Trump administration reports temps will rise 7 degrees by 2100

If you can't state your position, without being hateful, hurtful, or Rude, this probably isn't the forum for you.

Moderator: Team

Forum rules
While debating and discussion is fine, we will not tolerate rudeness, profanity, insulting posts, personal attacks or purposeless inflammatory posts. We also do not allow posts or links to sites that are sexual in nature or violate DTST community standards.
Post Reply
Kevin Johnson
Guru
Guru
Posts: 7854
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 5:41 am

Re: Trump administration reports temps will rise 7 degrees by 2100

Post by Kevin Johnson » Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:17 am

GRTfast wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:40 am
...
Direct question: Do you think the majority of scientists are lazy, deceitful folk who work to lie and conspire for the purpose of obtaining grant money?
Well, I will answer this "Do you think the majority of scientists are lazy," in this way...

My psycholinguistics professor, J.J. Jenkins, was one of the founders of his field and he was familiar with virtually all the publications. He commented to me that it was embarrassing when graduate students (doing scientific research in cognitive science) presented papers but only went back about ten years in the literature with their references and thus did not realize that many members in that very audience had researched the same topics. Eighty-two students received their doctorates under his guidance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_J._Jenkins

Yes, it is very easy for researchers to be lazy. Check their literature references as a start. You can be the judge. Aside: It is hard to cite primary historical data when it no longer exists, no?

I was present during many discussions about which applicant professors would be hired by departments and quite often intrigue was involved. The graduate students would attend presentations by the candidates. Heads of Departments would call their friends in other universities where the person was applying to compare notes. In a research university you had better believe that they were expected to bring in grant dollars. If they did not understand how to do that they would be gone in short order. You will not receive funding if you are highly critical of existing researchers' work and did not build upon it, i.e. the very body of people who will be peer reviewing your grant proposal.

I have to get back to my work.

gmrocket
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4131
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 6:40 pm
Location: Grimsby Ontario

Re: Trump administration reports temps will rise 7 degrees by 2100

Post by gmrocket » Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:24 am

GRTfast wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:59 am
gmrocket wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:54 am
GRTfast wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:40 am


I'll check it out, thanks for the link.

Direct question: Do you think the majority of scientists are lazy, deceitful folk who work to lie and conspire for the purpose of obtaining grant money?
Not the majority...but if your funding comes from a source with an agenda, they know what outcome is expected. Going against the grain or questioning why , can put you on the unemployment line.

We've seen it happen many times.
How does one reliably determine what "the agenda" is? Who funds scientific endeavors without some sort of "agenda"?
Before, it seems funding was very secretive. These days it's wide out in the open, mostly far left environmental groups that boast of funneling money to causes that they want slanted.

People tend to think if an environmental group is funding something, it's a good thing because they are looking out for the environment.

But when you dig a litter deeper, sometimes that's not the case. That sort of thing is alive and well here in Canada..there are no restrictions on foreign funded groups doing those dirty deeds.

As an example, Saudi money flows into environmental groups who are doing a good job of shutting down our oil and gas industry by painting it as bad scientifically and environmentally.

The main goal is to keep relying on Saudi and other foreign oil..not our own

Two birds with one stone...foreign funded groups are protesting here right now against a pipeline that would give access to our own oil, while Saudi and Venezuelian tankers sail right by them into our harbors.

Crazy but true..those groups use scientific research to prove how bad oil is and we will all die if it continues...even if it was 100% true, why not use our own oil to kill ourselves?
Last edited by gmrocket on Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

GRTfast
Guru
Guru
Posts: 2212
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2017 8:26 am

Re: Trump administration reports temps will rise 7 degrees by 2100

Post by GRTfast » Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:29 am

gmrocket wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:24 am
GRTfast wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:59 am
gmrocket wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:54 am


Not the majority...but if your funding comes from a source with an agenda, they know what outcome is expected. Going against the grain or questioning why , can put you on the unemployment line.

We've seen it happen many times.
How does one reliably determine what "the agenda" is? Who funds scientific endeavors without some sort of "agenda"?
Before, it seems funding was very secretive. These days it's wide out in the open, mostly far left environmental groups that boast of funneling money to causes that they want slanted.

People tend to think if an environmental group is funding something, it's a good thing because they are looking out for the environment.

But when you dig a litter deeper, sometimes that's not the case. That sort of thing is alive and well here in Canada..there are no restrictions on foreign funded groups doing those dirty deeds.

As an example, Saudi money flows into environmental groups who are doing a good job of shutting down our oil and gas industry by painting it as bad scientifically and environmentally.

The main goal is to keep relying on Saudi and other foreign oil..not our own

Two birds with one stone
Do you think this is happening with the majority of funded scientific endeavors? Are the majority of scientific pursuits really a front for clandestine and nefarious efforts? If you think they are, do you have any evidence as such (not isolated cases, but the majority)? If not, then why is this argument being used as a justification for denying the consensus on a topic like climate change?
Last edited by GRTfast on Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

gmrocket
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4131
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 6:40 pm
Location: Grimsby Ontario

Re: Trump administration reports temps will rise 7 degrees by 2100

Post by gmrocket » Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:31 am

GRTfast wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:29 am
gmrocket wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:24 am
GRTfast wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:59 am


How does one reliably determine what "the agenda" is? Who funds scientific endeavors without some sort of "agenda"?
Before, it seems funding was very secretive. These days it's wide out in the open, mostly far left environmental groups that boast of funneling money to causes that they want slanted.

People tend to think if an environmental group is funding something, it's a good thing because they are looking out for the environment.

But when you dig a litter deeper, sometimes that's not the case. That sort of thing is alive and well here in Canada..there are no restrictions on foreign funded groups doing those dirty deeds.

As an example, Saudi money flows into environmental groups who are doing a good job of shutting down our oil and gas industry by painting it as bad scientifically and environmentally.

The main goal is to keep relying on Saudi and other foreign oil..not our own

Two birds with one stone
Do you think this is happening with the majority of funded scientific endeavors? Are the majority of scientific pursuits really a front for clandestine and nefarious efforts? If you think they are, do you have any evidence as such? If not, then why is this argument being used as a justification for denying the consensus on a topic like climate change?
I wasn't finished..my last paragraph proves it's not about using fossil fuels.

GRTfast
Guru
Guru
Posts: 2212
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2017 8:26 am

Re: Trump administration reports temps will rise 7 degrees by 2100

Post by GRTfast » Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:37 am

gmrocket wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:31 am
I wasn't finished..my last paragraph proves it's not about using fossil fuels.
You've cited a few specific cases, I'll take your word for those being true for the sake of discussion (but I will remain skeptical until presented with sufficient evidence). In order to bolster the position that the vast majority of the scientific community related to climate science is in league, perpetrating a huge conspiracy, I'm going to need some extraordinary evidence. How, on the one hand, can you be so skeptical of the incredibly well documented evidence, methods, conclusions, and predictive power of the current science on the topic, while so easily accepting what amounts to a giant conspiracy with little supporting evidence? I just don't get it.

GRTfast
Guru
Guru
Posts: 2212
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2017 8:26 am

Re: Trump administration reports temps will rise 7 degrees by 2100

Post by GRTfast » Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:38 am

Kevin Johnson wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:17 am
GRTfast wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:40 am
...
Direct question: Do you think the majority of scientists are lazy, deceitful folk who work to lie and conspire for the purpose of obtaining grant money?
Well, I will answer this "Do you think the majority of scientists are lazy," in this way...

My psycholinguistics professor, J.J. Jenkins, was one of the founders of his field and he was familiar with virtually all the publications. He commented to me that it was embarrassing when graduate students (doing scientific research in cognitive science) presented papers but only went back about ten years in the literature with their references and thus did not realize that many members in that very audience had researched the same topics. Eighty-two students received their doctorates under his guidance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_J._Jenkins

Yes, it is very easy for researchers to be lazy. Check their literature references as a start. You can be the judge. Aside: It is hard to cite primary historical data when it no longer exists, no?

I was present during many discussions about which applicant professors would be hired by departments and quite often intrigue was involved. The graduate students would attend presentations by the candidates. Heads of Departments would call their friends in other universities where the person was applying to compare notes. In a research university you had better believe that they were expected to bring in grant dollars. If they did not understand how to do that they would be gone in short order. You will not receive funding if you are highly critical of existing researchers' work and did not build upon it, i.e. the very body of people who will be peer reviewing your grant proposal.

I have to get back to my work.
Thanks for your input. I will consider it moving forward.

gmrocket
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4131
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 6:40 pm
Location: Grimsby Ontario

Re: Trump administration reports temps will rise 7 degrees by 2100

Post by gmrocket » Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:39 am

Incase anyone hasn't noticed...the enviro natzis are now say it's ether too late to reverse the burning up process, or if we don't go hardcore on restrictions right now ..it's a lost cause

It can't be fixed or reversed..

So my suggestion is Canada should start first just so we can be the virtuous ones...we will all commit suicide tomorrow, our economy will cease to exist..that will stop Canada's 1% contribution to global warming

I'm sure when China sees this, they will follow suite 🙄
Last edited by gmrocket on Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

gmrocket
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4131
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 6:40 pm
Location: Grimsby Ontario

Re: Trump administration reports temps will rise 7 degrees by 2100

Post by gmrocket » Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:41 am

GRTfast wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:37 am
gmrocket wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:31 am
I wasn't finished..my last paragraph proves it's not about using fossil fuels.
You've cited a few specific cases, I'll take your word for those being true for the sake of discussion (but I will remain skeptical until presented with sufficient evidence). In order to bolster the position that the vast majority of the scientific community related to climate science is in league, perpetrating a huge conspiracy, I'm going to need some extraordinary evidence. How, on the one hand, can you be so skeptical of the incredibly well documented evidence, methods, conclusions, and predictive power of the current science on the topic, while so easily accepting what amounts to a giant conspiracy with little supporting evidence? I just don't get it.
I never said "all" or it's a conspiracy

Just stating facts that are happening on the ground right now.

exhaustgases
Guru
Guru
Posts: 5480
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 9:03 pm

Re: Trump administration reports temps will rise 7 degrees by 2100

Post by exhaustgases » Fri Oct 12, 2018 7:06 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkF91n0NhMg

Engineering we still have an nice high pressure area moving our rain and snow else where. And it really helps the hurricanes as well. I noticed when we had good weather years ago the south east had bad weather. Like when the space shuttle went down.

Its all being done so the demoncrats can scream we need to get rid of this and that. The brain washing is and will be full throttle.

This person may have something here.
Its pretty interesting. More evil boys and their evil toys?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXMFxKnbCtI

The president says to control the weather with a satellite.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7o-uDbr0jI

Post Reply