Global Warming? I don't know what to believe.

[Slot Machine]

people generally interpret the data differently.

I love watching you lose it when I miss one word. It is like you've won the Bogley lottery and magically you've made your point. Here is a Keenex. Please wipe off your hands.

Scientists and researchers generally, almost universally, understand the data.

If you don't understand the data, it doesn't mean it isn't valid. If you don't agree with facts, they don't magically become untrue.

[Iceaxe]

1: A link to a reputable source.

ROFLMAO....

You really just don't get it do you? That is a big part of the issue. We could probably spend the next year discussing what is a reputable source. That could easily turn into a bigger debate then who, if anyone, is responsible for global warming.

***insert guy eating popcorn here***

[Scott P]

.....I doubt anyone here and mostly you.....

If Scott P. was worried about it--his global footprint wouldn't be one of the size to dwarf godzilla. (godzilla is real, isn't it?)

Where did you come up with that conclusion? My carbon footprint is more than triple digit-negative; off set through rainforest reforestation through the Nature Conservancy. Before being critical of that though, I have never said that you should be forced to do the same, nor have I ever bragged about it, nor been critical of anyone else who doesn't. If you believe that it is all bogus, then there is no harm in contributing to reforestation anyway and it is still a good cause either way.

I have never believed in the all or nothing approach or attitude. I even work in highway engineering. To say that all humans should immediately stop using electricity or fuels is fallacy.

More concerning to me than Global Warming, however, is pollution in general. Everyone who visits or lives in Utah during the winter time, which is probably the majority of Bogley members can see it. So, while it is fallacy to say that humans should immediately stop using electricity or fuels, it is also fallacy to do nothing at all. Collectively, we should all be interested in finding ways to cut pollution, just as we should for eliminating terrorism (though pollution kills a lot more). It would have a lot of side benefits as well.

While places like Denver, Salt Lake City, or Los Angeles may have bad air at times, it isn't comparable to cities in India or China. I think anyone who has visited some of those places would actually be glad that we have regulations here. While the US does use a lot of energy, over-all we are pretty clean users of it, at least compared to much of the world.

[Slot Machine]

You really just don't get it do you? That is a big part of the issue. We could probably spend the next year discussing what is a reputable source.

I get it. You don't know a good source from a bad source. I am listening.

Did you know that scientists are trained to evaluate studies and look for flaws in them? Did you know that I had to train to do this for a year? Did you know that there are great places to get good data?

Go ahead. Post some data that you think is good. I'll tell you if it is crap. Double dog dare you.

I bet your next post has zero data and a zippy one liner.

[twotimer]

Help me out. Opening a can of worms here. I don't know what to believe about global warming. Is it real or made up?

Oh yes...a can of worms indeed! So, seven pages in...been swayed one way or the other?

[twotimer]

[oldno7]

So you don't accept the above papers from NSF, in regards to plagiarism and fabricated/falsified data?

Do you even science

A hint for you, the rose color your seeing all scientist in--it's just your glasses.

I'm guessing you have a special room for your stack of participation trophies.

[oldno7]

How about scientific consensus, are you good with that?

http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-7....JFDZkxCl.dpbs

[rockgremlin]

How about scientific consensus, are you good with that?

http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-7....JFDZkxCl.dpbs

Interesting link. But I can guaran-damn-tee that the AGW sympathizers will take one look at the title and dismiss the rest of the entire article as hogwash as it doesn't support their stance.

Therein lies the fatal flaw in the AGW debate --- both sides use data not to discover truth, but to prove the other side wrong.

[tallsteve]

Oh yes...a can of worms indeed! So, seven pages in...been swayed one way or the other?

Ha, ha! Yeah, the confusion is real...that and just my overall distrust of big government. Honestly, other than the finger pointing, there's been some good discussion here. I'm leaning towards believing global warming is real and that I need to make a more concerted, personal effort to reduce my carbon footprint.

[Slot Machine]

So you don't accept the above papers from NSF, in regards to plagiarism and fabricated/falsified data?

Please read and summarize your own crappy links so I don't have to.

Those links are the NSF scolding one university. It does not even mention climate change. (???)

Data Grade: F

How about scientific consensus, are you good with that?

http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-7....JFDZkxCl.dpbs

If we lived in 1989, then yes, I would be good with that. But we live in 2017. That collection of studies has not been relevant for many years. Sorry.

Data Grade: F

Please look at the chart below. The phenomenon we are talking about becomes prominent around 1970.

[Slot Machine]

both sides use data not to discover truth, but to prove the other side wrong.

Scientists don't work like politicians. The person that discovers the truth gets the glory. It is a race to the truth, not a race to prove another person wrong.

Let's take the problem of dark matter for example. Do you think the top theoretical physicists have a political stance on that topic? Certainly not. Each of them wants to go down in the history books as the person that was brilliant enough to solve the puzzle. They do review and debunk each other, but that is not their main focus.

Climate change science basically works the same way. Each scientist wants to find the best data. They get no prize for agreeing with Al Gore. Actually, Al Gore used their data, so he is agreeing with them.

Occasionally you will discover a bought and paid for scientist, like Willie Soon, that has a stance that breaks far from the data. For those that don't know, he was paid $1.25M by Exxon, The Southern Company, and the American Petroleum Institute (Koch Brothers) to lie to the public.

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...nergy-industry

And yet again, nobody is providing any data for this mythical 'other side' that you speak of RG. The data has to have two sides for there to be another side. Right?

[oldno7]

whooaaaa, I got F's from you??

So I am right

[Slot Machine]

I love dunking over people with science!

Me dunking over @Iceaxe with science!



Me dunking over @oldno7 with science!


I think @rockgremlin is sort of trying to understand. So I’ll just show him how to dunk with science!


@oldno7 dunking with science!


Bring it.

[jman]

And yet again, nobody is providing any data for this mythical 'other side' that you speak of RG. The data has to have two sides for there to be another side. Right?

Here are some correlations that I have noticed with climate-change deniers.

-people in this group are typically conservatives (not that there is any wrong with this), but with this they are already skeptical of government related-anything. They "hate" (my word) anything the government has its hands on. They LOVE the privatization of everything.

(I had a fun discussion with a coworker of mine who is a climate-change denier and was telling him that I am grateful that the demand for coal is going away and being replaced by renewable energies. My coworker insists on the privatization of everything but when it comes to coal and oil, he gets defensive and said "well, what about these miners? What jobs will they be going to? This will hurt their industry!". Of course it will! And privatization is survival of the fittest in its essence. But yet he was worried that this lack of oil demand was going to hurt the miners. I replied, "well, they will need to adapt and perhaps it's an industry that just needs to go away". He didn't like that answer. The irony of privatization and the oil industry. Oh and of course, they love it when fuel prices are $4.00+. Lol

-This same group is pro-energy development, but not for renewable sources, but specifically from coal and oil (which is interesting to me). Although ironically, only 33% of the electricity in the US is produced via coal. And they want more coal! They fail to realize they renewable energy is gathering a lot of momentum and demand for this type of energy will far out weigh renewables in the future. And thankfully.

- this same group, in my opinion, seem to me believe more in conspiracy theories compared to their counterparts. These are the "truthers" of 9-11, how the Apollo Landing was staged, JFK shooting...and of course, Climate change. This ties again to the first point that the government is out "to get them" and screw them.

- this same group has a hard time with the name transition from the name "Global Warming" to now "Climate Change". Therefore it's all a hoax to them or made-up since scientists "can't make up their minds".

- I have noticed, with my friends and family who are these "anti" or "denier" groups drive larger, gas-guzzling vehicles. And when you drive vehicles that love guzzling liquid gold...it would make sense to be anti-global change. It makes sense to me because you have skin in the game and don't want your vehicle to be more regulated as they "roll coal" down the freeways.

- this same group typically listen to the same echo-chamber, championed by ring-leader Rush Limbaugh. There are others, but Rush is the main champion of this group. And remember Rush is just a talking-head, he isn't a "scientist" isn't the slightest yet people swear by his knowledge and experience.

-this same group is nearly 100% sure and positive and close-minded when it comes to new data points in regards to climate change. They know 100% for a FACT (!!) that it is all made-up and it's just a government ploy to put down the man.

- I have noticed a certain demographic with these climate-change deniers, not that there is anything implied or wrong with this but it Is interesting. They typically seem to be 50years of age and older. Call it ageism, but there is a correlation.

-for some strange reason, people in this same group believe that one volcano eruption spews out more pollution and CO2 than man can do in 2 years (!!), despite (a lot of) evidence to the contrary. I'm not sure where this group gets that piece of info from, but it's obviously coming from the same echo-chamber. And my guess is Rush. Just a guess though. But it strikes me as odd of the number of times I have heard that almost exact-phrase being often repeated.

Now, Correlation isn't causation, but I love context. And knowing how this group thinks or where they get their information (the Rush Limbaugh echo chamber, for example).

:)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rockgremlin]

"both sides use data not to discover truth, but to prove the other side wrong."


^^^^ Btw, that comment was aimed specifically at the Boglites that post in this thread.

And again, I reaffirm that I am not a GW denier. (For the third time).

And I'm not a conspiracy theorist either, although if you think Oswald was capable of splattering Kennedy's brains all over the trunk of his limo by shooting a moving target at an oblique rear angle from six stories up you need to go get your own head examined. Can we just agree that the very laws of physics prove this to be patently absurd?

[Scott P]

My coworker insists on the privatization of everything but when it comes to coal and oil, he gets defensive and said "well, what about these miners? What jobs will they be going to? This will hurt their industry!". Of course it will! And privatization is survival of the fittest in its essence. But yet he was worried that this lack of oil demand was going to hurt the miners. I replied, "well, they will need to adapt and perhaps it's an industry that just needs to go away". He didn't like that answer. The irony of privatization and the oil industry. Oh and of course, they love it when fuel prices are $4.00+. Lol

Perhaps the below isn't "politically correct", but it is my experience.

The miners will be hurt if the coal mines shut down and towns will not adapt. I live in a coal mining town and used to work in a unionized coal mine.

From my experience at least, the picture of a hard working coal miner with his pick and shovel in hand isn't realistic. In reality, most (but certainly not all) coal miners work above ground and never get their hands dirty. At the unionized mines at least, the union provides job security and it is almost impossible to get fired. One miner I worked with almost killed someone by plowing his truck into a grader. He was fired, but the union made the company take him back.

Most unionized mine workers that I worked with tended to be lazy since the union prevent almost anyone from being fired (only one person got permanently fired when I worked there but he was going 62 mph in a 10 mph zone in a 120 ton payload truck, wrecked the $3.8 million vehicle and took out the power lines). When I worked there at least, the miners would take double their allotted break times and one of my jobs was to try and get them to fill out their time sheets correctly. I thought I could do this by being friendly (which I always was), but if you wore the white hat, you were the enemy.

The thing about coal mining is that it pays $40-50 per hour, plus great benefits, for what is a surprisingly cushy job for most (or at least more cushy that it would seem for most). (Of course not all union coal mining jobs are cushy). Most coal miners aren't educated. A lot of them can't read and write. The prevailing attitude among many in coal mining towns, including this one, is "why finish high school or go to college, when I can go work at the coal mines for a lot more money?".

So, you have a lot of people with very little education (several of which cannot read or write), who are used to having job security, great benefits, a relatively cushy job, and who are used to making $40-50 an hour.

There is no way that they will adapt. They aren't going to find equivalent jobs for the same rate of pay and benefits. There is no way. Having a coal mine shut down really does devastate a town and those type of jobs don't come back. Retraining the coal miners or hoping that they will adapt really doesn't seem realistic.

[tallsteve]

jman- I am a conservative and I am skeptical of government, but...
-I am pro-energy development from renewable sources. Not a fan of coal.
-Not a conspiracy theorist.
-I do think the name change from Global Warming to Climate Change was a bit silly but, nothing more.
-Don't drive a big gas guzzler vehicle and don't even own one.
-Don't listen to Rush or Beck or pretty much any of them. Not a Fox news watcher, either (I don't watch any station, however).
-Admittedly, I have a hard time looking at data. My brain isn't wired for numbers- never has been. That's why I posted my initial question to begin with. I have seen data manipulated before to meet a certain end, though (in businesses I was employed at)
-I am 57 years old.
Did I debunk your theory about conservatives?

....and, Slot Machine, I could still dunk when I was 40 years old. Haven't even attempted it since then

[rockgremlin]

^^^ Scott, what you're describing is typical of pretty much any union setting. I've worked for both unionized and non-unionized mines, and I can tell you there is a very stark difference between the two. You're dead on about the union setting. Laziness is rampant, as are entitlements. But in a non union setting, people bust ass a lot more, because they know they could be fired for talking out of turn, or taking two minutes longer than they should've for lunch.

Union jobs are retirement homes, non union jobs are revolving doors.

[oldno7]

dunking over---come on, in real life, you can't even touch the net

But--fantasize away........