Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (777332)	3/29/2014 11:05:09 PM
From: Bilow	Respond to of 1576329

Hi combjelly; Re: "And a large percentage of them work in the energy industry."; The basic problem with liberals is that they're extremely good at noticing when someone else has a conflict of interest but they're unable to see the conflicts on their own side. The reason they make these sorts of arguments, instead of arguing the science, is that they're too stupid to understand the issues. Which reminds me, weren't you guys going to argue that "anything can happen" based on your deep understanding of the mathematical principles of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? What happened to that little excursion into science? Geologists can be employed by government, academia, energy, mining, and various other industries. None of these groups has the right to decide the truth to the exclusion of the others. All these sets of people took the same classes in college and got similar degrees. I'm sure that if you wanted to pick a jury to decide the case of global warming you'd try to stuff it with academics and government scientists. And the opposition would try to do the reverse stuffing. But a fair jury has to be composed of the whole group. The people who came up with the 97% figure did it by taking thousands of responses, and keeping only those of the tiny subgroup that most agreed with global warming. It was an extreme case of ballot box stuffing. If you include the whole group of geologists, the opinion is, at best, deeply divided on global warming. You want to talk only about people having to do with climate? I say this is an example of voter restriction. You might as well ask for the opinions on the usefulness of 19th century German poetry by asking only academics who specialize in 19th century German poetry. And we know what result you will get. There are essentially no industry climatologists. climatology is a fake science, one that does not produce anything useful and is unable to make predictions of the future. The closest you can get to an industry equivalent of climatologists are meteorologists who are also deeply skeptical of global warming. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But let's look at what you're admitting here. Before, your big talking point was that "97% of scientists agree" that global warming is a catastrophe. Now you're rewriting your claim. Or do you mean to say that only 3% of scientists are employed in industry? That would be a hell of a note, LOL. I can assure you, as a member of a physics department, that if it were not for industry, a very large percentage of even our PhD graduates would not have jobs. And it gets worse the longer after they've gotten their degrees because everyone knows that the post-doc syndrome is to get three or four temporary academic positions and then get kicked into industry. No, most people with science degrees are not employed in academia. -- Carl

To: combjelly who wrote (777332)	3/29/2014 11:24:28 PM
From: Bilow	1 Recommendation Recommended By Brumar89 Respond to of 1576329

Hi combjelly; Re: "Geologists are the outlier as to causes of global warming. Chemists, who also are predominately in private industry although not as heavily weighted towards the energy industry, track with the rest of the scientific community on the human causes of global warming."; Oh really? And by "track with the rest of the scientific community" do you mean that they are more skeptical of global warming than the general public? LOL!!! Chemistry's Climate of Skepticism It’s those pesky climate sceptics again, right? Well yes – but these ones read Chemistry & Industry, and are therefore likely to be chemists of some description. When the magazine ran a survey in 2007 on its readers’ attitudes to climate change, it felt compelled to admit that ‘there are still some readers who remain deeply sceptical of the role of carbon dioxide in global warming, or of the need to take action’. The respondents who felt that ‘the industry should be doing more to help tackle climate change’ were in a clear majority of 72% – but that left 28% who didn’t. This is even more than the one in five members of the general population who, as the IPCC releases its fifth report on climate change, now seem to doubt that global warming is real. This squares with my subjective impression, on seeing the letters pages of Chemistry World (and its predecessor) over the years. The proportion of this magazine’s readers who are climate sceptics seems rather higher than the 3% of the world’s climate scientists apparently still undecided about the causes (or reality) of global warming. A letter from 2007 complaining about ‘the enormous resources being put into the campaign to bring down carbon emissions on the debatable belief that atmospheric carbon dioxide is the main driver of climate change rather than the result of it’ is fairly representative of this subset. Could it be that chemists are somehow more prone to climate scepticism than other scientists? I believe there is reason to think so, although I am of course aware that some of you might already be sharpening your quills. One of the most prominent sceptics has been Jack Barrett, formerly a well-respected chemical spectroscopist at Imperial College London, UK. Barrett now runs the campaigning group Barrett Bellamy Climate with another famous sceptic, naturalist David Bellamy. Several other high-profile merchants of doubt trained as chemists, such as Nicholas Drapela (fired by Oregon State University last year) and Andrew Montford. It’s not clear if there is strong chemical expertise in the Australian climate-sceptic Lavoisier Group, but they choose to identify themselves with Lavoisier’s challenge to the mistaken ‘orthodoxy’ of phlogiston. ... rsc.org