Time for Land Tawney to step down?
- Thread starter hossblur
- Start date
Think there is as little cherry picking of data given they left out the 60-80's, which was a cold period?
Last edited:
that's what scientists do. they cherry pick the data to get the results they want, in order to get the funding ,they need.
Woodrow F Call
Active member
Are you cherry picking data to get the results you want?
While I don't doubt that it happens, there are plenty of scientists who are good folk and are trying to do right. I wouldn't paint with such a broad brush just because it doesn't support your view.
R
rwc101
Guest
Man, it must take the scientists I work with a long time to cherry pick their terabytes of data.
Woodrow F Call
Active member
that looks like cherry picked data, from a few who agree . climate change is not without debate among ,so called scientists as the pro pundits claim' there is plenty of doubtIs there?
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Solar panels, today's black gold in the investment world.
www.investors.com
IMO this ponzi scheme will not end well.
One of America's Biggest Solar Panel Makers Quits Manufacturing
SunPower Corp., one of America’s largest solar-panel makers, is giving up its manufacturing business to focus on installing rooftop solar systems.
www.investors.com
IMO this ponzi scheme will not end well.
bpitt
Active member
#datasciencerocks!
no . I'm not looking for results.
I understand that a few degress hotter or colder is irrelevant.
as for broad brush, I don't believe the brush I am using is even broad enough.
Listened to Fin and TR IV.
I'm struck, as always. TR takes a private plane to Alaska. Then jumps a commercial plane to prudoe. Then of course makes the snarky comment about prude bay after which he flies to Artic national.
He's in Wyoming talking, he flew here to fish.
But is very opinionated in what we need to do. Us normal folks with out cars and cows.
Gore, Decaprio, AOC, Warren, Sanders.
It's fascinating that the problem is a car or a cow, told to us by folks with multiple houses all over the planet that "commute" via personal plane, or limo.
It rings pretty hollow, and makes it easy to point out that the biggest "voices" of man-made climate change sure seem to make a boat load of money preaching, yet live entirely counter to their "beliefs".
I am old enough to remember the .com bubble, where everyone blindly dumped a gazillion dollars into a scheme.
As I watch California burn, and electric cars sitting in parking lots because the power is off, while folks burn gas in there generators, and rent gas cars to commute hoping the power fed from Utah coal into lines out of Delta Utah, gets turned back on, "the crisis" ain't about scientific consensus. It's about an ACTUAL replacement.
Covering millions of acres in solar panels made in China, subsidized further by tax money, only to fail over and over, ain't it.
As of today, reactors are the only alternative that actually works large scale. But they ain't sexy, and they ain't subsidized enough.
I believe in warming. I'll believe it a crisis when the plan to fix it isn't average Americans suffer while the "woke" folks further their personal greed.
I'm struck, as always. TR takes a private plane to Alaska. Then jumps a commercial plane to prudoe. Then of course makes the snarky comment about prude bay after which he flies to Artic national.
He's in Wyoming talking, he flew here to fish.
But is very opinionated in what we need to do. Us normal folks with out cars and cows.
Gore, Decaprio, AOC, Warren, Sanders.
It's fascinating that the problem is a car or a cow, told to us by folks with multiple houses all over the planet that "commute" via personal plane, or limo.
It rings pretty hollow, and makes it easy to point out that the biggest "voices" of man-made climate change sure seem to make a boat load of money preaching, yet live entirely counter to their "beliefs".
I am old enough to remember the .com bubble, where everyone blindly dumped a gazillion dollars into a scheme.
As I watch California burn, and electric cars sitting in parking lots because the power is off, while folks burn gas in there generators, and rent gas cars to commute hoping the power fed from Utah coal into lines out of Delta Utah, gets turned back on, "the crisis" ain't about scientific consensus. It's about an ACTUAL replacement.
Covering millions of acres in solar panels made in China, subsidized further by tax money, only to fail over and over, ain't it.
As of today, reactors are the only alternative that actually works large scale. But they ain't sexy, and they ain't subsidized enough.
I believe in warming. I'll believe it a crisis when the plan to fix it isn't average Americans suffer while the "woke" folks further their personal greed.
Woodrow F Call
Active member
Data from 5 independent organizations with the funding and people to analyze the data?
Cherry.... Picked...
How about looking at a longer period of time:
Maybe rapid temp swings aren't so irregular? Though I am not debating human impact
Maybe rapid temp swings aren't so irregular? Though I am not debating human impact
Woodrow F Call
Active member
Woodrow F Call
Active member
How about looking at a longer period of time:
View attachment 119758
Maybe rapid temp swings aren't so irregular? Though I am not debating human impact
I agree with you on this.
dcopas78
Well-known member
I've been in the environmental fields since 1996. I'm a environmental engineer, and I specialize in water and wastewater treatment systems and methods, but before I got into that I worked in hazardous site remediation/treatment system design for quite a few Superfund sites. I've also worked on landfill gas extraction system design and compliance, underground tank storage removals, hydro geological gradient/plume mapping, rail yard pollution control systems, as well as an HAZWOPER emergency response technician for hazardous spill containment.
I've seen enough those years of exposure to all sorts of environmental disaster sites, mostly east of the Mississippi, to say that there is no doubt in my mind that humans can and will affect their environment in a negative way. I've also saw quite a bit of sketchy science related to how/when/why data is collected on both sides of the climate change argument. Most of my experiences, being a system design and implementation guy, have been on how treatment systems are developed. Many alternatives are snake oil potions. Many are founded in hard science and have stood the test of time. Some of the best treatment methods have been around for decades. Guys like me just tweak and modify them to give us the results desired. You've got to be able to weed out the good systems from the bad.
I look at climate change objectively, and in the same manor as I would a treatment system proposal. I consider how the climate data was gathered, who gathered it, and try to figure out why they gathered it. You always have to look at who is holding the purse strings...on both sides. I'm neither a full blown denier or a full blow believer. Do I think there are impacts from humans? Absolutely. Are they the only thing contributing to change? Absolutely not! I try to be a realist. Humans will always cause pollution. Alternatives aren't always the best alternatives. Alternatives have environmental consequences of their own. As Buzz said much earlier in the thread, there seems to be no consideration as to what happens to the turbines and solar farms long term. That would be my biggest drawback about using public lands. Those farms could turn out to be the future Superfund sites if we aren't careful. I do know that we have made pretty great strides in cleaning up our water, air and soil but there is always room for more improvement.
I've seen enough those years of exposure to all sorts of environmental disaster sites, mostly east of the Mississippi, to say that there is no doubt in my mind that humans can and will affect their environment in a negative way. I've also saw quite a bit of sketchy science related to how/when/why data is collected on both sides of the climate change argument. Most of my experiences, being a system design and implementation guy, have been on how treatment systems are developed. Many alternatives are snake oil potions. Many are founded in hard science and have stood the test of time. Some of the best treatment methods have been around for decades. Guys like me just tweak and modify them to give us the results desired. You've got to be able to weed out the good systems from the bad.
I look at climate change objectively, and in the same manor as I would a treatment system proposal. I consider how the climate data was gathered, who gathered it, and try to figure out why they gathered it. You always have to look at who is holding the purse strings...on both sides. I'm neither a full blown denier or a full blow believer. Do I think there are impacts from humans? Absolutely. Are they the only thing contributing to change? Absolutely not! I try to be a realist. Humans will always cause pollution. Alternatives aren't always the best alternatives. Alternatives have environmental consequences of their own. As Buzz said much earlier in the thread, there seems to be no consideration as to what happens to the turbines and solar farms long term. That would be my biggest drawback about using public lands. Those farms could turn out to be the future Superfund sites if we aren't careful. I do know that we have made pretty great strides in cleaning up our water, air and soil but there is always room for more improvement.
I don't think we want to go the way of the dinosaur though (unless you are Gianforte who believes we were walking with dinosaurs). The fact we can manipulate the environment gives people hope that we may not have to go extinct. I guess if you are a cockroach, turtle, dragon fly, or alligator you should be fine...but to ensure the status quo of today, it would be in our best interest to probably try to avoid the ice ages and major climate shifts.How about looking at a longer period of time:
View attachment 119758
Maybe rapid temp swings aren't so irregular? Though I am not debating human impact
These discussions of the climate changing, whether natural or human-caused, seems to be a denial of a couple basic premises. First premise being that species can outgrow the carrying capacity of their habitat. As smart as humans are, we will eventually reproduce beyond the carrying capacity of our habitat, with that habitat being this planet. Also, the climate history (even before human impacts) of this planet shows that the planet undergoes changes, sometimes very rapidly, that make it impossible for species to continue. I'm unlikely to give much credence to anyone denying those basic premises.
Like a herd of ungulates, we will continue to place demands on the supporting habitat to our own detriment. At what pace we will degrade the planet to an unlivable state is open to debate. What seems less debatable is that even humans are subject to the basic premise that every habitat has limits. 8 Billion people place some serious demands on the planet. I see it in many places I travel. Hard for me to deny something is changing when it is right in front of my eyes in many instances.
I could care less one way or the other about the politics of a discussion. When 97% of scientists agree with a general conclusion, I tend to believe that they probably have a decent handle on the situation. For me, as a CPA, to second guess those 97% and write them off as some sort of biased cooks with hidden political agendas would seem rather strange. People can argue about the degree of human-caused impacts to climate fluctuations. To argue that a big spoof is being conducted on the citizens of the planet and that the climate is not changing is going to get a laugh from me.
Since I can't control the planet breeding itself out of habitat and I can't change the natural cycles of this planet's climate, I'm more than happy to make some adjustments to my life/lifestyle that might slow the pace of the human-caused impacts to these events, whatever degree those human-caused events are contributing. Seems a safe hedge on my part. YMMV.
Anyone care to get back to the original point of this thread? If not, I can lock it and someone can start a new thread on climate.
Like a herd of ungulates, we will continue to place demands on the supporting habitat to our own detriment. At what pace we will degrade the planet to an unlivable state is open to debate. What seems less debatable is that even humans are subject to the basic premise that every habitat has limits. 8 Billion people place some serious demands on the planet. I see it in many places I travel. Hard for me to deny something is changing when it is right in front of my eyes in many instances.
I could care less one way or the other about the politics of a discussion. When 97% of scientists agree with a general conclusion, I tend to believe that they probably have a decent handle on the situation. For me, as a CPA, to second guess those 97% and write them off as some sort of biased cooks with hidden political agendas would seem rather strange. People can argue about the degree of human-caused impacts to climate fluctuations. To argue that a big spoof is being conducted on the citizens of the planet and that the climate is not changing is going to get a laugh from me.
Since I can't control the planet breeding itself out of habitat and I can't change the natural cycles of this planet's climate, I'm more than happy to make some adjustments to my life/lifestyle that might slow the pace of the human-caused impacts to these events, whatever degree those human-caused events are contributing. Seems a safe hedge on my part. YMMV.
Anyone care to get back to the original point of this thread? If not, I can lock it and someone can start a new thread on climate.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
One of my buddies has pretty much my equivalent position in a renewable company, the two of us were at a wedding a couple weeks ago and the shop talk veered towards the permitting process of OG and Solar projects. We didn't get to fully unpack the conversation, but it did leave me intrigued.
I would be very interested to see a table, like BHA has for stream access, with various types of energy, their impacts and current regs by state to develop each project. I know there is huge variation between states on regs for OG and I assume renewable as well.... which makes me wonder if part of I the reason I disagree with Land is a product of working within a certain regulatory frame work in one state.
I can see if he's thinking about the regulatory framework in say CA for a solar project and I'm thinking of the frame work of an OG well in OK why we would have very different concerns, and/or understanding of the issues.
I would be very interested to see a table, like BHA has for stream access, with various types of energy, their impacts and current regs by state to develop each project. I know there is huge variation between states on regs for OG and I assume renewable as well.... which makes me wonder if part of I the reason I disagree with Land is a product of working within a certain regulatory frame work in one state.
I can see if he's thinking about the regulatory framework in say CA for a solar project and I'm thinking of the frame work of an OG well in OK why we would have very different concerns, and/or understanding of the issues.
BHA leadership needs to get back to its core, public lands in public hands. This is what attracts the actual, "backcountry hunters and anglers" to an organization labeled Backcountry Hunters and Anglers. BHA leadership is stretching itself as it grows and leaving hunters and anglers asking themselves, wtf?
Biased leadership playing into the hands of "green decoy" labels such as wind turbines/solar panels or oil/gas extraction on public lands will divide the force needed for maintaining / expanding public lands.
Meh, forum opinions. All good for the few minutes spent reading and typing.
Biased leadership playing into the hands of "green decoy" labels such as wind turbines/solar panels or oil/gas extraction on public lands will divide the force needed for maintaining / expanding public lands.
Meh, forum opinions. All good for the few minutes spent reading and typing.
Similar threads
