• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

What will it take to convince you of climate change?

mrmarklin said:
BTW do you know how much the researchers make? Think mid six figures for a lot of them. No one is working for free.
Click to expand...


Where the hell do you get these figures?

*ahem*

What Is the Average Climatologist Salary?
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2012 the median annual salary for atmospheric scientists including climatologists was $89,260 with a salary range between $49,120, and $134,730.
Click to expand...

http://www.environmentalscience.org/career/climatologist
 
If I didn't already post, I'll post this. I'll buy into global warming and rising tides when the military moves all their low lying military bases to higher ground.
 
mean dad said:
I have no doubt there is money to be made in the green sector.
To claim that climate change is a scam to bilk the middle class of their millions is laughable.

Six figure scientists, yo.
Click to expand...

RRR70 said:
Al Gore made up pretty good selling carbon credits.
Click to expand...

Climate change isn't a scam to bilk the middle class. But RRRs point is still important.

Like I said before, the structure of all Carbon tax/credit schemes that I am aware of result in the wealthy being able to control economic activity and to skim the lions share of the benefits.

Carbon tax/credit schemes are a scam to bilk the middle class out of billions.
 
Yakoo752 said:
and now that I am in a research/analyst role (as a non scientist), I'm learning how to cater to your client's needs while providing factual truth. I, at times, have to remove my opinion from my work to present non-biased information that my client will likely spin to support their argument.

It's a function of my job.

If I had studied climate science and was a climate scientist and wanted to keep my job, my opinion may likely influence my outcomes.
Click to expand...
Thank you for sharing your epiphany. It is remarkable that no one figures out that professors and scientists, all over the planet, are REQUIRED to write papers to support their phony-baloney jobs. It does NOT matter the subject, because they must justify their positions. And unfortunately, only a minuscule minority will actually provide strong evidence to support their thesis. The rest follow the herd and trends because that is what provides them survival. We all want to survive. No?
 
Last edited:
CNN called for Texas Governor to resign because it is his fault. :facepalm

They are falling off the edge of the flat world.
 
I just can't believe that no one thought of this before we started deploying Naval Resources to West Africa in order stop the pirate attacks there. When we reduced the Pirate activity in the region, what the hell did they think was going to happen?
 
Gabe said:
Record high temperature for Oakland today at 106. As in ever. Previous high was 100.
Click to expand...



Yet Livermore was higher in 1950.
The variables are pretty wild.


It is damn hot. :rant
 
Gabe said:
Record high temperature for Oakland today at 106. As in ever. Previous high was 100.
Click to expand...

If there is a record low somewhere on the planet on a given day does that mean the greenhouse effect isnt real?

The people that attribute every single weather event on an individual day are actually hurting their argument for climate change.
 
mrmarklin said:
SOLYNDRA.

A Tesla plant now occupies that factory. It's green too. And heavily subsidized. Time will tell.

BTW do you know how much the researchers make? Think mid six figures for a lot of them. No one is working for free.
Click to expand...

OK we're talking about 100's of millions one-time distribution to solydra.

fossil fuel companies get billions of dollars a year in tax breaks...every year.

there seems to be a few who would call ourselves scientists on this board. hey guys, do you make mid 6 figures? let's say, 500,000 +/- 200,000 (yeah cuz I need to quantify).

Full disclosure: i'm not a climate scientist.
 
Looks like I went into the wrong kind of science. :laughing

The person who came up with the term "global warming" made a big mistake. Climate change MUCH better describes the issue. Yes, of course there are natural cycles. Yes, we are currently on a natural upswing. The difference, however, is the rate of increase. The vast majority of climate scientists agree that man has significantly accelerated the rate of change. I sincerely don't understand why this is such a challenging concept to grasp.

The fact that record high temperatures were reached today is meaningless. The fact that there may be an unusually cold day here and there is equally meaningless. The data should be looked at in its entirety.
 
There are quite a number of people out there who flat out deny that man is having any impact at all. I agree that the exact degree of impact from humans is pretty close to impossible to determine. That said, there are some clear ways to help stem the tide. Why not focus on those?
 
I'm not sure I like the cost/benefit analysis because it seems like the people who determine what's important don't give a shit about people and wildlife. "If we don't do XYZ within ~10 years maybe 100k people will die? Oh, but they're poor brown people in shitty neighborhoods? Yeah, that's not a problem, now pass the Scotch, Chauncey! (all laugh)".
 
teg916 said:
I think that this is where the debate should focus. There needs to be a cost/benefit analysis to what we decide to do. What makes it complicated is that it is a global contribution problem, and even if we stem our carbon emissions, any progress can be ruined by a number of other countries.

In the grand scheme of things, whether global warming is man made or not is irrelevant. Natural, or man made, we will have to live with the effects of what the climate does. Focusing on this is just noise that is not productive.
Click to expand...

For the most part, I agree. That said, we are among the top portion of the offending nations. Rather than continuing to be a leader in the efforts to mitigate the damage, we are choosing to turn our backs on the world. Pretty shitty message. Fortunately, there are enough monetary incentives for development of alternative energy sources and some of the other key initiatives to entice the private sector to continue its efforts. It's not ideal, but it's better than nothing.
 
Yeah it is kind of relevant. I don't know about you, but I personally think it is a good idea to know the cause of the issue to come up with a fix and/or mitigation solutions.
 
Hasnt the climate always changed and fluctuated between hot and cold spells? What I want to know is during which time period the climate didnt change and the duration of that static climate?

I dont believe there is enough information to make a determination and even if there is we have 6 billion people on the planet who yearn for first world standard of living. Standard of living is correlated with fuel use, higher living =more fuel. For better or worse we are in the anthropocene epoch and it will continue until us humans extinguish ourselves, good riddance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top