I'm sure there are plenty of petroleum engineers that believe in climate change. That being said, petroleum engineers do not set the supply curve. That is set by everyone on the planet that drives a car, boat, or demands any good that is shipped. So, unless you are Amish, you are a part of the problem as well.
petroleum guy wrote:
texas crude wrote:What's hilarious about all this is the engineers, most executives etc at Exxon and all other big energy companies are NOT stupid; quite the contrary and they know there ** is ** climate change.
None of the big energy companies would survive if they took a stand against global warming.
Concerning petroleum engineers I know quite a few of them. And they all loathe the global warming alarmists. They do, however, recognize that the climate is constantly changing and that human activity may or may not be a small contributor to this.
I would really question the education of an engineer who doesn't believe in climate change. I remember discussing this topic 30+ years ago in an electromagnetic waves theory class. The concept is quite easy to understand. The only real question is "when?", not "if?". Even if you don't trust the experts (I do), a technically educated person must admit that warming will eventually occur. There is no alternative scientific explanation as to why it wouldn't occur.
As to the "when?", I'm conservative by nature and would rather be safe than sorry.
Ke7 wrote:
I'm a Trump supporter and I am not "vehemently opposed to the notion of climate change". The problem is people like you who have no idea what they are talking about.
3) There is no overwhelming scientific evidence. The evidence is mostly statistical from what I've seen.
Dingdingding we have a retard alert!
Retard alert!
In Trump universe anecdotal evidence is what science should be based upon
foo wrote:
petroleum guy wrote:None of the big energy companies would survive if they took a stand against global warming.
Concerning petroleum engineers I know quite a few of them. And they all loathe the global warming alarmists. They do, however, recognize that the climate is constantly changing and that human activity may or may not be a small contributor to this.
I would really question the education of an engineer who doesn't believe in climate change. I remember discussing this topic 30+ years ago in an electromagnetic waves theory class. The concept is quite easy to understand. The only real question is "when?", not "if?". Even if you don't trust the experts (I do), a technically educated person must admit that warming will eventually occur. There is no alternative scientific explanation as to why it wouldn't occur.
As to the "when?", I'm conservative by nature and would rather be safe than sorry.
Hey silly ... Warming will eventually occur AND cooling will eventually occur. We are talking climate change. The Earth has been warming and cooling over billions of years. This is not our Earth's first rodeo.
foo wrote:
petroleum guy wrote:None of the big energy companies would survive if they took a stand against global warming.
Concerning petroleum engineers I know quite a few of them. And they all loathe the global warming alarmists. They do, however, recognize that the climate is constantly changing and that human activity may or may not be a small contributor to this.
I would really question the education of an engineer who doesn't believe in climate change. I remember discussing this topic 30+ years ago in an electromagnetic waves theory class. The concept is quite easy to understand. The only real question is "when?", not "if?". Even if you don't trust the experts (I do), a technically educated person must admit that warming will eventually occur. There is no alternative scientific explanation as to why it wouldn't occur.
As to the "when?", I'm conservative by nature and would rather be safe than sorry.
I would question the engineer that has looked at the raw data sets an still thinks man made global warming is real. You can download data straight and see for yourself. And if you think it is real move to Fort Wayne Indiana. It's been cooling for the last 100 years.
Sally Vv wrote:
foo wrote:I would really question the education of an engineer who doesn't believe in climate change. I remember discussing this topic 30+ years ago in an electromagnetic waves theory class. The concept is quite easy to understand. The only real question is "when?", not "if?". Even if you don't trust the experts (I do), a technically educated person must admit that warming will eventually occur. There is no alternative scientific explanation as to why it wouldn't occur.
As to the "when?", I'm conservative by nature and would rather be safe than sorry.
Hey silly ... Warming will eventually occur AND cooling will eventually occur. We are talking climate change. The Earth has been warming and cooling over billions of years. This is not our Earth's first rodeo.
As the financial guys say, past performance is no indication of future results. Especially when we are fundamentally changing the composition of the atmosphere.
elections have consequences wrote:
Pointing It Out! wrote:In other words you are unable to distinguish between pop culture and science.
No worries, there are many who have the same problem. It seems that the failure of public schools to educate folks in science and math that has been noted for several decades is very real and has very real consequences.
Those quotes are from climate scientists. And Al Gore, who was 500 votes away from being President. "Pop culture?"
Yup, pop culture. There is always some scientist somewhere who will spout nearly anything. There are simply too many scientists for the group to be completely devoid of fools. Add in the inevitable method of taking words out of context and ANY large group of individuals can easily yield a treasure trove of cute quotes to support ANY position on ANY topic.
And that's what pop culture does. Did you not know this?
So, yeah, pop culture.
And Al Gore? You don't get much more pop culture than that.
Seriously, do you really think that finding a bunch of cute quotes is relevant in any way? Please educate yourself. Generally, it is not too painful.
And here's a quick clue to help you get started. When one side tends to point to NASA and organizations made up of the top scientists within the relevant field of study while the other tends to point to Breitbart . . . well, let's just say if you have any interest in truth it's not too hard to figure out where to look.
But realistically you almost certainly have no interest in truth - you're real happy with cute talking points. Am I right?
Engineer wrote:
foo wrote:I would really question the education of an engineer who doesn't believe in climate change. I remember discussing this topic 30+ years ago in an electromagnetic waves theory class. The concept is quite easy to understand. The only real question is "when?", not "if?". Even if you don't trust the experts (I do), a technically educated person must admit that warming will eventually occur. There is no alternative scientific explanation as to why it wouldn't occur.
As to the "when?", I'm conservative by nature and would rather be safe than sorry.
I would question the engineer that has looked at the raw data sets an still thinks man made global warming is real. You can download data straight and see for yourself. And if you think it is real move to Fort Wayne Indiana. It's been cooling for the last 100 years.
Good engineers don't look at minuscule subsets of data and draw radical conclusions from them. Secondly, engineers are willing to accept results of highly trained scientists who have spent years and careers analyzing the data.
joedirt wrote:
I'm sure there are plenty of petroleum engineers that believe in climate change. That being said, petroleum engineers do not set the supply curve. That is set by everyone on the planet that drives a car, boat, or demands any good that is shipped. So, unless you are Amish, you are a part of the problem as well.
See, here ^ is a HUGE part of the problem.
Can you possibly get past this whole notion of who is guilty, whose fault it is, who to blame, etc. ? All of that stuff is entirely irrelevant.
Nobody (except for a few nut jobs) is suggesting that we go back to the stone ages (or Amish ages :-). That is entirely besides the point. The point is trying to make a transition to alternate energy sources as quickly as is practical - not ceasing to use energy altogether.
Sally Vv wrote:
foo wrote:I would really question the education of an engineer who doesn't believe in climate change. I remember discussing this topic 30+ years ago in an electromagnetic waves theory class. The concept is quite easy to understand. The only real question is "when?", not "if?". Even if you don't trust the experts (I do), a technically educated person must admit that warming will eventually occur. There is no alternative scientific explanation as to why it wouldn't occur.
As to the "when?", I'm conservative by nature and would rather be safe than sorry.
Hey silly ... Warming will eventually occur AND cooling will eventually occur. We are talking climate change. The Earth has been warming and cooling over billions of years. This is not our Earth's first rodeo.
The Earth is really, REALLY old!
Silly - WE humans are the ones accelerating it though. it's not happening in the normal cycles of the earth which is what you're referring to...it's being condensed in a 50-100 year period versus 1,000 or 10,000 years so, technically, this is our earth's first rodeo of this type. i'm guessing you'll believe your own reality though
Sally Vv wrote:
foo wrote:I would really question the education of an engineer who doesn't believe in climate change. I remember discussing this topic 30+ years ago in an electromagnetic waves theory class. The concept is quite easy to understand. The only real question is "when?", not "if?". Even if you don't trust the experts (I do), a technically educated person must admit that warming will eventually occur. There is no alternative scientific explanation as to why it wouldn't occur.
As to the "when?", I'm conservative by nature and would rather be safe than sorry.
Hey silly ... Warming will eventually occur AND cooling will eventually occur. We are talking climate change. The Earth has been warming and cooling over billions of years. This is not our Earth's first rodeo.
Engineer wrote:
foo wrote:I would really question the education of an engineer who doesn't believe in climate change. I remember discussing this topic 30+ years ago in an electromagnetic waves theory class. The concept is quite easy to understand. The only real question is "when?", not "if?". Even if you don't trust the experts (I do), a technically educated person must admit that warming will eventually occur. There is no alternative scientific explanation as to why it wouldn't occur.
As to the "when?", I'm conservative by nature and would rather be safe than sorry.
I would question the engineer that has looked at the raw data sets an still thinks man made global warming is real. You can download data straight and see for yourself. And if you think it is real move to Fort Wayne Indiana. It's been cooling for the last 100 years.
Well, the names of the folks who contribute to the serious study of this topic at NASA and IPCC are not exactly top secret. Feel free to question them directly.
Be sure to check back in here and let us know how your conversations went.
In Science, truth is based on probabilities.
Ke7 wrote:
I'm a Trump supporter and I am not "vehemently opposed to the notion of climate change". The problem is people like you who have no idea what they are talking about.
For starters,
1) Being a Trump supporter does not mean you are opposed to the notion of climate change.
2) In my experience, very few people reject the idea that the climate is changing. It has been changing for a long time. The issue is whether or not humans are significantly affecting it.
3) There is no overwhelming scientific evidence. The evidence is mostly statistical from what I've seen.
4) The number of researchers that support the notion of man-made climate change is irrelevant to whether or not it is true. Democracy is based on popular opinion. The truth is not. Something is either true or it isn't.
5) The notion of man-made climate change needs more actual scientific support instead of statistical and democratic support.
Pointing It Out! wrote:
Yup, pop culture. There is always some scientist somewhere who will spout nearly anything. There are simply too many scientists for the group to be completely devoid of fools. Add in the inevitable method of taking words out of context and ANY large group of individuals can easily yield a treasure trove of cute quotes to support ANY position on ANY topic.
And that's what pop culture does. Did you not know this?
So, yeah, pop culture.
And Al Gore? You don't get much more pop culture than that.
Seriously, do you really think that finding a bunch of cute quotes is relevant in any way? Please educate yourself. Generally, it is not too painful.
And here's a quick clue to help you get started. When one side tends to point to NASA and organizations made up of the top scientists within the relevant field of study while the other tends to point to Breitbart . . . well, let's just say if you have any interest in truth it's not too hard to figure out where to look.
But realistically you almost certainly have no interest in truth - you're real happy with cute talking points. Am I right?
I don't give a shit if Al Gore is "Pop Culture" - he was 500 votes from the most powerful person in the world (not that the alternative was better). "Pop Culture" has the power to f**k everyone over. "Pop Culture" influences opinions, so looney "Pop Culture" scientists, politicians, and campaigners with destructively bad ideas SHOULD BE RIDICULED AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY.
The easiest and most efficient way to curb CO2 emissions is to combat overpopulation and restrict immigration from the 3rd world to industrial countries.
Why don't the warmists argue for such measures?
Well, according to the data you just posted there is a 5% chance that there is no global warming.It is that simple. People are not dumb and are not wrong. There is a 5% chance of no global warming.In 100 years, if it was all a hoax, some people will say it was all a hoax and the scientists were way off. People like you will say: well there is a 5% chance that is was wrong, the scientists were not wrong.By the way there are way more than 3 possibilities. You suffer from the same issues you criticize the "ones that know better than the scientists". You make up a simple explanation of a complex problem to explain it to yourself.There is absolutely no difference between"Those who think they know better than the scientists are picking #1"and"Those who are well grounded in reality choose #3"
Fat hurts wrote:
The scientific community overwhelmingly accepts anthropogenic global warming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_changeGiven that fact, there are three possibilities:
1) The scientific community is made up of stupid people.
2) The scientific community is engaged in a global conspiracy.
3) The scientific community is made up of smart people who know how to do their jobs and are therefore very likely to be correct.
Those who think they know better than the scientists are picking #1. For example, you might hear someone say something to the effect of "Don't you know that some of the thermometers are in urban areas? It's hotter there."
Those who are paranoid are picking #2. For example, on talk radio I often hear, "The global warming crowd is out to destroy capitalism. It's all a hoax!"
Those who are well grounded in reality choose #3.
I don't know where you downloaded the raw data set. They don't exist. They've been lost or deleted. The data that is available shows warming. Berkeley Earth, which was formed to disprove global warming came up with similar data to what other people are presenting.So the earth is warming, water is rising. The question is why and will it continue to increase out of control.No matter what, I still like Trump.
Engineer wrote:
foo wrote:I would really question the education of an engineer who doesn't believe in climate change. I remember discussing this topic 30+ years ago in an electromagnetic waves theory class. The concept is quite easy to understand. The only real question is "when?", not "if?". Even if you don't trust the experts (I do), a technically educated person must admit that warming will eventually occur. There is no alternative scientific explanation as to why it wouldn't occur.
As to the "when?", I'm conservative by nature and would rather be safe than sorry.
I would question the engineer that has looked at the raw data sets an still thinks man made global warming is real. You can download data straight and see for yourself. And if you think it is real move to Fort Wayne Indiana. It's been cooling for the last 100 years.
elections have consequences wrote:
Pointing It Out! wrote:Yup, pop culture. There is always some scientist somewhere who will spout nearly anything. There are simply too many scientists for the group to be completely devoid of fools. Add in the inevitable method of taking words out of context and ANY large group of individuals can easily yield a treasure trove of cute quotes to support ANY position on ANY topic.
And that's what pop culture does. Did you not know this?
So, yeah, pop culture.
And Al Gore? You don't get much more pop culture than that.
Seriously, do you really think that finding a bunch of cute quotes is relevant in any way? Please educate yourself. Generally, it is not too painful.
And here's a quick clue to help you get started. When one side tends to point to NASA and organizations made up of the top scientists within the relevant field of study while the other tends to point to Breitbart . . . well, let's just say if you have any interest in truth it's not too hard to figure out where to look.
But realistically you almost certainly have no interest in truth - you're real happy with cute talking points. Am I right?
I don't give a shit if Al Gore is "Pop Culture" - he was 500 votes from the most powerful person in the world (not that the alternative was better). "Pop Culture" has the power to f**k everyone over. "Pop Culture" influences opinions, so looney "Pop Culture" scientists, politicians, and campaigners with destructively bad ideas SHOULD BE RIDICULED AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY.
In other words, truth simply does not matter to you. What is important, in addition to your right to remain ignorant, is your need to rant.
OK, you've had a good rant. Do you feel better now?
Way Better Engineer wrote:
Engineer wrote:I would question the engineer that has looked at the raw data sets an still thinks man made global warming is real. You can download data straight and see for yourself. And if you think it is real move to Fort Wayne Indiana. It's been cooling for the last 100 years.
Well, the names of the folks who contribute to the serious study of this topic at NASA and IPCC are not exactly top secret. Feel free to question them directly.
Be sure to check back in here and let us know how your conversations went.
Should I point out they need to remove to 10000 degree temperature measurements in the data sets?
Yeah baby. Fantastic explanation. Thanks. Don't need to say more.