Which president candidate fits you?

[jbishop15]

Seriously you're going to throw out the PhD over an active Engineer, I guess my Master's degree in Engineering is meaningless in a debate against a PhD scientist. How will I ever live with myself.

Yes, I do trust someone with a relevant ph.D over someone with a masters in engineering. This isn't meant as an insult; I don't know what kind of engineer you are, but I would trust your opinion in your discipline over a climate scientists.

[jsgolfer]

There is simply too much evidence of rising temperature that's causing havoc globally.   You may insist that is not a man made problem but you can't deny the global temperature has gone up enough to cause many issues globally.   Many lives are forever changed whether it's fishermen who can no longer fish for the same fishes or people living in Marshall Islands.

What I can deny is that we are trying to measure fractions of a degree as an accuracy which is not real. The measuring devices error is as great as the supposed warming. So I really don't have any idea if they are correct or not. The numbers are meaningless due to shoddy science. And too many people are married to this so-called runaway warming. And yet there has been no significant warming in 15 years. Every tipping point keeps getting moved. Color me unimpressed. A Closed system is extremely grounded in equations and reality because I can measure it against what the equations tell us and be fairly certain off their accuracy. Climate models sucks, weather models are also incorrect frequently and that is with inputs continuously.

[jsgolfer]

The mentality expressed in this post demonstrates why I'm turned off to considering voting for Republicans for the foreseeable future. I think climate change is real, and I don't believe that taking steps to reduce America's carbon footprint would result in economic catastrophe. As the world's largest economy, the United States can most afford to take the lead and set an example for other nations. Regardless of that, we know that fossil fuels are a finite resource; we know that burning them degrades the quality of the air we breathe even before the effects of the greenhouse effect. Mountaintop coal mining has destroyed the landscape of Appalachia, displaced native species, reduced biodiversity in the region, and made the water unsafe to drink. The risks of fracking and oil sands exploration are still not well understood, and we certainly don't yet know how to clean up the mess if something goes wrong. The right side of the aisle likes to proclaim that we are a Christian nation, but a tenet of nearly every church on Earth is that we are supposed to take stewardship of God's creation. To "praise carbon" -- to advocate policies that pursue the extraction of fossil fuels at any cost, and without regard to the environmental consequences of those decisions -- is irresponsible to say the very least. I'm a pragmatist when it comes to the elemental structure of government: I don't really care how big or small it is, so long as it works. If Rockefeller Republicans still existed, I'd probably find a lot of ground with them, but the idea of "good government" has completely vanished from conservative politics. The dominant ideology now is that all government is bad, it only gets in the way of "freedom," and it should be made small enough that it can be drowned in a bathtub. Simply put, I don't agree with that, and I could never vote for that.

How did you come up with all off use on my post? Where did I say I wanted to destroy the environment?

[Ernest Jones]

In the name of all that's sacred, please don't vote for that sociopath Scott Walker. True dirtbag that will sell all your souls for the almighty corporate dollar. ****ing gross individual.

[Chilli Dipper]

Damn I didn't know so was a republican, thank you for clearing that up.

[quote name="jsgolfer" url="/t/83054/which-president-candidate-fits-you/30#post_1169127"] You do realize that carbon is he basis of life?[/quote] [quote name="jsgolfer" url="/t/83054/which-president-candidate-fits-you/30#post_1169149"] How did you come up with all off use on my post? Where did I say I wanted to destroy the environment?[/quote] Multi-quote: it exists for a reason. [quote name="Ernest Jones" url="/t/83054/which-president-candidate-fits-you/30#post_1169150"]In the name of all that's sacred, please don't vote for that sociopath Scott Walker. True dirtbag that will sell all your souls for the almighty corporate dollar. ****ing gross individual.[/quote] He's this century's answer to Warren G. Harding: an easily-corruptible suit who will work in a pinch once the party realizes none of its candidates are electable, but is bland enough that the rest of the electorate won't suspect anything amiss.

[Gunther]

In the name of all that's sacred, please don't vote for that sociopath Scott Walker. True dirtbag that will sell all your souls for the almighty corporate dollar. ****ing gross individual.

He hates the unions, as do I. Disagree with points of view, I get it, but stop with these radical proclamations that have absolutely no basis in truth.

[jsgolfer]

Multi-quote: it exists for a reason. He's this century's answer to Warren G. Harding: an easily-corruptible suit who will work in a pinch once the party realizes none of its candidates are electable, but is bland enough that the rest of the electorate won't suspect anything amiss.

Multi-quote is a pain when you're on the IPhone

[Chilli Dipper]

Multi-quote is a pain when you're on the IPhone

Really? I find it easier to multi-quote on my phone than I do on my PC.

[jsgolfer]

PhD in climate studies. Congratulations for getting a Master's degree in Engineering. It doesn't give you expertise on climate issues.

It does however give me expertise on the equations that the climate models are based upon, which I will say are basically a guess.  So I'll take my practical experience, my Masters degree and PE license over an phd climate scientist, every day of the week and twice on Sunday.  Thank you very much.

[tmac20]

It does however give me expertise on the equations that the climate models are based upon, which I will say are basically a guess.  So I'll take my practical experience, my Masters degree and PE license over an phd climate scientist, every day of the week and twice on Sunday.  Thank you very much.

I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion.

For those on the fence about climate change: http://climate.nasa.gov/

[Chilli Dipper]

It does however give me expertise on the equations that the climate models are based upon, which I will say are basically a guess.  So I'll take my practical experience, my Masters degree and PE license over an phd climate scientist, every day of the week and twice on Sunday.  Thank you very much.

The climatologists can run the numbers just as well; I'll take their years of experience in the field over whatever your practical experience is. Like I said before, I'm a pragmatist. The steps to combat climate change are the same steps that we'd need to take when we run out of oil, whether that's fifty or a hundred years from now. We'd need to rebuild our infrastructure to meet the demands of a post-carbon world anyway; if we start now, and the climate models prove to be incorrect, I don't see how we'd be any worse off for the effort. It's an ecological Pascal's Wager.

[jsgolfer]

Yes, I do trust someone with a relevant ph.D over someone with a masters in engineering. This isn't meant as an insult; I don't know what kind of engineer you are, but I would trust your opinion in your discipline over a climate scientists.

My degree is in Civil/Environmental Engineering, my Master's is in Water/Wastewater Engineering.  Problem is Climate science is still in it's infancy, and Engineering has been pretty much around forever.  Models of the climate are basically a mass balance equation, based on volumes of air.  Models are only as good as the information inputted and unfortunately they are not that well known or defined.  There are so man tunable parameters, you can input anything to get what you want.

I used to work with the Princeton Ocean model, which is similar to the climate models, and I could tune the parameters to get whatever I want.

[Lihu]

[quote name="jsgolfer" url="/t/83054/which-president-candidate-fits-you/60#post_1169169"]It does however give me expertise on the equations that the climate models are based upon, which I will say are basically a guess.  So I'll take my practical experience, my Masters degree and PE license over an phd climate scientist, every day of the week and twice on Sunday.  Thank you very much.

The climatologists can run the numbers just as well; I'll take their years of experience in the field over whatever your practical experience is. Like I said before, I'm a pragmatist. The steps to combat climate change are the same steps that we'd need to take when we run out of oil, whether that's fifty or a hundred years from now. We'd need to rebuild our infrastructure to meet the demands of a post-carbon world anyway; if we start now, and the climate models prove to be incorrect, I don't see how we'd be any worse off for the effort. It's an ecological Pascal's Wager.[/quote] True, we should act now. The main thing is it's happening, blaming a cause is not going to secure our future. We need to act on the best information we have.

[jsgolfer]

True, we should act now.

The main thing is it's happening, blaming a cause is not going to secure our future.

We need to act on the best information we have.

Unfortunately the information provided is not that good

[jsgolfer]

The climatologists can run the numbers just as well; I'll take their years of experience in the field over whatever your practical experience is.

Like I said before, I'm a pragmatist. The steps to combat climate change are the same steps that we'd need to take when we run out of oil, whether that's fifty or a hundred years from now. We'd need to rebuild our infrastructure to meet the demands of a post-carbon world anyway; if we start now, and the climate models prove to be incorrect, I don't see how we'd be any worse off for the effort. It's an ecological Pascal's Wager.

Unfortunately you can run the numbers, but if the models stink it doesn't mean much.

You do realize that without cheap oil we'd be still living in the dark ages.  Cheap energy is the reason we prosper, finding an alternative is a good idea, but nothing practical at this time.

[Lihu]

[QUOTE name="Lihu" url="/t/83054/which-president-candidate-fits-you/54#post_1169186"] True, we should act now. The main thing is it's happening, blaming a cause is not going to secure our future. We need to act on the best information we have.[/QUOTE] Unfortunately the information provided is not that good

You mean that the global temperature has risen? The climate is changing, what happens to the global environment is not 100% certain. Nothing is. BTW, I'm not advocating using only hybrids and electric cars that need new $5000 batteries every 4-8 years, I'm just saying we need to figure out what to do. Alternative energy is a good solution in some cases, but not all.

[jbishop15]

My degree is in Civil/Environmental Engineering, my Master's is in Water/Wastewater Engineering.  Problem is Climate science is still in it's infancy, and Engineering has been pretty much around forever.  Models of the climate are basically a mass balance equation, based on volumes of air.  Models are only as good as the information inputted and unfortunately they are not that well known or defined.  There are so man tunable parameters, you can input anything to get what you want. I used to work with the Princeton Ocean model, which is similar to the climate models, and I could tune the parameters to get whatever I want.

Why would anyone fake it, though? Fossil fuels are bad for our air regardless of climate change. Why would some fake a model to show that climate change is occurring?

[ryan772]

1. As an Engineer, I won't get into the shoddy science behind global warming, but climate change is not as serious an issue as most believe.  It's an issue that we have to deal with whether it's too cold or too hot or anywhere in between.  If Climate change is the top of your agenda, you need to critically think about tree rings and proxies and what you can really deduce from them about the past.  All temperature gauges have an error in them, you add in location and setting and you will get wide swings of data which do not reflect reality.  Then they have to be fit back to what the scientist expects, not what they really are.  The data sets used by the government have been altered so many times, I don't think anyone has any idea what the real numbers are.  So for anyone to really think that they can tell what the planets temperature is or even is supposed to be, eh, much ado about nothing. The world might (or might not) have warmed by a fraction of a degree. This might (or might not) be all (or in part) due to the activities of mankind. It might (or might not) be all bad.  A warmer world is much more hospitable than a cold world (see the middle ages and the little ice age).  It all depends on the quality of observations and the validity of various hypotheses, which I'm afraid to say, are lacking.   If only there were some natural explanation for falling and rising temperatures.  Such a hypothetical source of warming would have to be massive, however. On the order of magnitude of our Sun. We should all praise carbon, it is the cycle of life.  The contribution of the gas to the making of a comfortable planet by the so-called greenhouse effect is well understood, modest and self-limiting. It is only turned into a terror by computer models. These are pretty worthless prognosticators; depending as they do on extensive guesswork about the ill-understood mechanisms and interactions involved in climate (not a closed system unfortunately) and involve so many tunable parameters and feedback factors that they could produce any desired result by appropriate tweaking by anyone. No model has been able to accurately predict the current non-warming that has been going on for 15 years.  I could go on and on and on...but that is probably for another blog 2. The government is too huge and needs to be reigned in, not everything demands the attention of the government.  That's the problem, the government is so huge they can't see the forest through the trees.   One of my favorite quotes: The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. H. L. Mencken Back to Golf....Fore!

Very well said. A book i highly recommend for enjoyment and educational purposes. Is "state of fear" by Michael Crichton.