Official Global Warming thread (merged)

Wow,
Why don't you spend that much energy investigating Mann or Jones?

You already did it for me :p

But seriously Fred Singer is notorious. He's been on the wrong side of just about every environmental issue and doesn't hide the fact that his stances are politically motivated. It doesn't take a thorough investigation to expose him. But if you're interested there are much more thorough books on the subject like "Shapers of the Great Debate on Conservation: A Biographical Dictionary" and "Merchants of Doubt" (I personally find science history fascinating).

I care about this topic because there's this ridiculous anti-science, anti-intellectual, anti-authority mindset that pervades parts of American culture, like science is out to destroy religion and capitalism and bring about a new world order. As a scientist I find that incredibly offensive and downright bizarre.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
its - 15 below zero, here in Illinois today -- stop this nonsense about global warming -- Gen Beauregard Lewis can do better than the GW clowns.

Actually I have changed my position on the whole global warming thing......I have a very small refrigerator in my apartment. I buy craft beer by the growler. Now that the temps are hovering between 20 and 30 outside....the temp stays right at freezing up next to the apartment walls on our patio. Man what an AWESOME beer cooler. Stay frosty my friends and drink COLD beer.
 
John Kerry says you're a "flat earther" if you don't believe in global warming.

This entire administration is a collection of retards that is an embarrassment to this country.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
You already did it for me :p

But seriously Fred Singer is notorious. He's been on the wrong side of just about every environmental issue and doesn't hide the fact that his stances are politically motivated. It doesn't take a thorough investigation to expose him. But if you're interested there are much more thorough books on the subject like "Shapers of the Great Debate on Conservation: A Biographical Dictionary" and "Merchants of Doubt" (I personally find science history fascinating).

I care about this topic because there's this ridiculous anti-science, anti-intellectual, anti-authority mindset that pervades parts of American culture, like science is out to destroy religion and capitalism and bring about a new world order. As a scientist I find that incredibly offensive and downright bizarre.

Well, let's see he's on the right side of global warming. He was on the right side of Kyoto treaty. He was on the right side of carbon tax. Seems like a pretty good track record.
 
Damn, seems like an outstanding career:

Siegfried Fred Singer (born September 27, 1924) is an Austrian-born American physicist and emeritus professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia.[1] Singer trained as an atmospheric physicist and is known for his work in space research, atmospheric pollution, rocket and satellite technology, his questioning of the link between UV-B and melanoma rates, and that between CFCs and stratospheric ozone loss,[2] his public denial of the health risks of passive smoking, and as an outspoken critic of the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. He is the author or editor of several books including Global Effects of Environmental Pollution (1970), The Ocean in Human Affairs (1989), Global Climate Change (1989), The Greenhouse Debate Continued (1992), and Hot Talk, Cold Science (1997). He has also co-authored Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years (2007) with Dennis Avery, and Climate Change Reconsidered (2009) with Craig Idso.[3] [4]

Singer has had a varied career, serving in the armed forces, government, and academia. He designed mines for the U.S. Navy during World War II, before obtaining his Ph.D. in physics from Princeton University in 1948 and working as a scientific liaison officer in the U.S. Embassy in London.[5] He became a leading figure in early space research, was involved in the development of earth observation satellites, and in 1962 established the National Weather Bureau's Satellite Service Center. He was the founding dean of the University of Miami School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences in 1964, and held several government positions, including deputy assistant administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency, and chief scientist for the Department of Transportation. He held a professorship with the University of Virginia from 1971 until 1994, and with George Mason University until 2000.[3] [6]

Singer has been an advocate of the skeptical stance in the global warming controversy for a number of years. In 1990 he founded the Science & Environmental Policy Project to advocate this position,[3][7] and in 2006 was named by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as one of a minority of scientists said to be creating a stand-off on a consensus on climate change.[8] Singer argues there is no evidence that global warming is attributable to human-caused increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide, and that humanity would benefit if temperatures do rise.[9] He is an opponent of the Kyoto Protocol, and has said of the climate models that scientists use to project future trends that "models are very nice, but they are not reality and they are not evidence." [10] Singer has been accused of rejecting peer-reviewed and independently confirmed scientific evidence in his claims concerning public health and environmental issues.
 
Bill Nye debates Tennessee's own Rep. Blackburn on Meet the Press.

Story

Video

Some fair points made by both, though I obviously side with Nye. Let's say we accept AGW as fact. Does the cost of action outweigh the benefit? For how long?
 
Bill Nye debates Tennessee's own Rep. Blackburn on Meet the Press.

Story

Video

Some fair points made by both, though I obviously side with Nye. Let's say we accept AGW as fact. Does the cost of action outweigh the benefit? For how long?

Let's say we accept AGW as a hoax and give it the consideration it deserves.
 
Damn, seems like an outstanding career:

He had a successful career before he jumped aboard the crazy train. My critique is there. The facts are out in the open for everyone to see and make up their own mind.

Do you really believe every environmental issue is fabricated to increase the reach of government? I challenge you to pick up one of the books I suggested. I may order "Merchants of Doubt" myself.
 
I care about this topic because there's this ridiculous anti-science, anti-intellectual, anti-authority mindset that pervades parts of American culture, like science is out to destroy religion and capitalism and bring about a new world order. As a scientist I find that incredibly offensive and downright bizarre.

I agree with all of this. what field are you in?
 
Let's say we accept AGW as a hoax and give it the consideration it deserves.

Just trying to spark conversation but we can stay in flat earth society and continue debating the science. I'd be more interested in discussing the actual politics but this has been entertaining enough.
 
Glad I'm not the only one :loco: I'm in geology/geophysics

lol no ****. im about to get my MS in geophysics in a couple months im submitting/defending my thesis in april. are you in academia or industry?

and just to stay on topic. i dont understand why people try to deny science. the data is what it is. the only thing that is debatable is whether or not it will severely impact us in the future. i honestly dont know, but i believe we should hedge our bets and try to be more efficient. there is really no reason not to.
 
lol no ****. im about to get my MS in geophysics in a couple months im submitting/defending my thesis in april. are you in academia or industry?

and just to stay on topic. i dont understand why people try to deny science. the data is what it is. the only thing that is debatable is whether or not it will severely impact us in the future. i honestly dont know, but i believe we should hedge our bets and try to be more efficient. there is really no reason not to.

Cool beans. I've worked in academia and government but once I finish my degree I plan to do consulting here in Washington. I'd like to spend some time in mineral exploration while I'm still young but the market is way down right now.

I agree. We're going to run out of fossil fuels sooner or later anyway. We should be leading the charge in alternative energy technology instead of twiddling our thumbs.
 
Last edited:
Cool beans. I've worked in academia and government but once I finish my degree I plan to do consulting here in Washington. I'd like to spend some time in mineral exploration while I'm still young but the market is way down right now.

I agree, we're going to run out of fossil fuels sooner or later anyway. We should be leading the charge in alternative energy technology instead of twiddling our thumbs.

i know ive applied to probably 100 jobs since new years and havent heard anything back yet...guess it only takes one to work out. such a pain in the ass though
 
i know ive applied to probably 100 jobs since new years and havent heard anything back yet...guess it only takes one to work out. such a pain in the ass though

Yeah it's rough. Lucky for me there's tons of work in consulting here in the pacific northwest. The market is cyclical so maybe in 5-10 years I'll give exploration a shot. Everyone needs minerals.

What field are you trying to break into? And where do you live (or want to live)?
 
Yeah it's rough. Lucky for me there's tons of work in consulting here in the pacific northwest. The market is cyclical so maybe in 5-10 years I'll give exploration a shot. Everyone needs minerals.

What field are you trying to break into? And where do you live (or want to live)?

ive applied to every oil company i can find and any govt jobs that i am qualified for. i am from MD but am willing to relocate anywhere. i feel like everyone needs a seismologist, but i havent gotten any callbacks yet...you PhD? luckily for you, the pacific northwest and west coast in general are good places for our field.
 
ive applied to every oil company i can find and any govt jobs that i am qualified for. i am from MD but am willing to relocate anywhere. i feel like everyone needs a seismologist, but i havent gotten any callbacks yet...you PhD? luckily for you, the pacific northwest and west coast in general are good places for our field.

Hmm my only advice would be to look into more junior exploration companies. Or if you're willing to work in remote places overseas the market is a bit better (and the pay is great). And of course there's stuff you could do outside of oil such as work for a government agency or consulting firm. I agree, everyone does need a seismologist :)

How did you come to follow the Vols? UT grad?
 
Hmm my only advice would be to look into more junior exploration companies. Or if you're willing to work in remote places overseas the market is a bit better (and the pay is great). And of course there's stuff you could do outside of oil such as work for a government agency or consulting firm. I agree, everyone does need a seismologist :)

How did you come to follow the Vols? UT grad?

yea i am sort of using the "shotgun theory" that if i apply enough places one will work out lol. yea my dads family is from tennessee and i went to the UT Cal game in 07 (maybe 06?) and i just loved it so i went there for civil engineering and ended up switching into geology to be a geophysicist. ive been applying govt places, but im not qualified for that many of the open positions
 
Bill Nye debates Tennessee's own Rep. Blackburn on Meet the Press.

Story

Video

Some fair points made by both, though I obviously side with Nye. Let's say we accept AGW as fact. Does the cost of action outweigh the benefit? For how long?

And here is the rub. What action?

Crippling the economy with draconian regulations in a feeble attempt to slow down or prevent something we can do neither about? Or do we accept that the climate has, is and will continue to change as long as this ball is spinning around the sun and learn to live and deal with it?
 
And here is the rub. What action?

Crippling the economy with draconian regulations in a feeble attempt to slow down or prevent something we can do neither about? Or do we accept that the climate has, is and will continue to change as long as this ball is spinning around the sun and learn to live and deal with it?

Speaking only hypothetically that GW and climate change is real, what would be the difference in bettering human life from it as opposed to cancer? Or vehicle safety? We have been striving towards improving human life for a century, and it comes at a cost. So why wouldn't we continue to do what we have done and research ways to improve quality of life?
 
Speaking only hypothetically that GW and climate change is real, what would be the difference in bettering human life from it as opposed to cancer? Or vehicle safety? We have been striving towards improving human life for a century, and it comes at a cost. So why wouldn't we continue to do what we have done and research ways to improve quality of life?

Absolutely, we should be researching how to deal with the possible effects of a changing climate. That would be a much more productive use of funds than spending research money on trying to control something we have zero control over while crippling our economy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Speaking only hypothetically that GW and climate change is real, what would be the difference in bettering human life from it as opposed to cancer? Or vehicle safety? We have been striving towards improving human life for a century, and it comes at a cost. So why wouldn't we continue to do what we have done and research ways to improve quality of life?

Improving quality of life is perfectly acceptable and encouraged by many if not most human beings.

But as I pointed out in this thread some time back, the problem comes when the science of climatic study becomes a political issue. When you introduce politics into science, it no longer becomes science. I'm all for having the open and honest debate about possible climatic change. But I'm also not for having that debate when all the science is not put out there for the people to see and take in.

BartW will disagree with me and downplay the relevance of the information that has been repressed and covered up. But the simple fact that ANY information was covered up is a signal flare that shady dealings are going on.
 
I (and the vast majority of climate scientists) disagree that we have zero influence over our climate. We’ve clearly influenced the atmosphere’s composition. While much damage has already been done, if we continue with business as usual and don’t curb CO2 emissions at all the results will likely be catastrophic. An intelligent risk management approach would involve taking steps to prevent a catastrophic scenario if it were a mere possibility, let alone the most probable outcome. The costs of reactive measures will be far greater than the costs of proactive measures. As GBO said, it’s an investment in improving quality of life.

Again, we’re going to run out of fossil fuels sooner or later so why not start phasing in alternative energy now? It makes sense from an environmental and business standpoint. If the USA wants to make bank in the future energy market we need to be on the forefront, innovating instead of twiddling our thumbs. China is currently whooping our butts in that regard.

How long until you will be convinced of AGW? How long do we ignore the problem, hoping it will go away?


GV - feel free to expand on your conspiracy theory
 
I (and the vast majority of climate scientists) disagree that we have zero influence over our climate. We’ve clearly influenced the atmosphere’s composition. While much damage has already been done, if we continue with business as usual and don’t curb CO2 emissions at all the results will likely be catastrophic. An intelligent risk management approach would involve taking steps to prevent a catastrophic scenario if it were a mere possibility, let alone the most probable outcome. The costs of reactive measures will be far greater than the costs of proactive measures. As GBO said, it’s an investment in improving quality of life.

Again, we’re going to run out of fossil fuels sooner or later so why not start phasing in alternative energy now? It makes sense from an environmental and business standpoint. If the USA wants to make bank in the future energy market we need to be on the forefront, innovating instead of twiddling our thumbs. China is currently whooping our butts in that regard.

How long until you will be convinced of AGW? How long do we ignore the problem, hoping it will go away?


GV - feel free to expand on your conspiracy theory

China is whipping our butts in what regard? Have you seen the pictures of Beijing where the smog is so bad you can't see much further than 100 yards in any direction?

If you're going to continue to hold China up as an example for the US to follow, you're going to lose credibility quickly.
 
Advertisement





Back
Top