Congressmen join forces to fight global warming

[Gr8hope]

 

[AUDub]

*Sigh*

The idea that there's some sort of grand conspiracy among scientists to toe the "company line" only shows just how ignorant some people can be of how science works. Every scientist on this planet would love to have the evidence to overturn current theory or "conventional wisdom". That's what science does: discover new things. And such revolutions are what win Nobel Prizes. No theory is sacrosanct in science.

And every respectable scientist is also wary of making unsubstantiated claims. It's a field where there are myriad others eager to double check your claims. You have to have the evidence, or your reputation and career can be ruined. Only poor scientists or crackpots would go that route.

 

[cuda.1973]

Nothing personal, but your explanations of how science really works are laughable.

 

[AUDub]

Nothing personal, but your explanations of how science really works are laughable.

Yes, it is. Are some folks unscrupulous? Bad practicioners of science? Of course. But you are talking about an entire freaking field. Thousands of scientists! Every major scientific organization! All of them supposedly in on this grand conspiracy of yours. The level of cognitive dissonance necessary to maintain such fantasy boggles the mind.

 

[mittman]

Not sure the cows would appreciate anyone trying that. I nominate you.

You have no idea

 

[Displaced Bama Fan]

How many are registered voters?

Registered Democrat voters. Let's get it right. Cows have rights too you know.

 

[Displaced Bama Fan]

*Sigh*

The idea that there's some sort of grand conspiracy among scientists to toe the "company line" only shows just how ignorant some people can be of how science works. Every scientist on this planet would love to have the evidence to overturn current theory or "conventional wisdom". That's what science does: discover new things. And such revolutions are what win Nobel Prizes. No theory is sacrosanct in science.

And every respectable scientist is also wary of making unsubstantiated claims. It's a field where there are myriad others eager to double check your claims. You have to have the evidence, or your reputation and career can be ruined. Only poor scientists or crackpots would go that route.

Georgia Guidestones.

 

[AUDub]

You have no idea

I'm still nominating Cajun to insert the tube.

 

[AUDub]

Georgia Guidestones.

Strange place for the NWO to make their grand reveal, huh?

 

[Displaced Bama Fan]

Strange place for the NWO to make their grand reveal, huh?

Population control is key. There are natural events that occur that contribute to global warming (undersea methane releases) or global cooling (volcano eruptions for instance), but if we want to have an inhabitable planet for many more generations, we need to control the population and limit reproduction. We can't continually destroy millions of hectares of forest every year for grazing lands. It affects our CO2 levels.

 

[AUDub]

Population control is key. There are natural events that occur that contribute to global warming (undersea methane releases) or global cooling (volcano eruptions for instance), but if we want to have an inhabitable planet for many more generations, we need to control the population and limit reproduction. We can't continually destroy millions of hectares of forest every year for grazing lands. It affects our CO2 levels.

I agree, in a sense. We do need to level off the population. The way to do that though is through eliminating poverty. There should be no need to impose rules capping how many children you can have like China did. If you can get the poverty issue taken care of, growth will slow tremendously.

I think we can avoid a species wide Malthusian check up to about 10,000,000,000. Above that, we'll have to figure out a new way to produce food.

As for natural events, these things are accounted for in both our observations and the models.

Dead on regarding deforestation.

 

[bama_wayne1]

I agree, in a sense. We do need to level off the population. The way to do that though is through eliminating poverty. There should be no need to impose rules capping how many children you can have like China did. If you can get the poverty issue taken care of, growth will slow tremendously.

I think we can avoid a species wide Malthusian check up to about 10,000,000,000. Above that, we'll have to figure out a new way to produce food.

As for natural events, these things are accounted for in both our observations and the models.

Dead on regarding deforestation.

If we tried to end poverty by making people earn their lunch we could in turn limit the amount of time they have to procreate all day NTTAWWT...

 

[Gr8hope]

Yes, it is. Are some folks unscrupulous? Bad practicioners of science? Of course. But you are talking about an entire freaking field. Thousands of scientists! Every major scientific organization! All of them supposedly in on this grand conspiracy of yours. The level of cognitive dissonance necessary to maintain such fantasy boggles the mind.

Not really talking about an entire field, just a small portion that has been used by corrupt politicians and a willing media to promote the lies.

 

[AUDub]

Not really talking about an entire field, just a small portion that has been used by corrupt politicians and a willing media to promote the lies.

You might as well be. The level of support within the field has been quantified with multiple studies, and they are always in the high 90s. There are a few exceptions, but among the vast majority of folks that study climate for a living, the debate over whether we're warming has been over for quite some time.

And the published research reflects that. The Cook et al 2013 study that rated the literature and ended up with the 97% number is the most telling to me.

 

[Gr8hope]

You might as well be. The level of support within the field has been quantified with multiple studies, and they are always in the high 90s. There are a few exceptions, but among the vast majority of folks that study climate for a living, the debate over whether we're warming has been over for quite some time.

And the published research reflects that. The Cook et al 2013 study that rated the literature and ended up with the 97% number is the most telling to me.

Well, that is the story being pushed. I don't fall for it.

 

[AUDub]

Well, that is the story being pushed. I don't fall for it.

It's a reflection of reality. The Cook study is routinely attacked because that is the case.

 

[bamarebel]

That's a huge disparity! Do the USDA numbers include dairy?

I would feel sure they do, but it doesn't directly say that they are included. Also how the different surveys include the projected calving numbers can impact the totals.
Regardless, since 1975 the total number of livestock has relatively been the same so the amount methane produced by cattle hasn't changed that much. Another factor is how much carbon dioxide is used from the atmosphere for the amount of feed and grass the cattle eat in a year seems to never be taken into consideration.

 

[AUDub]

I would feel sure they do, but it doesn't directly say that they are included. Also how the different surveys include the projected calving numbers can impact the totals.

I'm thinking there might be a class excluded from the USDA counts, seeing as they generally think in terms of inventories rather than populations. 300,000,000 to 500,000,000 is too large a disparity for any other explanation, as the FAO is generally very good on stats.

Regardless, since 1975 the total number of livestock has relatively been the same so the amount methane produced by cattle hasn't changed that much.

I didn't meant to imply that, and apologize if I did.

Another factor is how much carbon dioxide is used from the atmosphere for the amount of feed and grass the cattle eat in a year seems to never be taken into consideration.

I'm not so sure it's a good a long term sequestration solution. Even then, compared to the amount we emit each year, the amount sequestered is likely pretty paltry.

 

[BamaInMo1]

If all of theses "scrupulous" scientists were to be proven wrong about this "global warming/climate change" stuff (both terms used because they are interchangeable depending on how warm or cold it is when the esteemed champion Albert Gore gets out of bed each morning) how much money would they stand to lose in the way of gov't grants and losing positions held at liberal universities and such? Maybe I can get the gov't to give me a grant to study that? Might be as worthwhile as studying the thicknesses of different ketchup, huh? Scientists really learned a lot from that one.

 

[Displaced Bama Fan]

If all of theses "scrupulous" scientists were to be proven wrong about this "global warming/climate change" stuff (both terms used because they are interchangeable depending on how warm or cold it is when the esteemed champion Albert Gore gets out of bed each morning) how much money would they stand to lose in the way of gov't grants and losing positions held at liberal universities and such? Maybe I can get the gov't to give me a grant to study that? Might be as worthwhile as studying the thicknesses of different ketchup, huh? Scientists really learned a lot from that one.

I'm sure it's already been done...no joking.