Africa to keep its nations from exploiting their energy assets? It may not be conceivable that any nation will deliberately impoverish itself for the sake of the world -- but it might invade another country and shatter its economy for the same purpose.

This is the reality, even if you believe the worst. I had a professor in my office that was doing some CO2/energy modeling. He was one of the few guys that asked the right question. His premise was simple. We cannot control CO2 to a level until it starts impacting China negatively. He said that was 2C and a certain ppm, both of which have got to have big error bars on. Do you think China will care if some poor people in some low lying region go underwater? :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: So we are not going to force China to sacrifice for any other nation and I'd argue that we sacrifice too much we run a real risk of China seeking to become a bigger nation as Russia is currently doing. History says that is quite likely.

I’d say the answer is obviously not. But if we are not willing to do that, then we will need to find some way to persuade people to leave it in the ground -- hopefully, by making it cheaper to get energy some other way. Or we will need to figure out some geoengineering solution that will let us take the carbon back out of the atmosphere faster than we put it in. What is not helpful is to focus on the enemies we’d like to have, rather than the complexities we actually face. If you want to talk about expropriation, that is whom you need to target -- and understand that the cost must be counted, not on corporate balance sheets, but in human lives.

And Jim, this is what I have devoted my working life to doing. Trying to make a cheaper, safer, more environmentally friendly near-carbon free energy technology. While I think the safety and other environmental benefits are more important, the negligible carbon footprint is an added bonus. Of course, Democrats kill every attempt to move forward when they take office.

Jimmy Carter - killed nuclear fuel recycle in LWRs (not convinced he was not right for the wrong reasons)

Bill Clinton - shutdown EBR-II and the IFR program, both part of the path to near zero demand for uranium mining and minimum nuclear waste

Barack Obama - killed the Nuclear Waste Repository (necessary even if we turned all nuclear power plants off tomorrow) and killed what was essentially the IFR program that was reconstituted under Bush as a way to allow any country around the world to have access to carbon free nuclear power without us having to worry that it was simply a clandestine nuclear weapons program like in Iran.
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: 15942
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Global Warming: 9,136 vs. 1

Postby ScaupHunter » Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:18 pm

dudejcb wrote:
ScaupHunter wrote:Who said they are all liberal? Not I. Might want to read that post again.

Oh. Sorry, I thought you wrote this: "... 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?"

Apparently I mistakenly took that to mean you thought most scientists were liberal.



Remedial English lesson for Dude. All means every last one. Most means greater than 50%. Again, you might want to reread the post. That and take English as a second language for a year or two! :lol3:
Last edited by ScaupHunter on Fri May 02, 2014 8:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
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: 6503
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: Global Warming: 9,136 vs. 1

Postby nitram » Fri May 02, 2014 5:47 am

In 1974, Time magazine ran a story warning that global cooling was resulting in excessive rainfall in parts of the world. “During 1972 record rains in parts of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in centuries,” they wrote. “Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.” But after an epic storm swept over the eastern U.S. this week, bringing over two feet of rain to parts of the Gulf Coast and widespread flooding up the Eastern Seaboard, alarmists now blame global warming. Al Gore says rising temperatures are “making events like this worse” (earth’s not warming, by the way), and Princeton professor and IPCC member Michael Oppenheimer cited a Climate Central article linking heavy rains to a “warming” world. For the record, as just one example, 28.50" of rain fell in Smethport, Pennsylvania in July 1942 – in three hours. Check out the list below for more rainfall records across the U.S. Note that none of these occurred later than 1996. (H/T: Steven Goddard.)
Attachments
US Record Rainfalls.png
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 ScaupHunter » Fri May 02, 2014 8:30 am

THE SKY IS FALLING. THE SKY IS FALLING! Someone needs to sit these idiots down and show them Chicken Little ( the movie ). I am going to laugh my azz off when the next Little Ice Age sets in over the Midwest and the summers turn it into a dust bowl. Lets hears the global warmers explain that one!

Sorry midwesterners, but in this model you are going to take a beating. :devil:

By the way. I was chatting with a buddy from Ohio today. We were having fun talking about 92 degrees in May in Western Washington and 55 degrees at night in Ohio. Role reversals anyone?
Last edited by ScaupHunter on Fri May 02, 2014 2:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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: 6503
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: Global Warming: 9,136 vs. 1

Postby kcwellington » Fri May 02, 2014 2:25 pm

One volcanic eruption puts more CO2 into the atmospere than there ever has been since man existed. Oh yea! I forgot. The eruption was caused by man made global warming. Sorry?!? :fingerhead:
kcwellington
hunter
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2014 5:13 pm

Re: Global Warming: 9,136 vs. 1

Postby Gunnysway » Sat May 03, 2014 5:07 am

ScaupHunter wrote:THE SKY IS FALLING. THE SKY IS FALLING! Someone needs to sit these idiots down and show them Chicken Little ( the movie ). I am going to laugh my azz off when the next Little Ice Age sets in over the Midwest and the summers turn it into a dust bowl. Lets hears the global warmers explain that one!

Sorry midwesterners, but in this model you are going to take a beating. :devil:

Don't apologize to us... We will be the only ones that can handle it.

Now drink your Starbucks mocha vanilla late thingy...
:lol3:

:hi:



By the way. I was chatting with a buddy from Ohio today. We were having fun talking about 92 degrees in May in Western Washington and 55 degrees at night in Ohio. Role reversals anyone?
Setting up meetings between geese and God since 1992...

Gud till ära, oss till gagn...
User avatar
Gunnysway
hunter
 
Posts: 2759
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 11:46 am
Location: Somewhere between Heaven and Hell

Previous

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests