-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Oregon State Climatologist may be fired
Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
citrix know absolutely nothing about the issue.
The guy works at a state university as a climatologist. The university gave him the title of 'state climatologist'. The governor wants to take the title away, not his job at the university.
The guy works at a state university as a climatologist. The university gave him the title of 'state climatologist'. The governor wants to take the title away, not his job at the university.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Well maybe humans aren't contributing to things as much as the experts here would have you believe.
What a bunch of losers, wanting to fry this guy because he "is on the payroll" or doesn't know science. None of you know why he feels as he does or what he has done. Many of you do seem to support a dictorial state government where a Gov has the right to discharge any govt. employee for whatever reason, yet despise the federal govt. for much less. It looks like you are just as bad as those you look down on.
I'm inclined to believe that there is a substantial contribution by humanity, but my opinion is subject to revision and won't buy into the religion of the "right" reason for warming. Bush has his Iraq and the enlightened here have all the ducks in a row about warming. Congratulate each other in your wisdom.
What a bunch of losers, wanting to fry this guy because he "is on the payroll" or doesn't know science. None of you know why he feels as he does or what he has done. Many of you do seem to support a dictorial state government where a Gov has the right to discharge any govt. employee for whatever reason, yet despise the federal govt. for much less. It looks like you are just as bad as those you look down on.
I'm inclined to believe that there is a substantial contribution by humanity, but my opinion is subject to revision and won't buy into the religion of the "right" reason for warming. Bush has his Iraq and the enlightened here have all the ducks in a row about warming. Congratulate each other in your wisdom.
Starbuck1975
Lifer
The global warming scientific community is becoming almost dogmatic and fanatical in its beliefs.
Vic
Elite Member
This is politically motivated, and has nothing to do with science. Kulongoski is apparently still pissed off that Taylor tried to stand in the way of the governor's agenda last year, where the governor overrode the legislature and enacted a new clean air bill despite the fact that the legislature voted against it. I don't care where you stand on the issue, that was one of the worst abuses of democracy I'd seen in a while.
dmcowen674
No Lifer
Hey, at least they learned well from the radical religious right. :thumbsup:
Go with what works. 😀
brandonbull
Diamond Member
I guess someone is the "greenhouse gas" e-expert.
He was never sanctioned by the state as the official climatologist. He does not speak for the state. He should not have the title.
Comprende?
I'm really surprised this discussion got as far as it did. Let me repeat: this is not about his job, this is about his title. My boss can't legally grant me the title of "White House Climatologist" tomorrow and expect me to go speaking around the country using that title without repercussions.
Yes JEDIYoda, I firmly believe global warming is largely caused by humans and industrialization. Obviously you disagree. You don't know me, so I'll explain my side.
I wouldn't make a statement like that if I didn't have something to back it up. Since there is a large amount of evidence pointing to humans as the cause of most global warming I don't think that can be considered a "misinformed statement".
Specop 007
Diamond Member
Because there is no example of climate change before man right?
Yeah.....You're sure quick to throw around the idiot title......
Pot? Meet kettle.
Wait, you're telling me I'm not allowed to agree with the combined findings of a couple hundred scientists UNLESS I have a post-graduate degree in meteorology and have worked/studied in that field professionally for the past 32 years?
That's what you're saying? Cause that would be, ya know, silly.
Look, if you disagree about the causes of global warming that's fine, you are entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine, but you don't need to attack my opinion to make yours seem more worthwhile.
And...
So because the climate has changed in any way before humans came on the spot that means there is no possibility that any future change could be caused by humans? It seems to me you are assuming 2 events must be related because they have the same cause.
That's like saying someone having a heart attack and someone ingesting a poison that causes a heart attack are the same thing when they're not, one is natural causes the other is murder.
And even if I was wrong how exactly would that make me a hypocrite? Some people just love to use the "Pot? Meet kettle." quote too much...
That's what you're saying? Cause that would be, ya know, silly.
Look, if you disagree about the causes of global warming that's fine, you are entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine, but you don't need to attack my opinion to make yours seem more worthwhile.
And...
So because the climate has changed in any way before humans came on the spot that means there is no possibility that any future change could be caused by humans? It seems to me you are assuming 2 events must be related because they have the same cause.
That's like saying someone having a heart attack and someone ingesting a poison that causes a heart attack are the same thing when they're not, one is natural causes the other is murder.
And even if I was wrong how exactly would that make me a hypocrite? Some people just love to use the "Pot? Meet kettle." quote too much...
Specop 007
Diamond Member
I'm saying if you think global warming is man made you are an idiot. Of amazing propotions.
Now, I wont disagree that global warming may be human influenced, but HARDLY human caused. And anyone who thinks it is in fact human caused has a very, very poor understanding of history or is simply choosing to ignore facts altogether. Core camples (As mentioned above) as well as ice samples prove that the Earth has experienced periods of both warming and cooling.
I love a lively arguement but leave out the insults.
I supose using the term "global warming" causes certain assumptions among people on this board. Yes, I realize humans are not the only thing in the universe that can cause the temperature to change. Yes, obviously the temperature has changed on this planet before. Both of those statements were so obvious I honestly didn't think I needed to flat out say them.
Now, the current trend of temperatures rising and the polar icecaps melting, I believe that humans are part of the reason.
But hey, maybe I'm wrong and we aren't. Well, even if we aren't, I hope we can at least agree that the earth warming and the ice caps melting is a bad thing for us, right? People aren't saying global warming is good, are they? Cause if global warming is bad, and even if we aren't causing it, shouldn't we see if there's anything we can do to stop it?
And please please PLEASE don't jump down my throat and tell me I want to pull a Matrix and blot out the sun, I'm just saying that if "ice caps melting = bad news bears" then maybe we should look into figuring out a way to stop that pesky trend.
And no Vic, I don't know how to do that and yes, I'm the Devil. Glad we got that out of the way.
Specop 007
Diamond Member
Fair enough. Then please dont make silly generalizations. You have to realize, thats what most of the camp are doing. You dont hear all these figureheads saying "Global warming is a natural cycle but man may be affecting it in a negative way". Far as their concerned, we are 100% to blame for climate change. Which is rubbish.
See above. Perhaps YOU understand this but again the figureheads and media playboys arent stating it that way.
I wont disagree
Bad how? Again, this isnt the first time the climate has changed and life still exists on this little rock. Please define and/or elaborate on how climate change is bad for us.
Your one of those hippies that wants to block the sun arent you!
Ok ok, just kiddin. 😛
imported_Infidel
Member
Please educate yourself and stop spouting disinformation like an ignorant ass.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar...5/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/
OK, I'm sure there are some people saying global warming is completely man made, they are what doctors call stupid. Temperatures fluctuate, that is nature. However, the scientists at the recent conference certainly know better, and they took into account natural temperature trends which I think (correct me if I'm wrong) is one of the main reasons they said the current trend was 90% man made and not 100%. But even if 90% is too high, it's still rising and that's bad mojo.
The ice caps melting will have far reaching and IMO disasterous results for many species on earth.
Let me steal a bit from "Jurassic Park" (or was it "The Lost World"? Either way.) We are not going to destroy this planet. We are not going to kill all life on this planet. Even if we turn the entire globe into one big radioactive ball life will survive in someway.
BUT, the odds of human beings becoming extinct is all too likely, if anything past temperature change trends should highlight for us the dangers we face, if temperature change can cause mass extinctions (it's happened in the past IIRC) then it can happen again to us. So, it makes sense to me to try to find a way to keep the temperature where we want it to be.
Now I know that last statement is aroggant presumption, we may not have a snowballs' chance in hell of keeping the ice caps from melting (pun intended) but hey, it's amazing what you can accomplish when your life depends on it, and I think they do.
I think what I'm trying to say is... BLOT OUT THE SUN, LET THE ROBOTS RULE!
Vic
Elite Member
I don't believe in the Devil. I think that was my point. You (and the other alarmists) seem obsessed by the fear that we are going to be punished for our sins. Hence, the greatest danger of all to you are those who don't share your beliefs in this matter (see other thread: global warming deniers are equivalent to holocaust deniers), as opposed to doing anything to resolve the actual physical problem.
Vic, you are suffering from one of the worst cases of selective hearing/reading I've ever seen. You should have yourself checked out by a doctor before it's too late.
Anywho, as far as I can tell there are 4 possibilities:
Possibility 1: I'm right about global warming and we stop polluting and wasting fossil fuels.
Outcome: I win the Nobel Prize (it could happen.)
Possibility 2: I'm wrong about global warming and we stop polluting and wasting fossil fuels.
Outcome: The earth is cleaner and less wasteful but I have to swallow my pride and admit I was wrong. I'll probably learn to live with it.
Possibility 3: I'm right about global warming and we do nothing about polluting or fossil fuel reduction.
Outcome: We all die and I get to say "I told you so!" right before we all go up in a ball of flame (or die in some other slightly more mudane way.)
Possibility 4: I'm wrong about global warming and we do nothing about polluting or fossil fuel reduction.
Outcome: We are alive and living on a polluted world owned by oil companies.
Yeah, I gotta say, I like my alternatives slightly better. But I am admittedly biased.
Anywho, as far as I can tell there are 4 possibilities:
Possibility 1: I'm right about global warming and we stop polluting and wasting fossil fuels.
Outcome: I win the Nobel Prize (it could happen.)
Possibility 2: I'm wrong about global warming and we stop polluting and wasting fossil fuels.
Outcome: The earth is cleaner and less wasteful but I have to swallow my pride and admit I was wrong. I'll probably learn to live with it.
Possibility 3: I'm right about global warming and we do nothing about polluting or fossil fuel reduction.
Outcome: We all die and I get to say "I told you so!" right before we all go up in a ball of flame (or die in some other slightly more mudane way.)
Possibility 4: I'm wrong about global warming and we do nothing about polluting or fossil fuel reduction.
Outcome: We are alive and living on a polluted world owned by oil companies.
Yeah, I gotta say, I like my alternatives slightly better. But I am admittedly biased.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
-
-
