New York Post uses University of Louisiana :-)

[Turbine]

PS I try to make everyone happy.

I cut my grass with a battery operated lawnmower, charged from an electrical plant operated on Natural Gas.

[Just1More]

PS I try to make everyone happy.

I cut my grass with a battery operated lawnmower, charged from an electrical plant operated on Natural Gas.

How do you figure that's keeping "everyone" happy. First, green freaks don't think grass should be cut at all. Their close cousins think only grazing animals should "cut it". You, my friend, are cutting your grass with the combination of 150 petroleum derived products. Your attempt at "going green" is only a thimble full of green paint in a vat of crude oil. LOL

[Boomer]

How do you figure that's keeping "everyone" happy. First, green freaks don't think grass should be cut at all. Their close cousins think only grazing animals should "cut it". You, my friend, are cutting your grass with the combination of 150 petroleum derived products. Your attempt at "going green" is only a thimble full of green paint in a vat of crude oil. LOL

---I am not familiar at all with the legal events of the Oil spill but just wondering if any of these people who were mentioned with the gloom and doom scenarios were lawyered up for the trials---again I have no idea but know, as everybody else, that there were some huge payouts !!!

[Just1More]

---I am not familiar at all with the legal events of the Oil spill but just wondering if any of these people who were mentioned with the gloom and doom scenarios were lawyered up for the trials---again I have no idea but know, as everybody else, that there were some huge payouts !!!

Massive numbers of people were paid for no losses at all. But it's called cutting your losses and moving on. Civil trials never go well for the oil giants. Huge mistakes were made, a massive cleanup required, but denying the individuals that were damaged wasn't worth readjusting the damage claims.

And no, just like with climate science, you will not see law suits against scientists for theorizing cause and effect incorrectly, or for theorizing consequences incorrectly. They provide their massive science study... nothing of which can anyone but another scientist in that massively fragmented component of climate science understand... and then as they're either paid directly, or strongly encouraged to give opinions, they weave the science together with their opinion and postulate. It is the latter that I find disturbing. It is also irresponsible for a biologist, or a molecular physicist, or a geophysist, or a bontanist, or a chemist, or even a meteorologist, to call themself a "climate change expert"... but that isn't stopping them. As they jointly produce fragments of data, and they get together and share, they ought to be infinitely more cautious on drawing conclusions. As I said prior, there are massive global consequences, politically, if they are off by any slight order of magnitude on about 10 factors involving climate theory. But politicians want the political juice this topic delivers... and for reasons I find disturbing... science has chosen sides politically. I actually know why... but it's a damning accusation on science that I just don't want to believe.

[Turbine]

How do you figure that's keeping "everyone" happy. First, green freaks don't think grass should be cut at all. Their close cousins think only grazing animals should "cut it". You, my friend, are cutting your grass with the combination of 150 petroleum derived products. Your attempt at "going green" is only a thimble full of green paint in a vat of crude oil. LOL

I eat it.

[Just1More]

I hope that the current research is flawed, inflated, just plain wrong but I really dont think it is. I lean more towards the middle of most things and do on climate science as well. I think we are adding to global warming but I'm not convinced it will be the end of the human race as some think.

I think you chose to step out of this topic... but I have to ask you a question. You've solidly defended the ethics of the scientists, and their skills, in drawing the pervasive conclusions (97% agree) on manmade climate change (not just minor change - but major change). They are saying that man is tinkering with the atmospheric incubator thermostat... to the peril of all mankind. But you added the above to your personal opinion on the subject. How can you say that you "lean toward the middle on this topic" at the same time you seem to place your faith in these "climate science" experts? In reality, there are few, if any, climate science experts. There are many disparate science experts studying fragments of data that contribute to the science of climate. But again, how can you defend these persons of science, but say that as they've drawn together in a 97% consensus, you "fall in the middle" on the subject? What is "the middle"? To me, there is no middle. I could care less about taking the extreme political viewpoints and adjusting to a pleasant "can we all get along" "middle". This is a science subject. And there is no middle. Science needs to provide definitive information. Let it land on the place it belongs. But "middle science" is no such thing.

[basinbear]

How do you figure that's keeping "everyone" happy. First, green freaks don't think grass should be cut at all. Their close cousins think only grazing animals should "cut it". You, my friend, are cutting your grass with the combination of 150 petroleum derived products. Your attempt at "going green" is only a thimble full of green paint in a vat of crude oil. LOL

Grazing animals can't cut your grass.....to many farts...

[Just1More]

Grazing animals can't cut your grass.....to many farts...

Fartologists are at the top of the climatology food chain.

[CajunRed]

My thought is...once all so-called scientists and believing politicians get themselves into electric cars...solar houses...and stop flying...then I'll do the same.

[Ragin4U]

It seems like there are one of two issues here. Either you are ignorant of what science is and how it works or you intentionally post things that confirm your personal or professional bias. When you say "science is perfect" , "pure", "irrefutable science" it leads me to believe one of those two possibilities.
You seem to want "proof" and as I have posted before, there is no proof in science. The universe, being an open system, makes it impossible to say something is 100%. Heck even our understanding of gravity has changed since Newton first described it. Something so fundamental and universal, and it took a crazy haired patent clerk to understand its nature and then even he wasn't satisfied with his understanding. Science is ALWAYS changing as new discoveries are made, technology improves or a Newton, Einstein or Greene comes along.
You have talked about the disparate nature of climate science. Again, I'll repeat, the Earth is complex and interconnected. It is impossible to use one discipline to study climate. There are a multitude of processes that interact. If anything, it seems like the amalgamation of all of these branches of science coming together would be MORE convincing.
Science is about probability. And yes 97% of scientists have some level of agreement that a portion of the current warming of the climate is man-made. And they too understand that there is a certain percent error, as in all science, that they are incorrect. If you smoke cigarettes, you have a certain percentage chance that you will develop diseases related to the inhalation of carcinogens. It doesnt mean you will absolutely develop one of these diseases but you have to play the odds. If I go to 100 doctors and 97 of them tell me I need to take this red pill or I will die, I'll take the red pill. You?
You have doubted the ethics of scientists before and I take offense to that. Are there unethical scientists? Of course, just as there are unethical doctors, policemen and engineers.
It sounds like you are making a blanket statement about the morals and professionalism of people that I know well and I can assure you that you are incorrect. You have stated something about money. I know hundreds of scientists and know dozens well. None of them have gotten rich. Either in the private sector or toiling at universities and other public institutions.
I am constantly amazed at people who pick and choose what they will believe when it comes to science. Some wont vaccinate their kids because some Hollywood idiot and one UNETHICAL scientist says it causes autism. But those same people will pop a pill to deal with anxiety. They will scream about GMOs and want to close borders over Ebola but not listen to experts in the field. Some believe that Planet Nine will kill us all in a month but not buy into decades of data showing the accelerating warming of the Earth.
The idea that scientists are all in on some hoax is ludicrous. Scientists love to poke holes and debunk others' hypothesis. When you get scientists to agree, you have a real anomaly!
You pointed out that scientific models were wrong in the PWS and the Gulf. I could argue that they were more right, as a percentage than wrong. And models are a valid way to attempt a prediction for complex, long term systems. Do you doubt Rob Perillio when he uses hurricane models to predict land falling hurricanes?

[Zeebart21]

It seems like there are one of two issues here. Either you are ignorant of what science is and how it works or you intentionally post things that confirm your personal or professional bias. When you say "science is perfect" , "pure", "irrefutable science" it leads me to believe one of those two possibilities.
You seem to want "proof" and as I have posted before, there is no proof in science. The universe, being an open system, makes it impossible to say something is 100%. Heck even our understanding of gravity has changed since Newton first described it. Something so fundamental and universal, and it took a crazy haired patent clerk to understand its nature and then even he wasn't satisfied with his understanding. Science is ALWAYS changing as new discoveries are made, technology improves or a Newton, Einstein or Greene comes along.
You have talked about the disparate nature of climate science. Again, I'll repeat, the Earth is complex and interconnected. It is impossible to use one discipline to study climate. There are a multitude of processes that interact. If anything, it seems like the amalgamation of all of these branches of science coming together would be MORE convincing.
Science is about probability. And yes 97% of scientists have some level of agreement that a portion of the current warming of the climate is man-made. And they too understand that there is a certain percent error, as in all science, that they are incorrect. If you smoke cigarettes, you have a certain percentage chance that you will develop diseases related to the inhalation of carcinogens. It doesnt mean you will absolutely develop one of these diseases but you have to play the odds. If I go to 100 doctors and 97 of them tell me I need to take this red pill or I will die, I'll take the red pill. You?
You have doubted the ethics of scientists before and I take offense to that. Are there unethical scientists? Of course, just as there are unethical doctors, policemen and engineers.
It sounds like you are making a blanket statement about the morals and professionalism of people that I know well and I can assure you that you are incorrect. You have stated something about money. I know hundreds of scientists and know dozens well. None of them have gotten rich. Either in the private sector or toiling at universities and other public institutions.
I am constantly amazed at people who pick and choose what they will believe when it comes to science. Some wont vaccinate their kids because some Hollywood idiot and one UNETHICAL scientist says it causes autism. But those same people will pop a pill to deal with anxiety. They will scream about GMOs and want to close borders over Ebola but not listen to experts in the field. Some believe that Planet Nine will kill us all in a month but not buy into decades of data showing the accelerating warming of the Earth.
The idea that scientists are all in on some hoax is ludicrous. Scientists love to poke holes and debunk others' hypothesis. When you get scientists to agree, you have a real anomaly!
You pointed out that scientific models were wrong in the PWS and the Gulf. I could argue that they were more right, as a percentage than wrong. And models are a valid way to attempt a prediction for complex, long term systems. Do you doubt Rob Perillio when he uses hurricane models to predict land falling hurricanes?

Yeah....NOPE. I seem to remember the East Anglia University emails..... Ever heard of them?

[Just1More]

4U, you are bordering on making this very personal... and I have not. So, here goes my lecture that can still maintain not getting personal. First, I am not ignorant of science. Science is perfect. The study of the sciences is not. Get that straight, and you'll understand my position. And the ethics I refer to is in rendering opinion before it's time. And that is a human flaw. It does not condemn science or scientists. And the financial and fame connection to climate science and scientists has nothing to do with how wealthy each participant is. I'm not talking about their taking of personal wealth. I'm talking about the competition within their professions. They are getting research dollars and publishing by being on the right side of this argument. Again, it's a human thing. And many are seeing careers blossom where there was little opportunity. Many of the publishing scientists are constantly meandering outside of their fields of science.

I'm glad you involved cigarette smoking and its carcinogenic effect. You see, science is perfect in defining tobacco as a carcinogen. It is irrefutable. The odds of whether an individual's exposure will cause cancer is not the science of determination of it being a carcinogen. The science of human defense systems and the science of genetic predisposition is also a pure science. Just because the complications in that science do not make studying it perfect, does not mean the science itself is not perfect. Just because we cannot isolate every single fact does not destroy the inherent perfection of science itself.

Gravity is perfect. It defines itself. Studying gravity is not perfect. Studying it will only reveal the absolute truths about gravity. But gravity itself is perfect. If man in studying gravity came to a premature decision that gravity was going away because of man's removal of iron from one area of the planet and moving it to another... in the middle of the industrial revolution... it would not bother a botanist or a hortaculturist that no more iron ore was to be mined. It would have global economic impact. It is not the scientist being premature. It is the human with "ist" describing his vocation.

And yes... in climate science... there has been far too much speculatory assumptions draped around the science of climate. You earlier stated that climate science was not disparate. And now you say "disparate is good". No, when you are studying the stars, clearing the room of the other 50 "ists" is a good thing... and leaving the astrophysicists to converge on the science involved... is a very good thing. I don't care how many "ists" it takes to study climate science. I understand the need for just about every field of science. What I am condemning is the stupidity of the public and the public mouthpieces that condemn those that question climate science assumptions of cause and effect... consequences... and remediation potential. They do not say "I do not know yet". They give answers. It has gotten extremely unpopular to say "we just do not know yet". And that ____es me off. I will praise these humans for the gifts they possess... but I will also slam them for the human traits they pretend do not exist in the human scientist. And the stupidity of drawing premature conclusions... as a disparate body of scientists... with very little pure climate science evidence... is very very pathetic.

PS I never said it was a hoax. They are human... and I completely understand the path that they are being led down. They need to Please and study way way more before giving any definitive conclusions.