wing_zealot wrote:Yes, it is a good thing that every time "Science" declares a matter settled by consensus, someone continues to think outside the box. If they didn't we would have a 5000 year old earth that was the center of the universe. Man would not be meant to fly, the sound barrier would be unbreakable, the atom would be unbreakable and Al Gieberger would never have shot 59 in a PGA tournament. Sometimes the consensus is nothing more than a rush to judgement.shelbyfv wrote:For hundreds of years the science was the earth was flat. It was what it was - until it wasn't. Good thing some people didn't buy into the so called settled science.
Absolutely. And there is plenty of room for differing opinions about what if anything to do. That's where politics comes in. The science is what it is, though.
shelbyfv wrote:
You guys should maybe post your educational credentials to give your ideas some credibility. There are folks who understand these things. I don't and I doubt there are many here who do. You get cancer, you go to a doctor. You want to file a lawsuit you get a lawyer. You want your kids to have an education, at some point you have to send them to school. And yes, the site is one sided, that's what is meant by consensus.
shelbyfv wrote:For hundreds of years the science was the earth was flat. It was what it was - until it wasn't. Good thing some people didn't buy into the so called settled science.
Absolutely. And there is plenty of room for differing opinions about what if anything to do. That's where politics comes in. The science is what it is, though.
westend wrote:
You should be proud of your 40 years experience in your career but don't think that I haven't endured close to the same and that my college courses dictated what my opinion is now.
. :B
slickest1 wrote:westend wrote:
One thing for sure, the debate on climate change is divisive.
Users of this Forum tend to be older and more conservative so there is a large push back on anything related to environmental issues. Additive to that is the huge propaganda machine of the fossil fuel industry and the lobbying efforts that have made our lawmakers tell us that it isn't a reality.
If we all could at least reach a consensus that the climate is changing at an abrupt rate, that would be a good first step in understanding the mechanisms at work.
Oh,BTW, three years of college level chemistry and biological science.
Sooo, I guess that makes you lean to the Liberal side of things to oppose anything that is related to the conservative attitude on environment.
I'll have to say I am impressed at three years of Chemistry and Biology have gained you your opinion on climate change.
It took me close to 40 years of truck driving and working in all the weather to gain my opinion.
Old-Biscuit wrote:
Took me 32 years of operating a Power Plant to form my opinion.
When a unit was not operating the NOX and CO2 not being produced was 'credited' to the units that were operating so that expensive control measures would not have to be installed.
Not only would they be expensive but would also limit output....resulting in less MW production----less revenue----less $$$$$$$$$$$ in owners coffers.
Money........it's always about the money.
westend wrote:
One thing for sure, the debate on climate change is divisive.
Users of this Forum tend to be older and more conservative so there is a large push back on anything related to environmental issues. Additive to that is the huge propaganda machine of the fossil fuel industry and the lobbying efforts that have made our lawmakers tell us that it isn't a reality.
If we all could at least reach a consensus that the climate is changing at an abrupt rate, that would be a good first step in understanding the mechanisms at work.
Oh,BTW, three years of college level chemistry and biological science.
