OT - Who is your favorite climate scientist?

Legume

SaintJohnsEgger said:

JohnInCarolina said:

SaintJohnsEgger said:

GrillSgt said:

I detest people who resist and deny climate change because they are paid to think that way to by the people that contribute the most to climate change. Secondly I detest those that are too stupid to see that. 

I detest scientist who fly all over the world going to symposiums on climate change.

Right.  I’m sure you’d be much more likely to listen to them were they all living in tents and sending out messages on scrolls.

I would be more likely to listen when they take their own cause seriously. 

Actions speak louder than words.

So, for the sake of argument, who do you listen to on this topic?  They guy that makes his money off of oil saying there is no problem with fossil fuels because his message aligns with his huge house and collection of 4x4s?

and, for the sake of argument, there probably is a guy in a tent sending out his message by scrolls.  How does that message get to you?

TEXASBGE2018

Legume said:

SaintJohnsEgger said:

JohnInCarolina said:

SaintJohnsEgger said:

GrillSgt said:

I detest people who resist and deny climate change because they are paid to think that way to by the people that contribute the most to climate change. Secondly I detest those that are too stupid to see that. 

I detest scientist who fly all over the world going to symposiums on climate change.

Right.  I’m sure you’d be much more likely to listen to them were they all living in tents and sending out messages on scrolls.

I would be more likely to listen when they take their own cause seriously. 

Actions speak louder than words.

So, for the sake of argument, who do you listen to on this topic?  They guy that makes his money off of oil saying there is no problem with fossil fuels because his message aligns with his huge house and collection of 4x4s?

and, for the sake of argument, there probably is a guy in a tent sending out his message by scrolls.  How does that message get to you?

Easy, carrier pigeon. Next question.

Cornholio

SaintJohnsEgger said:

JohnInCarolina said:

SaintJohnsEgger said:

GrillSgt said:

I detest people who resist and deny climate change because they are paid to think that way to by the people that contribute the most to climate change. Secondly I detest those that are too stupid to see that. 

I detest scientist who fly all over the world going to symposiums on climate change.

Right.  I’m sure you’d be much more likely to listen to them were they all living in tents and sending out messages on scrolls.

I would be more likely to listen when they take their own cause seriously. 

Actions speak louder than words.

Reminds me of TV evangelicals who preach a humble existence and the importance of giving back to the church just before they roll away from the church in a Bentley on the way to their private jet.  

http://www.theamericanmirror.com/climate-change-warrior-dicaprio-takes-private-jet-to-coachella/

https://www.esquire.com/uk/culture/news/a16226/leonardo-dicaprio-private-jet/

I personally think we should make Hollywood the US capital since those in Tinseltown know so much more than the rest of us.  Whatever Kathy Griffin, the Kardashians, Jimmy Kimmel, Amy Shamu etc. say must be my opinion too.  If you disagree with their form of political correctness and agendas then you shall be blasted on social media and late night talk shows that no one watches.  And that goes for the president too, the dog and pony show that got us here should have never happened.
     

TEXASBGE2018

The arrogance of man is in thinking we can affect the planet in any significant way long term. I’d be more concerned about the fact that we are about a million years over due for a major meteor strike or a a couple hundred thousand years overdue for the Yellowstone super volcano erupting.

pgprescott

Whenever I want to disseminate information, in this age of the internet, I get on a private jet and get together face to face. Yep.

Hell, I’m sure we all do. Kinda like what you’re doing here in my house. Oh wait. Hmm. 

It indicates hypocrisy

I have to to admit though it sounded reasonable when typed in a pompous and condescending manner. 

Why defend the indefensible. You have plenty of high ground to stand on. Some points required addressing. 😜

GrillSgt

So you believe the massive air pollution and smog choked cities of the 70s-90s just happened on its own and then magically dissipated. Good for you. 

HeavyG

TEXASBGE2018 said:

The arrogance of man is in thinking we can affect the planet in any significant way long term. 

The idiocy of man is to think that the industrial activities/lifestyles of billions of homo sapiens will not affect the planet in any way.

TEXASBGE2018

HeavyG said:

TEXASBGE2018 said:

The arrogance of man is in thinking we can affect the planet in any significant way long term. 

The idiocy of man is to think that the industrial activities/lifestyles of billions of homo sapiens will not affect the planet in any way.

Ya ok....why don’t you sell your big green egg and get off this website to contribute your part. I’ll wait

SaintJohnsEgger

JohnInCarolina said:

SaintJohnsEgger said:

JohnInCarolina said:

SaintJohnsEgger said:

GrillSgt said:

I detest people who resist and deny climate change because they are paid to think that way to by the people that contribute the most to climate change. Secondly I detest those that are too stupid to see that. 

I detest scientist who fly all over the world going to symposiums on climate change.

Right.  I’m sure you’d be much more likely to listen to them were they all living in tents and sending out messages on scrolls.

I would be more likely to listen when they take their own cause seriously. 

Actions speak louder than words.

You don’t understand what climate scientists are trying to do, first and foremost, which is to understand the science.  You are confusing them with politicians.  You seem to believe that they are primarily preaching to the public about behavior, and you are wrong.

International conferences facilitate the dissemination of scientific ideas.  We have been holding things like these for almost 100 years now.  If you genuinely believe that climate scientists holding them is some indicator that they don’t genuinely believe the science, that it’s somehow all for show, then I can’t help you, and it’s unlikely that anyone else can either.

As a final comment, it’s pretty rich that the dude who has been whining for days about threads like these is in the middle of one sh!tposting.

Ok. First things first. I posted my opinions about "threads like these" and nobody was interested. You guys seem to want sh!tposting. So now all bets are off and I'll give in to the desires of the others on this forum and do my own sh!tposting.

Second, there are ways to disseminate information without jetting all around the world. They can try video conferencing and there is this thing called the internet. Al should know about that since he claims to have invented it.

There is good science on both sides of this debate and both sides have faked and misrepresented the data.

Lastly, it should be obvious to all that humans are affecting the climate. But there have been warm spells and cold periods for thousands of years. I jsut believe in all of the doomsayers whi claim we will all be under water in the next 50 years. 

Legume

I will not defend Al.  But that’s not a reason to reject the message.  It’s not like he’s the only one shouting it.  Pick a source that doesn’t appear hypocritical to you.  And do that for all things, separate the message from the messenger.

bgebrent

TEXASBGE2018 said:

HeavyG said:

TEXASBGE2018 said:

The arrogance of man is in thinking we can affect the planet in any significant way long term. 

The idiocy of man is to think that the industrial activities/lifestyles of billions of homo sapiens will not affect the planet in any way.

Ya ok....why don’t you sell your big green egg and get off this website to contribute your part. I’ll wait

He’s never cooked on one.  Ease up.

SaintJohnsEgger

Legume said:

I will not defend Al.  But that’s not a reason to reject the message.  It’s not like he’s the only one shouting it.  Pick a source that doesn’t appear hypocritical to you.  And do that for all things, separate the message from the messenger.

Agreed. Don't take any one person's message for something this important.

That also goes for how to smoke ribs/butts/packers.

JohnInCarolina

SaintJohnsEgger said:

There is good science on both sides of this debate and both sides have faked and misrepresented the data.

Right.  Just like the debate between the “flat earthers” and the “round Earth” scientists.  There are always two sides to every scientific debate, and both sides deserve equal attention.  

GrillSgt

I would love to see a link to any good science from the denier camp. 

SaintJohnsEgger

JohnInCarolina said:

SaintJohnsEgger said:

There is good science on both sides of this debate and both sides have faked and misrepresented the data.

Right.  Just like the debate between the “flat earthers” and the “round Earth” scientists.  There are always too sides to every scientific debate, and both sides deserve equal attention.  

Yeah. I just learned the other day that there is no scientific proof of black holes. They are just constructs that we have hypothesized to explain out universe. But no real proof.

JohnInCarolina

SaintJohnsEgger said:

JohnInCarolina said:

SaintJohnsEgger said:

There is good science on both sides of this debate and both sides have faked and misrepresented the data.

Right.  Just like the debate between the “flat earthers” and the “round Earth” scientists.  There are always too sides to every scientific debate, and both sides deserve equal attention.  

Yeah. I just learned the other day that there is no scientific proof of black holes. They are just constructs that we have hypothesized to explain out universe. But no real proof.

Proof only actually exists formally in the domain of mathematics.  Real science isn’t based on the concept of “proof”, because the word implies complete certainty.  Real science is based on data, evidence, and theory.

SaintJohnsEgger

JohnInCarolina said:

SaintJohnsEgger said:

JohnInCarolina said:

SaintJohnsEgger said:

There is good science on both sides of this debate and both sides have faked and misrepresented the data.

Right.  Just like the debate between the “flat earthers” and the “round Earth” scientists.  There are always too sides to every scientific debate, and both sides deserve equal attention.  

Yeah. I just learned the other day that there is no scientific proof of black holes. They are just constructs that we have hypothesized to explain out universe. But no real proof.

Proof only actually exists formally in the domain of mathematics.  Real science isn’t based on the concept of “proof”, because the word implies complete certainty.  Real science is based on data, evidence, and theory.

Ok. There is no data or evidence supporting black holes. Only theory at this time. But at one point in history everyone just knew that the earth was the center of our solar system. Then there were theories that the sun was the center. Now we have proof. The same may happen one day for black holes or global warming.

nolaegghead

Astounding that people waste their time trying to defend a huge conspiracy theory, not surprising, people are susceptible to charismatic idiots. 

The entire scientific community and every major country on the planet accept the science, except the GOP in the United States.  Obummer was born in Kenya too, right? 

I'm not going to get too involved in trying to disprove conspiracy theories people have been duped by special interests to believe in.  Up is down isn't the most interesting argument, to me. 

I know I shouldn't judge people's ignorance, but when you spray paint yourself orange, you stick out like a sore thumb.

SemolinaPilchard

SaintJohnsEgger said:

JohnInCarolina said:

SaintJohnsEgger said:

GrillSgt said:

I detest people who resist and deny climate change because they are paid to think that way to by the people that contribute the most to climate change. Secondly I detest those that are too stupid to see that. 

I detest scientist who fly all over the world going to symposiums on climate change.

Right.  I’m sure you’d be much more likely to listen to them were they all living in tents and sending out messages on scrolls.

I would be more likely to listen when they take their own cause seriously. 

Actions speak louder than words.

I know that he isn't a scientist (although he probably thinks that he is) but an example of what you're talking about is Leonardo DiCaprio. He travels all over the world on a private jet to speak on global warming. But it's OK because he drives a Prius. He would have to drive that little weiniemobile about 100 lifetimes for it to equal out. 

TEXASBGE2018

SemolinaPilchard said:

SaintJohnsEgger said:

JohnInCarolina said:

SaintJohnsEgger said:

GrillSgt said:

I detest people who resist and deny climate change because they are paid to think that way to by the people that contribute the most to climate change. Secondly I detest those that are too stupid to see that. 

I detest scientist who fly all over the world going to symposiums on climate change.

Right.  I’m sure you’d be much more likely to listen to them were they all living in tents and sending out messages on scrolls.

I would be more likely to listen when they take their own cause seriously. 

Actions speak louder than words.

I know that he isn't a scientist (although he probably thinks that he is) but an example of what you're talking about is Leonardo DiCaprio. He travels all over the world on a private jet to speak on global warming. But it's OK because he drives a Prius. He would have to drive that little weiniemobile about 100 lifetimes for it to equal out. 

I think he has a Tesla now.

JohnInCarolina

SemolinaPilchard said:

SaintJohnsEgger said:

JohnInCarolina said:

SaintJohnsEgger said:

GrillSgt said:

I detest people who resist and deny climate change because they are paid to think that way to by the people that contribute the most to climate change. Secondly I detest those that are too stupid to see that. 

I detest scientist who fly all over the world going to symposiums on climate change.

Right.  I’m sure you’d be much more likely to listen to them were they all living in tents and sending out messages on scrolls.

I would be more likely to listen when they take their own cause seriously. 

Actions speak louder than words.

I know that he isn't a scientist (although he probably thinks that he is) but an example of what you're talking about is Leonardo DiCaprio. He travels all over the world on a private jet to speak on global warming. But it's OK because he drives a Prius. He would have to drive that little weiniemobile about 100 lifetimes for it to equal out. 

Or simply offset the carbon.

JohnInCarolina

The only pro-life people I believe are those who are out protesting abortion clinics every day and threatening to kill the doctors who perform the procedures.  Otherwise, my view is that they don’t really believe that it’s wrong or that abortion is murder.  They’re just putting on a show for their evangelical friends.

SemolinaPilchard

JohnInCarolina said:

SemolinaPilchard said:

SaintJohnsEgger said:

JohnInCarolina said:

SaintJohnsEgger said:

GrillSgt said:

I detest people who resist and deny climate change because they are paid to think that way to by the people that contribute the most to climate change. Secondly I detest those that are too stupid to see that. 

I detest scientist who fly all over the world going to symposiums on climate change.

Right.  I’m sure you’d be much more likely to listen to them were they all living in tents and sending out messages on scrolls.

I would be more likely to listen when they take their own cause seriously. 

Actions speak louder than words.

I know that he isn't a scientist (although he probably thinks that he is) but an example of what you're talking about is Leonardo DiCaprio. He travels all over the world on a private jet to speak on global warming. But it's OK because he drives a Prius. He would have to drive that little weiniemobile about 100 lifetimes for it to equal out. 

Or simply offset the carbon.

Carbon offsets are like paying someone to be faithful to their wife so you can cheat on yours. People need to walk the walk, or STFU.

bgebrent

JohnInCarolina said:

SaintJohnsEgger said:

JohnInCarolina said:

SaintJohnsEgger said:

There is good science on both sides of this debate and both sides have faked and misrepresented the data.

Right.  Just like the debate between the “flat earthers” and the “round Earth” scientists.  There are always too sides to every scientific debate, and both sides deserve equal attention.  

Yeah. I just learned the other day that there is no scientific proof of black holes. They are just constructs that we have hypothesized to explain out universe. But no real proof.

Proof only actually exists formally in the domain of mathematics.  Real science isn’t based on the concept of “proof”, because the word implies complete certainty.  Real science is based on data, evidence, and theory.

If it doesn’t satisfy Koch’s postulates it can’t be true or real.  

JohnInCarolina

SemolinaPilchard said:

JohnInCarolina said:

SemolinaPilchard said:

SaintJohnsEgger said:

JohnInCarolina said:

SaintJohnsEgger said:

GrillSgt said:

I detest people who resist and deny climate change because they are paid to think that way to by the people that contribute the most to climate change. Secondly I detest those that are too stupid to see that. 

I detest scientist who fly all over the world going to symposiums on climate change.

Right.  I’m sure you’d be much more likely to listen to them were they all living in tents and sending out messages on scrolls.

I would be more likely to listen when they take their own cause seriously. 

Actions speak louder than words.

I know that he isn't a scientist (although he probably thinks that he is) but an example of what you're talking about is Leonardo DiCaprio. He travels all over the world on a private jet to speak on global warming. But it's OK because he drives a Prius. He would have to drive that little weiniemobile about 100 lifetimes for it to equal out. 

Or simply offset the carbon.

Carbon offsets are like paying someone to be faithful to their wife so you can cheat on yours. People need to walk the walk, or STFU.

I don’t think anyone is calling for any and all air travel to stop.  Even if it did, it wouldn’t be enough, and besides it’s simply not practical.  No, successfully addressing climate change will take a broad set of policy and technological initiatives.  

JohnInCarolina

I know I’ll only start paying attention to Al Gore once he insists on never exhaling again so as to completely minimize his carbon footprint.

SaintJohnsEgger

JohnInCarolina said:

The only pro-life people I believe are those who are out protesting abortion clinics every day and threatening to kill the doctors who perform the procedures.  Otherwise, my view is that they don’t really believe that it’s wrong or that abortion is murder.  They’re just putting on a show for their evangelical friends.

So using your argument the only global warming advocates that we should believe are the ones that walk everywhere and live off grid. Otherwise they don't really believe in global warming and are putting on a show for their friends or are in it for the money.

JohnInCarolina

SaintJohnsEgger said:

JohnInCarolina said:

The only pro-life people I believe are those who are out protesting abortion clinics every day and threatening to kill the doctors who perform the procedures.  Otherwise, my view is that they don’t really believe that it’s wrong or that abortion is murder.  They’re just putting on a show for their evangelical friends.

So using your argument the only global warming advocates that we should believe are the ones that walk everywhere and live off grid. Otherwise they don't really believe in global warming and are putting on a show for their friends or are in it for the money.

Legume

SaintJohnsEgger said:

JohnInCarolina said:

The only pro-life people I believe are those who are out protesting abortion clinics every day and threatening to kill the doctors who perform the procedures.  Otherwise, my view is that they don’t really believe that it’s wrong or that abortion is murder.  They’re just putting on a show for their evangelical friends.

So using your argument the only global warming advocates that we should believe are the ones that walk everywhere and live off grid. Otherwise they don't really believe in global warming and are putting on a show for their friends or are in it for the money.

Mmmmmm.  I think he was pointing out the ridiculousness of that kind of argument.  

nolaegghead

Man, unbelievable.  The "hypocrisy argument" -- because someone flies in planes or drives a car is the weakest sauce and just shows you a) probably wouldn't thrive in debate class...and b) don't understand the problem.

No one is saying generating *ALL* CO2 is bad.  We're looking at a global system.

"But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years)."

All animals create CO2, yeasts generate CO2.  We're talking about macro shifts in collective human behavior, which caused this, with exponential human population growth and industrialization.  No one is talking about banning planes, which will run on fossil fuels for the indeterminate future.  What the world (except for the Trump administration) is trying to do is solve the problem and knock the human industrialization's contribution down to levels the planet can absorb, through the natural process of absorption in the ocean (but not too much because of acidification - CO2 creates acidity through carbonic acid).   Obviously this needs to be done on a global scale or we are f*cked, we already might be, but mitigation is the key.

Most people, countries, government and corporations, even oil companies, see the science, the trends.  They want to thrive, and moving forward, we will advance in science and technology and will (and *ARE) getting more efficient.  From LED lightbulbs to higher fuel efficiency and increasing SEER in HVAC, things have been getting much more efficient.

The same idiots that believe the science is a conspiracy theory refuse to push birth control avocation as a US policy in the highest birth rate developing countries that are also at some level developing industrial countries.  Makes sense, right?  No, antithetical to a full solution of managing the planet.

Jets are getting more efficient because it results in higher profit.  Fuel is expensive.  But like I said, that's going to be fossil fueled for a long time.  The low hanging fruit is what needs to be worked on first, and collectively.

Since just about everyone has realized alternative energy sources are the future, ignoring that and pushing legacy fuels like coal are a piss-poor strategy to invest resources in, as the Asia and Europe are proceeding to whip our asses in developing technologies that everyone will be using. 

Dependency on oil and coal doesn't make sense in the long term, but no one is expecting to ever NOT need it.  We should be making plastics from oil, not burning it, if we have the capacity to get energy from other sources.

This development in efficiency and alternate energy sources is a relatively new industry, and it's creating jobs. 

If we don't take the lead, we'll be left behind.  But go ahead and yelp about Hollywood as the boogyman and Al Gore being a hypocrite because he flies in planes.  You are clueless.