what happened to global warming pun intended
- Thread starter djackjr
- Start date
Been snowing nonstop since noon yesterday... all through the night.
Quote:
algore, junk science Propaganda.
Polar ice the past couple of years both in the Arctic and Antarctic are increasing.
algore, junk science Propaganda.
Polar ice the past couple of years both in the Arctic and Antarctic are increasing.
wow, and to think i started all this with my one simple explanation!
Quote:
The polar ice is NOT melting. I did a persuasive speech during a Summer Speech program. It is a required course to graduate so I took it this summer. The persuasive speech was that global warming is NOT real. I even found out that all those pics of polar bears on tiny bits of ice?? NADA!! They were PLAYING on those bits of ice. They were NOT stuck there, they were NOT going to drown. They CHOSE to be on those little floats of ice. People like that are frauding us.
The polar ice is NOT melting. I did a persuasive speech during a Summer Speech program. It is a required course to graduate so I took it this summer. The persuasive speech was that global warming is NOT real. I even found out that all those pics of polar bears on tiny bits of ice?? NADA!! They were PLAYING on those bits of ice. They were NOT stuck there, they were NOT going to drown. They CHOSE to be on those little floats of ice. People like that are frauding us.
- Mar 25, 2007
- 1,310
- 10
- 181
Polar ice the past couple of years both in the Arctic and Antarctic are increasing.
Can you show me the satellite photos that demonstrate this? Because all the actual data that I can find (and I can find a LOT) is clearly to the contrary.
Do you know what an average is? On average (i.e, after you mathematically account for extremes), the planet overall is warming. When we add the various temperatures all over the world and divide by the surface area of the earth and time, the average is higher than it was decades ago. Your snowstorm is mathematically canceled out by heat waves in Asia and Europe over the summer. Sum 100 evenly distributed temperature readings daily for 365 days, divide by (510,072,000 km^2 x 365), and graph the result over the past howevermany years you like. You can pick an even distribution over the earth simply by using longitude/latitude lines and finding the nearest towns or islands, then searching the NOAA database for that day's results. Use Excel's Chart Wizard on the XY setting to graph your numbers and "add trendline" to find out whether the trend is linear or exponential.
Did you ever take physics in college? Heat is a form of energy. As we add heat to the planet, which is mostly water, the water evaporates. When it evaporates, it makes clouds that turn into storms. Since the atmosphere is in layers, as the water condenses back into droplets, whether it will be rain or snow depends on the temperature of the layers it falls through, not the temperature of the water surface that originally evaporated. Clouds can travel pretty far, transporting an awful lot of water before they condense back into precipitation. They can definitely go somewhere that has a layer of colder air at low altitudes.
With respect to money:
The R&D budget of Exxon-Mobil in 2007 was $814 million (per their own shareholders report. The average pay of an Exxon-Mobil senior scientist is about $100,000/year (per Payscale.com). Exxon-Mobil supplies all equipment, travel costs, corporate expense account for little things, protective clothing as needed.
The National Science Foundation budget for grant proposals on climate change in 2007 was $205.25 million (source: NSF budget request to Congress) . The average major grant award in geology is about $150,000/year , which pays for equipment (satellites, sampling equipment, chemical analysis machines, etc.) and a couple of technicians or grad students to help with the research over three years. Academic scientists buy a lot of their protective clothing and travel expenses out of pocket; those are not usually included in the grant. The university takes a percentage of the grant money (usually 30-40%) for "administration." The scientist in charge of the grant gets perhaps $20,000/year of that money. Most of 'em have no more than three grants, only one of them major. The minor ones are more like $60,000 over three years, and tend to have more restrictions on what they can be used for.
Corporate scientists make about 2-3X what academic scientists do. I should know, I work for Big Pharma! Believe me, my previous academic advisors are green with envy at my paycheck and my working conditions. If geologists were really just following the money, they'd ALL be working for Exxon-Mobil and BP! Especially considering that right now there are far fewer jobs available at universities, but the oil companies are still hiring. If you had a choice between a job paying maybe $60-70,000/year, where you had to do four actual jobs (1. research 2. grant applications and administration 3. teach 4. train students and postdocs), vs. a job that paid $100,000/year and you only had one job to do (research) with all expenses paid, which would you choose?
Sorry, but I do get tired of the misconception that scientists are all wealthy and sitting on piles of lucre in our remote castles, which we use to buy lightning machines and pay our hunchbacked servants and so forth. If I wanted to be filthy rich, and had no sense of ethics, I would have gotten an MBA and become a hedge fund manager or something. It's way easier.
Can you show me the satellite photos that demonstrate this? Because all the actual data that I can find (and I can find a LOT) is clearly to the contrary.
Do you know what an average is? On average (i.e, after you mathematically account for extremes), the planet overall is warming. When we add the various temperatures all over the world and divide by the surface area of the earth and time, the average is higher than it was decades ago. Your snowstorm is mathematically canceled out by heat waves in Asia and Europe over the summer. Sum 100 evenly distributed temperature readings daily for 365 days, divide by (510,072,000 km^2 x 365), and graph the result over the past howevermany years you like. You can pick an even distribution over the earth simply by using longitude/latitude lines and finding the nearest towns or islands, then searching the NOAA database for that day's results. Use Excel's Chart Wizard on the XY setting to graph your numbers and "add trendline" to find out whether the trend is linear or exponential.
Did you ever take physics in college? Heat is a form of energy. As we add heat to the planet, which is mostly water, the water evaporates. When it evaporates, it makes clouds that turn into storms. Since the atmosphere is in layers, as the water condenses back into droplets, whether it will be rain or snow depends on the temperature of the layers it falls through, not the temperature of the water surface that originally evaporated. Clouds can travel pretty far, transporting an awful lot of water before they condense back into precipitation. They can definitely go somewhere that has a layer of colder air at low altitudes.
With respect to money:
The R&D budget of Exxon-Mobil in 2007 was $814 million (per their own shareholders report. The average pay of an Exxon-Mobil senior scientist is about $100,000/year (per Payscale.com). Exxon-Mobil supplies all equipment, travel costs, corporate expense account for little things, protective clothing as needed.
The National Science Foundation budget for grant proposals on climate change in 2007 was $205.25 million (source: NSF budget request to Congress) . The average major grant award in geology is about $150,000/year , which pays for equipment (satellites, sampling equipment, chemical analysis machines, etc.) and a couple of technicians or grad students to help with the research over three years. Academic scientists buy a lot of their protective clothing and travel expenses out of pocket; those are not usually included in the grant. The university takes a percentage of the grant money (usually 30-40%) for "administration." The scientist in charge of the grant gets perhaps $20,000/year of that money. Most of 'em have no more than three grants, only one of them major. The minor ones are more like $60,000 over three years, and tend to have more restrictions on what they can be used for.
Corporate scientists make about 2-3X what academic scientists do. I should know, I work for Big Pharma! Believe me, my previous academic advisors are green with envy at my paycheck and my working conditions. If geologists were really just following the money, they'd ALL be working for Exxon-Mobil and BP! Especially considering that right now there are far fewer jobs available at universities, but the oil companies are still hiring. If you had a choice between a job paying maybe $60-70,000/year, where you had to do four actual jobs (1. research 2. grant applications and administration 3. teach 4. train students and postdocs), vs. a job that paid $100,000/year and you only had one job to do (research) with all expenses paid, which would you choose?
Sorry, but I do get tired of the misconception that scientists are all wealthy and sitting on piles of lucre in our remote castles, which we use to buy lightning machines and pay our hunchbacked servants and so forth. If I wanted to be filthy rich, and had no sense of ethics, I would have gotten an MBA and become a hedge fund manager or something. It's way easier.
Global Warming is one of the doctrines of this new RELIGION ....
And Al Gore, it appears, is the High Priest.
Kesta you indeed opened a can of worns!!
Last edited:
I do not buy it.. global warming..
glaciers have een breaking off and dropping ice cubes into the water for eons and they will keep on doing it..
and they say that the ozone a couple of hundred years ago was less and the temperature was an average of such and such.. and we now are warming up an average of 2 degrees from what it was 500 years ago.. tell me, who measured it 500 years ago?? and with what? people have been keeping records of daily temps for only about 100 years..much less, average world temps ..
gimme a break... if you see algore
send him to my house, I have a whole bunch of white slippery global warming to shovel off my driveway..
glaciers have een breaking off and dropping ice cubes into the water for eons and they will keep on doing it..
and they say that the ozone a couple of hundred years ago was less and the temperature was an average of such and such.. and we now are warming up an average of 2 degrees from what it was 500 years ago.. tell me, who measured it 500 years ago?? and with what? people have been keeping records of daily temps for only about 100 years..much less, average world temps ..
gimme a break... if you see algore
send him to my house, I have a whole bunch of white slippery global warming to shovel off my driveway..
Quote:
Who said anything about scientists being rich, Rosalind? No one here. The fact is scientists (true research scientists, not those paid by corporations) live by grants - and if they go against the GW religion they don't get said grants. Of course they can't be named, because again, they'll lose their grants. As for research, statistics, etc. they can all be used to further whatever agenda is currently on the table. By both sides.
Believe if you want to. Just make sure to keep your mind open, because the truth about GW will eventually come out, and it may be quite a bit different than what you've been lead to believe.
Antarctic ice caps are thickening Canada's ice is melting, while it's thickening near the South Pole. That's the way the earth works. We peabrained humans think it's all about us, but truly, it's all about the earth, the sun and the universe that contains us all.
Who said anything about scientists being rich, Rosalind? No one here. The fact is scientists (true research scientists, not those paid by corporations) live by grants - and if they go against the GW religion they don't get said grants. Of course they can't be named, because again, they'll lose their grants. As for research, statistics, etc. they can all be used to further whatever agenda is currently on the table. By both sides.
Believe if you want to. Just make sure to keep your mind open, because the truth about GW will eventually come out, and it may be quite a bit different than what you've been lead to believe.
Antarctic ice caps are thickening Canada's ice is melting, while it's thickening near the South Pole. That's the way the earth works. We peabrained humans think it's all about us, but truly, it's all about the earth, the sun and the universe that contains us all.
- Mar 25, 2007
- 1,310
- 10
- 181
The fact is scientists (true research scientists, not those paid by corporations) live by grants - and if they go against the GW religion they don't get said grants. Of course they can't be named, because again, they'll lose their grants.
Science is not religion. Science has been able to change its consensus, based on data, thousands if not millions of times over the past several centuries. That's the point, really, you don't HAVE to believe in anything--you just examine the data and think about it logically. No faith required.
I described a simple, rough way you can test the data for your very own self, without any belief or expertise involved. You don't have to listen to ANY experts to do that exercise, it's simple and easy-peasy and should take no more than a couple of hours. If your kids have an upcoming science project, let them do it. The math required is high school algebra.
It doesn't hurt me as a scientist to find out something extraordinary that differs from previous data. But when I do find out something new and different--and I do, about once or twice a year--I have to be able to explain logically why I might get a different result from someone else. If Lab A does the same experiment I do but gets result X, and I've got Y, there has to be a reason. Sometimes the reason is, Lab A forgot to add a crucial detail to their paper's methods section. Other times, the reason is a new scientific discovery. We have them all the time, although I accept that, for sure, the process of discovery and consensus-building is not well understood by the public. Oodles of scientists go against consensus all the time, and stay employed. If you don't support the global warming hypothesis, and your NSF grant is not renewed as a result, then it's easy enough to get a new, bigger grant from CAPP, Petrobras, BP, etc.
In fact, if you want to see a REAL debate (as opposed to one manufactured for PR purposes) in the scientific community, Google "science framing". It's a very big deal in the scientific community, how our work is presented to a public audience that doesn't have the science education to understand most of it. Some folks (Matt Nisbet, Chris Mooney, most notably) think we are scaring people by being so argumentative, because then people think that both sides, both yelling at each other, are just "believing" something, when in fact one side has hard evidence and the other has a lot of rhetoric. This applies in many PR manufactroversies, not just climate change. Other scientists feel (as do I) that we have a professional duty to point out facts, refute fallacies and encourage logical thinking, evidence-gathering and teach the public how to fact-check and analyze data on their own without relying on the "what do the experts say" heuristic. Some scientists feel we should put more efforts into open access publishing, so that everyone can see the results of tax-funded science, but that doesn't address the education issue.
Religion, OTOH, does not change a whole lot, and theology is much more stable as a thought process; the sacred texts of any religion don't change all that much, even over multiple translations. Belief transcends logical thought. I'm sure you can think of hundreds of examples where your personal holy text is categorized as "well, that was in the Olden Days" and which bits are categorized as a guide for modern life. Imagine a holy text where the particulars of every single line of it were being constantly edited--where you could have 12 commandments one year and 7 the next. You can't believe in a religion like that. Well, I guess you CAN, but it would be rather challenging. But you can think like that, if you're thinking about data: Seeing one sunrise in the morning doesn't change your ability to observe a different one the next morning.
Science is not religion. Science has been able to change its consensus, based on data, thousands if not millions of times over the past several centuries. That's the point, really, you don't HAVE to believe in anything--you just examine the data and think about it logically. No faith required.
It doesn't hurt me as a scientist to find out something extraordinary that differs from previous data. But when I do find out something new and different--and I do, about once or twice a year--I have to be able to explain logically why I might get a different result from someone else. If Lab A does the same experiment I do but gets result X, and I've got Y, there has to be a reason. Sometimes the reason is, Lab A forgot to add a crucial detail to their paper's methods section. Other times, the reason is a new scientific discovery. We have them all the time, although I accept that, for sure, the process of discovery and consensus-building is not well understood by the public. Oodles of scientists go against consensus all the time, and stay employed. If you don't support the global warming hypothesis, and your NSF grant is not renewed as a result, then it's easy enough to get a new, bigger grant from CAPP, Petrobras, BP, etc.
In fact, if you want to see a REAL debate (as opposed to one manufactured for PR purposes) in the scientific community, Google "science framing". It's a very big deal in the scientific community, how our work is presented to a public audience that doesn't have the science education to understand most of it. Some folks (Matt Nisbet, Chris Mooney, most notably) think we are scaring people by being so argumentative, because then people think that both sides, both yelling at each other, are just "believing" something, when in fact one side has hard evidence and the other has a lot of rhetoric. This applies in many PR manufactroversies, not just climate change. Other scientists feel (as do I) that we have a professional duty to point out facts, refute fallacies and encourage logical thinking, evidence-gathering and teach the public how to fact-check and analyze data on their own without relying on the "what do the experts say" heuristic. Some scientists feel we should put more efforts into open access publishing, so that everyone can see the results of tax-funded science, but that doesn't address the education issue.
Religion, OTOH, does not change a whole lot, and theology is much more stable as a thought process; the sacred texts of any religion don't change all that much, even over multiple translations. Belief transcends logical thought. I'm sure you can think of hundreds of examples where your personal holy text is categorized as "well, that was in the Olden Days" and which bits are categorized as a guide for modern life. Imagine a holy text where the particulars of every single line of it were being constantly edited--where you could have 12 commandments one year and 7 the next. You can't believe in a religion like that. Well, I guess you CAN, but it would be rather challenging. But you can think like that, if you're thinking about data: Seeing one sunrise in the morning doesn't change your ability to observe a different one the next morning.
Similar threads
New posts New threads Active threads
-
Latest threads
-
-
-
Certain breeds (Deserve the Darwin award?)- Started by EdgeC
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
-
Threads with more replies in the last 15 days
-
-
-
-
-
Please Help! Eggbound & Possible Prolapsed Vent- Started by Elspeth Dinsmore
- Replies: 102
-
