I just happen to know environmental engineers, but whatever... And articles are never ever 1-sided or biased, right? Same with scientists doing research to reach conclusions based on the people who paid them to, right?
Sounds good. As a chemical/environmental engineer, I should note that in defense of my own integrity as a researcher that I was never once asked for a specific conclusion for my research with the grant money and honestly I don't know anyone in the climatology field that has been. The only examples of that I've seen are those working at places like BP and Exxon and their research would never make it through peer review. I also worked and still work very hard to minimize bias as is the standard for scientific research.
LOL - my position in that is rather hard to explain. Let's see - the magnetic poles have flipped at least, what, 3 times, we've had multiple ice ages, we had the dark ages caused by volcanic action, the first life turned the oceans red because they introduced oxygen into the oceans causing the dissolved iron to rust. The atmosphere was loaded with carbon before trees came along, glaciers used to be in Iowa............ so even if we were not even on the planet, things would change.
Well yeah they're estimates for so many sources so that induces some error there of course. It's well known that A good chunk of the smog on the southern west coast is actually from China. We can accurately measure some emissions like from factories but with cars there's counts and all manner of ways to estimate. Luckily the anthropogenic addition to the naturally CO2 cycle is easy to tease out. Mostly because the naturally rise and fall of CO2 is very even. So when it's way above the natural level and increasing at a rate way faster than happens naturally, well we know who did it. One of the biggest tells isn't just measuring the air but the effect that CO2 is having on the ocean. Temperatures and acidification etc.
The problem I have with the "climate change" movement, is that it is a political movement, not a scientific one. The science gets completely lost in both the politics and the PC culture.
Agreed. The science is surprisingly cohesive and the conclusions from the scientific community are as well but yeah the politics on it isn't. Probably due to politicians mostly being scientifically illiterate or just plain corrupt and in the pockets of big oil. The stuff politicians convey to the masses is often so wrong and misleading. It really boggles my mind how some of these politicians finished middle school with the stupid crap they say. I'm glad at least the DoD isn't standing down on it and working on the threat to the mission unlike most of the 3rd world and the USA.
That's the beef of many of us. The politicians and radicals jumped all over it and tried to ram it down throats, no talking about it, no negotiating, no discussion, we are right, everyone else is wrong, period, and we're going to tax you for it. Then along come VP Gore and his faked Hollyweed videos.........
Electricity is cheap here - but I had thought about solar panels charging up a bank of batteries to act as a "UPS" when the power goes out here - we do have quite a few times that it goes out, if not for a few minutes, for a few hours. Car hits a pole, squirrel gets tangled up at some station, that sort of thing, or a bird craps on the wire - there goes the power. Last time it was several hours because a car hit a pole 5 miles away. And my wife would be pissed if she was in the middle of quilting a big quilt when that happened - oh, boy - it would stop that big machine right now, possible do damage.
I was thinking about batteries so I could get off the grid but they are just as or even more expensive than the panels. I see you're from Iowa. I lived there for 28 years in Sheffield, just south of Mason City. Never heard of Runnels but I see its by Red Rock and not far from Knoxville. I've done a lot of work down by there many years ago and always loved being in town for the Grand Nationals!!!
