Kerry blames Tornados on Global Warming

#76
#76
The career path we are targeting at my school is science PhDs with an interest in business. We offer an MBA for Scientists - it's a small scale program that is an off-shoot of our traditional MBA program with some courses in technology commercialization, technology-based start-up business planning and venture capital/negotiation.

The point? More and more we are seeing PhDs in the sciences pursuing non-academic careers. As NSF/NIH funding gets tighter and alternatives arise, PhDs are changing career paths.

In short, it's a change that's coming and a science PhD with business knowledge is going to be a high demand person.
 
#78
#78
volinbham said:
The career path we are targeting at my school is science PhDs with an interest in business. We offer an MBA for Scientists - it's a small scale program that is an off-shoot of our traditional MBA program with some courses in technology commercialization, technology-based start-up business planning and venture capital/negotiation.

The point? More and more we are seeing PhDs in the sciences pursuing non-academic careers. As NSF/NIH funding gets tighter and alternatives arise, PhDs are changing career paths.

In short, it's a change that's coming and a science PhD with business knowledge is going to be a high demand person.
Click to expand...

I have several classmates who are getting their PhD CEP (chemical engineering practice) where they get their PhD and MBA in 6 years...not bad at all. I think programs like you are describing are very important and that there is definitley a niche for that.
 
#80
#80
therealUT said:
First, you cannot prove a negative. So, that argument is out. I do not even understand your comment concerning Chinese people and bikes and cars. Please go into more detail on that one. I cannot wait to be entertained by the explanation. Finally, the argument is not about visibility due to pollution. It is about material changes in climate.
Click to expand...


Don't understand huh? I know you think anything that you don't agree with is just "junk science" but trading bikes for cars does create more pollution. Shocker! Since you think I made this up you can read the following link and if you think that is false than just google it.

1.3 Billion to Trade Bicycles for Cars? » Celsias


I also find it entertaining that someone on a political forum on a UT fan board as yourself would have all the answers that the experts are searching for. I have made it clear that I don't know if global warming is true or not yet you seem to be positive that it is "junk science".
 
#81
#81
jkell24 said:
I have made it clear that I don't know if global warming is true or not yet you seem to be positive that it is "junk science".
Click to expand...

Junk science tends to be a term to describe science that some finds dubious because of the potential for political interference with the work - or that the work is aimed to achieve a specific political/social outcome. Really, I guess this is a matter of personal opinion .... I really don't find the terms unsound science and junk science all that different - but I think that there is an official distinction. I wouldn't call it either.
 
#82
#82
Wow, now I am really P.O.-ed. What is China doing giving their citizens choices??? I am glad that deep down inside you are a Marxist, however, I do not panic when I see traditionally overbearing and oppressive governments finally allowing their citizens begin to earn and spend their money in a more capitalistic type way. Also, I highly doubt that all 1.3 billion Chinese are going to buy cars. There are still plenty of New Yorkers who do not own cars because it is simply too much of a hassle. I imagine that in Beijing and Guangzhou the same mindset will set in.

As to your second point, there are plenty of experts out there who label all the global warming studies as "junk science."

Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."
In April sixty of the world's leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents - it seems like a reasonable request.

Global warming, Scientists, Al Gore climate change
Click to expand...
 
#83
#83
therealUT said:
Wow, now I am really P.O.-ed. What is China doing giving their citizens choices??? I am glad that deep down inside you are a Marxist, however, I do not panic when I see traditionally overbearing and oppressive governments finally allowing their citizens begin to earn and spend their money in a more capitalistic type way. Also, I highly doubt that all 1.3 billion Chinese are going to buy cars. There are still plenty of New Yorkers who do not own cars because it is simply too much of a hassle. I imagine that in Beijing and Guangzhou the same mindset will set in.

As to your second point, there are plenty of experts out there who label all the global warming studies as "junk science."
Click to expand...

There are PLENTY of experts out there who DON'T label all global warming studies as "junk science" also. It's funny how you are willing to put so much faith in one side of the argument yet scoff at the other side of it for doing the same thing you are doing, making a judgment.

Please refer me to my own post, if you can find it, as to where I had a problem with the Chinese people being allowed to own or drive a car. I don't have a problem with it but it doesn't change the fact that more cars, regardless if many people in China still don't drive, increase pollution. As for the Karl Marx blast, it just shows how silly your argument is. This has nothing at all to do with Marxism other than you inverting the subject from global warming as a "junk science" into an argument of allowing the Chinese to own cars.

Oh, and to quote your own text; "I am glad that deep down inside you are a Marxist", why are you glad, are you a Marxist?
 
#84
#84
I am not arguing for or against pollution. I am arguing that the effects, aside from the aesthetics, are extremely questionable. Twenty years ago we were causing the next ice age due to CO2 emissions. And, now, we are causing global warming due to CO2 emissions??? Heck, in the intermittent period we were cutting down rain forests and draining the world of oxygen (which studies have now proven that the majority of the oxygen produced by the vegetation in rain forests is also consumed by the creatures that make said rain forests their habitats.) So, forgive me if I do not jump on the band wagon and begin calling for more government red tape, when there is a consistent record of the politico-scientific community being absolutely dead wrong on such panics.
 
#85
#85
therealUT said:
I am not arguing for or against pollution. I am arguing that the effects, aside from the aesthetics, are extremely questionable. Twenty years ago we were causing the next ice age due to CO2 emissions. And, now, we are causing global warming due to CO2 emissions??? Heck, in the intermittent period we were cutting down rain forests and draining the world of oxygen (which studies have now proven that the majority of the oxygen produced by the vegetation in rain forests is also consumed by the creatures that make said rain forests their habitats.) So, forgive me if I do not jump on the band wagon and begin calling for more government red tape, when there is a consistent record of the politico-scientific community being absolutely dead wrong on such panics.
Click to expand...

From my understanding, I would say this is a mis-characterization of the little ice age concerns. First, it was not a prevalent discussion in the scientific literature. There were very few articles that raised the concerns. It was much more prevalently discussed in popular news magazines as a potential "doomsday" scenario.

Second, it was not thought that CO2 emissions would lead to this period of cooling. There were two lines of thoughts - one was that we were going to have a shift in orbit that would cause us to cool (unrelated to atmospheric modeling). The second line of thinking was that if sulfur emissions from power plants, for example, coupled with perhaps volcanic eruptions released 4-8 times more UV-reflecting particulate into the atmosphere, then we could trigger other effects that would cause the onset of an ice age. It has since been shown that while aspects of these calculations were correct, some aspects were not. For example, the authors underestimated the warming effects of CO2 by a factor that now appears to have been 3 times to low (predicting more cooling than would have been seen with this kind of increase in UV-reflecting particulate). This data has only been uncovered through the tremendous amount of research that has been conducted since that time into the climate sensitivity to CO2.

Am I wrong on this issue? You are obviously a thoughtful and intelligent person, so I'm not quick to tell you that you are wrong. But, at times on this issue of climate change, you seem to be convinced that it is a quack job when I'm not sure you have the data necessary to truly make that assertion. Maybe you do - and I am the wrong one that is mis-informed....it wouldn't be the first time.
 
#86
#86
You are most likely right in regards to CO2 emissions and the ice age scare. I didn't pull out any research when posting that comment and just posted what I remember of the time.

I don't think that necessarily debunks my assertion that the politico-scientific community has been wrong in at least two of the past three "eco-panics." That is why I am so highly skeptical of the "global warming" panic. I do not believe that as the US we should lock ourselves into caps on our production until we have more concrete evidence one way or the other. People seem to skim over the fact that while we might save some glaciers, coastline, and a few rare species in the animal kingdom, we will definitely put plenty of hard working Americans out of jobs, take food off their plates, etc.

I personally place human life and lifestyle above ecological beauty and wildlife.
 
#87
#87
therealUT said:
You are most likely right in regards to CO2 emissions and the ice age scare. I didn't pull out any research when posting that comment and just posted what I remember of the time.

I don't think that necessarily debunks my assertion that the politico-scientific community has been wrong in at least two of the past three "eco-panics." That is why I am so highly skeptical of the "global warming" panic. I do not believe that as the US we should lock ourselves into caps on our production until we have more concrete evidence one way or the other. People seem to skim over the fact that while we might save some glaciers, coastline, and a few rare species in the animal kingdom, we will definitely put plenty of hard working Americans out of jobs, take food off their plates, etc.

I personally place human life and lifestyle above ecological beauty and wildlife.
Click to expand...

These are real and serious concerns that cannot be forgotten in this discussion. However, you also can't overlook the fact that, if the climate scientists are right, there will be conflict arising from large populations (Asia) moving inland away from rising sea level in addition to potential droughts/food shortages. Add this to increased deaths from heat waves in countries that can't afford to cool themselves, and this isn't just an "ecological" issue. We are still talking human life and lifestyle. America will honestly see few of the bad effects of climate change. We will adapt if it happens. However, that doesn't mean that every country's population can adapt. I think that will be another factor that contributes to a slow response to climate change in this country if the predictions pan out to be true.
 
#88
#88
I'm not reading every single post, so this may have been mentioned, but you do know that the scientist who coined the term global warming now has changed his stance and believes that it's a naturaly cycle?
 
#89
#89
volsforever27 said:
I'm not reading every single post, so this may have been mentioned, but you do know that the scientist who coined the term global warming now has changed his stance and believes that it's a naturaly cycle?
Click to expand...

I'm not familiar with it - I would be interested in reading up on it, though - if you want to provide more detail. I do know several climate scientists who initially did not accept the theory until the uncertainty was reduced in recent years. They were initially "doubters" that have been convinced otherwise by further scientific effort to reduce the uncertainty.
 
#90
#90
volsforever27 said:
I'm not reading every single post, so this may have been mentioned, but you do know that the scientist who coined the term global warming now has changed his stance and believes that it's a naturaly cycle?
Click to expand...

It seems like James Hansen coined the term global warming....and he hasn't said that we are seeing no anthropogenic forcing to my knowledge....
 
#91
#91
TennTradition said:
It seems like James Hansen coined the term global warming....and he hasn't said that we are seeing no anthropogenic forcing to my knowledge....
Click to expand...

Let me see if I can find a link, I heard it on the radio one day going to work... (very scientific, I know)
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top