[split] Climate Change - General Discussion
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-05-2017, 12:56 AM
RE: [split] Climate Change - General Discussion
(28-05-2017 07:34 PM)SYZ Wrote:  and even more obviously not a science teacher—as your understanding [sic ] of science appears minimal at best.

Unofrtunately given the horror stories that come out of America with regard to education I can well believe that Walter might actually be a science teacher. I can only imagine the damage he could do to a kid's growing sense of excitement, telling them that science was all corrupt and a big conspiracy, and in addition was boring as fuck since the only thing of importance happened when Walter the conquering hero and his brother and his Dad realised that sugar didn't cause cancer in the 70s and stood up for what was right.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
29-05-2017, 07:21 AM
RE: [split] Climate Change - General Discussion
(28-05-2017 10:40 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  'What is a climate scientist' ?
Cheers.

When I first saw this, my reaction was, “God, what a great question”. However, to have asked my mother what nutrition science was about when she ignored science would have made little sense. I never gave it much thought, but here goes.

1. It is a geological process, so geologist with specialty in climate. Grandpa was Precambrian, but I am sure he had a good grasp of many other areas. Now, as a rock/mineral man, he was summoned to DC by the War Department in the 40s. I do not know if it was a polite request or not. (Will those damn irrelevant anecdotes never stop?!).

2. Water 70% of surface (3 phases), so physical chemistry. I loved phase diagrams. No, I did not. I was strictly an organic synthesis, mechanism guy with very limited mathematics capabilities.

3. Dynamics of fluids and gases, so physics, chemical engineering. Damn, engineering? Dad wrote a paper for his company on the equations of aircraft motion used in flight control system design. No understanding here. Moving fluids and gases has to be even more fun than a moving aircraft.

4. Single phase gases, extension of #2. Chemistry, physics.

5. Atmospheric systems, so meterology, physics

6. Thermodynamics, so physical chemistry

5. Sun, so solar physics, physical chemistry

7. Mathematics / statistics

6. Computer coding


Those are the ones which came to mind. I have no doubt that other disciplines were missed. Rightly or wrongly, I interchange physical chemistry and chemical physics.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2017, 07:39 AM
RE: [split] Climate Change - General Discussion
(28-05-2017 10:40 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  'What is a climate scientist' ?
Cheers.

Man, I was typing way too fast this morning. Rinse and repeat.
Meterology - the study of meters, vs. the study of millimeters

When I first saw this, my reaction was, “God, what a great question”. However, to have asked my mother what nutrition science was about when she ignored science would have made little sense. I never gave it much thought, but here goes.

1. It is a geological process, so geologist with specialty in climate. Grandpa was Precambrian, but I am sure he had a good grasp of many other areas. Now, as a rock/mineral man, he was summoned to DC by the War Department in the 40s. I do not know if it was a polite request or not. (Will those damn irrelevant anecdotes never stop?!).

2. Water 70% of surface (3 phases), so physical chemistry. I loved phase diagrams. No, I did not. I was strictly an organic synthesis, mechanism guy with very limited mathematics capabilities.

3. Dynamics of fluids and gases, so physics, chemical engineering. Damn, engineering? Dad wrote a paper for his company on the equations of aircraft motion used in flight control system design. No understanding here. Moving fluids and gases have to be even more fun than a moving aircraft.

4. Single phase gases, extension of #2. Chemistry, physics.

5. Atmospheric systems, so meteorology, physics

6. Thermodynamics, so physical chemistry

7. Sun, so solar physics, physical chemistry

8. Mathematics / statistics

9. Computer coding


Those are the ones which came to mind. I have no doubt that other disciplines were missed. Rightly or wrongly, I interchange physical chemistry and chemical physics.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2017, 08:16 AM
RE: [split] Climate Change - General Discussion
(26-05-2017 08:42 AM)morondog Wrote:  It's ... kind of amazing how far up your rectum you have to be, to not recognise what a fucking fool you are making of yourself. To think that you're "winning" Rolleyes

Are you teasing? I lost by a wide margin when Congress made fat fear mongering a science. Have you ever heard the phrases “heart healthy whole grains”, “saturated fat leads to heart disease”, “artery clogging saturated fat”?

The margin is even larger with carbon dioxide fear mongering. Global warming, sea level rise, melting artic, species extinction events, all traced to the Industrial Revolution.

With both, I am up against the federal government and every scientific organization in the country. I do not know of a single government agency or scientific association or society which opposes saturated fat and carbon dioxide fear mongering.

God, it feels good to be winner! Too funny.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2017, 08:56 AM
RE: [split] Climate Change - General Discussion
Oh ffs, only a complete cretin would deny the role of carbon dioxide and climate change generally. I've seen the changes in climate over the last 40 years first hand, I KNOW its real.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2017, 08:58 AM
RE: [split] Climate Change - General Discussion
(29-05-2017 08:16 AM)Walter Wrote:  I am up against the federal government and every scientific organization in the country.

Perhaps you might consider that it's not everyone else that is wrong. That's what a scientifically literate person would do.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Heath_Tierney's post
29-05-2017, 09:32 AM
RE: [split] Climate Change - General Discussion
I'm rather amused by comparing the careful observations and published data of amateur astronomers to the work of "amateur climate scientists". Astronomers rely on the work of those amateurs because their data, if carefully measured, is useful to the total picture as an extra set of eyes on the subject. But the actual scientists rely on amateurs only to the degree their data can be verified as properly gathered and accurate, when confirmed by professionals. What the astronomers like about the amateurs is that their extra observations help astronomers look in places they haven't yet looked, when something interesting comes up, because there's just so much sky that it's impossible to catch everything.

And there are indeed people who are amateurs and yet are useful in their reviews of the scientific data on climate, and are acknowledged by the scientific community. But that's not what we're talking about, here. We're talking about denialists who ignore the scientific data and simply try to shit on what's being done because they don't like the idea. That's a world of difference.

Walter, I find it hard to believe that you're not trolling us, with your warped view of how science works. Can you seriously not understand that the denalists upon whom you are attempting to rely are not "amateurs" or even trained scientists who simply hold an alternate position, but are akin to the bough-and-paid-for scientists who told us for years that cigarettes don't really cause cancer, or that Tetra-Ethyl Lead was not a contributor to the rising lead levels in the atmosphere?

You want an anecdote? Check out the story of Clair Patterson and his fight against the well-funded lobbying power of Dr. Robert Kehoe, who stood before Congress and managed to stall with the same tactics that are now being used to deny climate change, saying: "Well, we don't KNOW that this is the cause.", "How can humans make such a radical change to our atmosphere?", "The links just aren't well proven, yet.", and so on. But they were well-proven. The only people denying it were paid to do so, or had ideological or financial reasons to want to support the petroleum and automobile industries. Thankfully, it was a different time, and our country's leaders did eventually listen to the growing voices of scientists screaming that we were poisoning everyone with our actions. Yet it took 30 years for such a seemingly obvious problem to generate a change, despite that.

Today, it has taken longer because we have numerous ideologues and/or "leaders" who are just giving corporate America a blowjob for cash, in both parties. And this threat is even bigger than tetraethyl lead... both to our own lives and to the profit margins of the rich and powerful.




"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
29-05-2017, 09:33 AM
RE: [split] Climate Change - General Discussion
(29-05-2017 08:16 AM)Walter Wrote:  I do not know of a single government agency or scientific association or society which opposes saturated fat and carbon dioxide fear mongering.

Why should they? That'd be like the Association of Mechanical Engineers bothering with some tinfoil dickhead's backyard model demonstrating that there's no way the buildings could have collapsed from planes being flown into them.

The medical community has weighed in on their opinion of saturated fats. They did their job. Saying anything more would be inappropriate. I'm surprised you're not already aware of all this.

From Harvard Medical School -
"Is saturated fat bad for you? ... A handful of recent reports have muddied the link between saturated fat and heart disease. One meta-analysis of 21 studies said that there was not enough evidence to conclude that saturated fat increases the risk of heart disease, but that replacing saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat may indeed reduce risk of heart disease."

From the dudes who actually did the meta-study -

Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease. -
CONCLUSIONS:
A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD. More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat

(29-05-2017 08:16 AM)Walter Wrote:  God, it feels good to be winner!

Yes you did little fella! Now you take that goldfish home and take good care of it.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like GirlyMan's post
29-05-2017, 09:47 AM
RE: [split] Climate Change - General Discussion
(29-05-2017 08:58 AM)Heath_Tierney Wrote:  
(29-05-2017 08:16 AM)Walter Wrote:  I am up against the federal government and every scientific organization in the country.

Perhaps you might consider that it's not everyone else that is wrong. That's what a scientifically literate person would do.

That quote from Walter should be a huge flag, but some how its gone completely over his head. It takes a special kind of arrogance to fly in the face of scientific opinion and the number of people who have done so and been proven right is miniscule in comparison to those definitively proven as crackpots, but somehow the desire to be famous is seductive enough to keep the loonies coming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like adey67's post
29-05-2017, 12:23 PM
RE: [split] Climate Change - General Discussion
(29-05-2017 09:47 AM)adey67 Wrote:  
(29-05-2017 08:58 AM)Heath_Tierney Wrote:  Perhaps you might consider that it's not everyone else that is wrong. That's what a scientifically literate person would do.

That quote from Walter should be a huge flag, but some how its gone completely over his head. It takes a special kind of arrogance to fly in the face of scientific opinion and the number of people who have done so and been proven right is miniscule in comparison to those definitively proven as crackpots, but somehow the desire to be famous is seductive enough to keep the loonies coming.

There's also a correct way to disagree. Disagreeing by attempting to enlist support from non-specialists is what politicians do. Writing a goddamn paper is what a real scientist would do. It's also how I know Walter is full of shit.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: