Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hey now - we are NOT interested in things like this. We just want to run around screaming, "THE SKY IS FALLING!!!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!"
The sky isn't falling we are just raising the CAFE standard, implementing Cap & Trade, and establishing a national renewable energy standard. No fuss, no muss. Just getting on with business.
The sky isn't falling we are just raising the CAFE standard, implementing Cap & Trade, and establishing a national renewable energy standard. No fuss, no muss. Just getting on with business.
LOL 79 scientists who are researching climate change responded to the survey. 97% of those believe global climate change is a problem. The survey was sent to all geoscience researchers. Most of those aren't actively involved in climate research as the article indicates and tabulates. I don't know how many PHD research climatologist we have, but it isn't 7 thousand. But all surveys, regardless of methodology have declines. 30% participation rate is about what the national survey organization deal with.
What I have is an understanding of statistical inference. Something I suspect you lack.
Well there are certainly more than 79 scientists who are researching climate change. And I know how to report statistics fairly well, certainly much better than you do.
Just an engineer poking holes in the nonsense spread by deniers. The big lobbying money in this space comes from API.
Moderator cut: No flaming
As I have stated, I have BSc and MSc in hydrology and hydraulic engineering (including statistics). And your credentials? Do you have a BSc in engineering? Or are you an engineer from the Navy? (You know, engineer: turn this knob, turn that knob.)
Several posts back you mentioned to someone if they knew the difference between Anthropogenic CO2 and Volcanic CO2?
On the point of Volcanic CO2, I do remember observing over the decades that such eruptions of that large volcano near Mexico city, Mount St Helens, Mount Pinatubo and others which blew tons upon tons of debri into the upper atmosphere actually brought more rains to Southern California. Despite the sad destruction and even loss of life, my part of the world benefitted somewhat, though at times we did get very bad flooding.
Yes, very good point. One volcanic eruption can make large-scale, but short-term, changes. The cumulative effect, however, of many eruptions is probably as not as well-researched as it should be.
There are other reasons, too, why the public hears so little in detail from those scientists who approach climate change issues rationally, the so-called climate sceptics. Most are to do with intimidation against speaking out, which operates intensely on several parallel fronts.
First, most government scientists are gagged from making public comment on contentious issues, their employing organisations instead making use of public relations experts to craft carefully tailored, frisbee-science press releases. Second, scientists are under intense pressure to conform with the prevailing paradigmof climate alarmism if they wish to receive funding for their research. Third, members of the Establishment have spoken declamatory words on the issue, and the kingdom's subjects are expected to listen.
The sadness, really, is that the science gets removed and replaced by politics. Policy wonks become more important than scientists. Both should be allowed to have informed opinions, but wonkism wins in the end.
Last edited by Teak; 06-20-2009 at 06:48 PM..
Reason: add
And now, a satellite tells us that the earth is cooling! Pffft, probably a god-fearing, republican-voting satellite at that.
SATELLITE INDICATES 23-YEAR GLOBAL COOLING | Center for Global Food Issues (http://www.cgfi.org/2008/05/05/satellite-indicates-23-year-global-cooling/ - broken link)
Someone ask the satellite: who did you vote for in 2000? 2004? 2008?
Just an engineer, eh? In another thread, you claimed to be former Navy, right?
That's correct the Navy needs technically competent people in critical positions. That was many years ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teak
For the record, rlchurch, what are your academic credentials?
As I have stated, I have BSc and MSc in hydrology and hydraulic engineering (including statistics). And your credentials? Do you have a BSc in engineering? Or are you an engineer from the Navy? (You know, engineer: turn this knob, turn that knob.)[
BSEE, Navy qualified Chief Engineer for nuclear propulsion plant, PE, MBA in finance, 30 years experience in the energy industry.
I have a son working on a BSc in Electrical Engineering; good degree to have.
I just want to keep god-bashing and republican-bashing out of a thread discussing global warming, okay. Can we agree to that? Good.
The science of climate change is still inexact and much is unknown. Certainly there are policy decisions that need to be made despite the lack of evidence and knowledge, but those decisions will have long-term effects and may not solve the problems anyway.
I prefer to listen to both sides. You learn more that way.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
