Scientific American endorses Kamala Harris

[sjastro]

I didn't say the average temperature would be 3.4 F higher. I said the temperature in 1875 was 52.2. In 2023 the average temperature was 52.3. That would make the change difference .3 degree, not 3.4 degree. Below is the link to the table:

https://www.weather.gov/media/slc/ClimateBook/Annual%20Average%20Temperature%20By%20Year.pdf

It is not I who did not read the table correctly.

I cannot believe I am even having this discussion a child would comprehend.
First of all the difference between 52.3 and 52.2 is 0.1 not 0.3.

The main issue however it appears you cannot read a simple table.
Take a look at the second last entry in the table, what is the average temperature next to year 2023?
It is not 52.3 but 55.6, the entry below it which seems to have confused you is the average annual temperature over the years 1875 to 2023 and is 52.2.

If you cannot understand a simple table I doubt very much a graph will make things any clearer but here goes anyway.

​

The data is based on an 11 year moving average and the red line clearly shows an acceleration in temperature increase since 1970, hardly your description of little or no change.
Furthermore it refutes the idea the increase in temperature is due to natural warming as solar irradiance has dropped.

 

[Astrid]

Wow, that sounds really objective as one who is seeking the truth. /sarc

So these billionaires who lead major corporations and governments, and who have a political agenda among which is climate change, have no input into information coming from their corporations/governments? OK, if that is what you believe.


Yes, government funding from a government whose mission is bent towards climate change. I suppose I would never get funding simply because I don't buy into the party line.


Yes, perhaps you do know more scientists than me. But everyone one of us is a sinner. You just wave a lucrative contract in someone's face and see how fast they'll jump on it.

For many years I was a contractor and then worked directly for the federal government. I know how the game is played. Government writes a contract to persue a particular agenda. If the contract isn't directly assigned, contractors bid on those to fulfill the requirements of that contract. A contractor would never go against the wishes or specifications of the contract.

Thus you have a tons of "scientific facts" showing global warming/cooling, all the while the National Weather Service shows there has been no significant change in the average temperature for the last 150 years.

So all scientists offer
their scientific honesty
their personal integrity for sale .

So you.are right and they are wrong

 

[rturner76]

Seems reasonable to acknowledge that Donald Trump and his allies are opposed to scientific evidence, higher education and public spending on research.

This

 

[rturner76]

The thing is, Trump and his followers believe something is the truth whether it is factual or not. When faced with factual truth and the lies are proven to be lies, they go for character assassination and tell more lies to cover up the old lies, and the "truth" becomes a lie

 

[Hans Blaster]

Wow, that sounds really objective as one who is seeking the truth. /sarc

So these billionaires who lead major corporations and governments, and who have a political agenda among which is climate change, have no input into information coming from their corporations/governments? OK, if that is what you believe.

Billionaires don't run governments and major corporations don't issue scientific grants.

Yes, government funding from a government whose mission is bent towards climate change.

Do you really think that the government run or funded by George Bush (either), Donald Trump, Newt Gingrich, Paul Ryan, or Mike Johnson is on a mission "bent towards climate change"? What we want from funding agencies is to be neutral and driven by the scientific interests of the scientists who request, evaluate, and approve the funding for specific projects under the "big bucket funding" for topical areas.

I suppose I would never get funding simply because I don't buy into the party line.

You wouldn't get funding because you aren't qualified to ask for it.

Yes, perhaps you do know more scientists than me. But everyone one of us is a sinner. You just wave a lucrative contract in someone's face and see how fast they'll jump on it.

I'm not interested in your sin.

For many years I was a contractor and then worked directly for the federal government. I know how the game is played. Government writes a contract to persue a particular agenda. If the contract isn't directly assigned, contractors bid on those to fulfill the requirements of that contract. A contractor would never go against the wishes or specifications of the contract.

That's not how scientific grants work -- at all.

Thus you have a tons of "scientific facts" showing global warming/cooling, all the while the National Weather Service shows there has been no significant change in the average temperature for the last 150 years.

I think @sjastro showed you what was wrong with you "analysis" of that.

 

[sjastro]

Instead of the anti-science attitude expressed here of science becoming political, the real danger is when politicians involve themselves in science on ideological grounds.
This Nature video looks at Trump's political interference in science during his presidency and the disastrous consequences such as America's high death toll during the COVID-19 pandemic.
It beggars belief Trump has been given a second chance for the presidency let alone a good chance of winning.
His incompetence will probably be more pronounced second time around as his cognitive decline which is plain for all to see may play a role.

 

[HarleyER]

I cannot believe I am even having this discussion a child would comprehend.
First of all the difference between 52.3 and 52.2 is 0.1 not 0.3.

The main issue however it appears you cannot read a simple table.
Take a look at the second last entry in the table, what is the average temperature next to year 2023?
It is not 52.3 but 55.6, the entry below it which seems to have confused you is the average annual temperature over the years 1875 to 2023 and is 52.2.

If you cannot understand a simple table I doubt very much a graph will make things any clearer but here goes anyway.

​

The data is based on an 11 year moving average and the red line clearly shows an acceleration in temperature increase since 1970, hardly your description of little or no change.
Furthermore it refutes the idea the increase in temperature is due to natural warming as solar irradiance has dropped.

OK. Thanks for posting your bias article. This conversation has been very enlightening if not entertaining.

 

[HarleyER]

So all scientists offer
their scientific honesty
their personal integrity for sale .

So you.are right and they are wrong

Nope. But neither are they ready for sainthood either. Where funding is concern people will do what they have to do.

And if you were to wave a $20 million dollar contract under my nose to prove the moon was made of blue cheese, I certainly would figure out a way to make this happen.

 

[HarleyER]

Billionaires don't run governments and major corporations don't issue scientific grants.

Do you really think that the government run or funded by George Bush (either), Donald Trump, Newt Gingrich, Paul Ryan, or Mike Johnson is on a mission "bent towards climate change"? What we want from funding agencies is to be neutral and driven by the scientific interests of the scientists who request, evaluate, and approve the funding for specific projects under the "big bucket funding" for topical areas.

You wouldn't get funding because you aren't qualified to ask for it.

I'm not interested in your sin.

That's not how scientific grants work -- at all.

I think @sjastro showed you what was wrong with you "analysis" of that.

OK. Thanks.

 

[Astrid]

Nope. But neither are they ready for sainthood either. Where funding is concern people will do what they have to do.

And if you were to wave a $20 million dollar contract under my nose to prove the moon was made of blue cheese, I certainly would figure out a way to make this happen.

You're still.saying ethe same thing. Except adding that your integrity is for sale.

 

[sjastro]

OK. Thanks for posting your bias article. This conversation has been very enlightening if not entertaining.

So the graph is biased is it?
I decided to dump your ClimateBook link data into Excel which performed a 30 year moving average analysis.
Since the moving average is thirty years it started from 1905 instead of 1875.

​

Are you still going to proclaim the nonsense there is very little or no change over 150 years, or maybe Microsoft Excel is also into the conspiracy by building a bias into the data.
For those that are interested notice how the warming rate started accelerating from the 1970s.
The burning of fossil fuels apart from releasing CO₂ into the atmosphere also produces particulate matter which has a negative feedback by reflecting sunlight away from the surface which has a cooling effect.
By reducing particulate emissions over the decades has further exposed the greenhouse warming effects of CO₂.

 

[Astrid]

So the graph is biased is it?
I decided to dump your ClimateBook link data into Excel which performed a 30 year moving average analysis.
Since the moving average is thirty years it started from 1905 instead of 1875.

View attachment 354928
​

Are you still going to proclaim the nonsense there is very little or no change over 150 years, or maybe Microsoft Excel is also into the conspiracy by building a bias into the data.
For those that are interested notice how the warming rate started accelerating from the 1970s.
The burning of fossil fuels apart from releasing CO₂ into the atmosphere also produces particulate matter which has a negative feedback by reflecting sunlight away from the surface which has a cooling effect.
By reducing particulate emissions over the decades has further exposed the greenhouse warming effects of CO₂.

You do know that every publication, every datum point that
shows there is climate change, that there was no flood, that the earth is ancient, that
the theory of evolution is sound is simply bias (sic)?

Psychological projection is such a childish argument,
but there it is again, as popular as ever.

 

[HarleyER]

You're still.saying ethe same thing. Except adding that your integrity is for sale.

So now I'm a cynical, ignorant, dishonest, misogynistic. I must be a really nasty person. I suppose I would kick my dog if I had one.

 

[HarleyER]

So the graph is biased is it?
I decided to dump your ClimateBook link data into Excel which performed a 30 year moving average analysis.
Since the moving average is thirty years it started from 1905 instead of 1875.

View attachment 354928
​

Are you still going to proclaim the nonsense there is very little or no change over 150 years, or maybe Microsoft Excel is also into the conspiracy by building a bias into the data.
For those that are interested notice how the warming rate started accelerating from the 1970s.
The burning of fossil fuels apart from releasing CO₂ into the atmosphere also produces particulate matter which has a negative feedback by reflecting sunlight away from the surface which has a cooling effect.
By reducing particulate emissions over the decades has further exposed the greenhouse warming effects of CO₂.

Al Gore quoting scientists on how the ice in the North Pole will be gone in five years. This is dated fourteen years ago.

 

[Postvieww]

Seems reasonable to acknowledge that Donald Trump and his allies are opposed to scientific evidence, higher education and public spending on research.

This broad sweeping statement is not reasonable at all and really is quite ridiculous.

 

[Astrid]

So now I'm a cynical, ignorant, dishonest, misogynistic. I must be a really nasty person. I suppose I would kick my dog if I had one.

Who knows. You’re the one who said his integrity is for sale.

 

[sjastro]

Al Gore quoting scientists on how the ice in the North Pole will be gone in five years. This is dated fourteen years ago.

When all else fails such as misreading a table and being shown your data does in fact show significant temperature changes over 150 years, let's change the subject.
Even then you can't get things right, your video does not state arctic ice will be gone in five years but there was a 75% probability arctic ice will disappear during the summer months.

Only a small percentage of climate scientists make physical predictions from the data, the rest report the data which clearly shows arctic ice coverage has been steadily decreasing.

Am I going to get the mandatory response of there being bias?

 

[sjastro]

You do know that every publication, every datum point that
shows there is climate change, that there was no flood, that the earth is ancient, that
the theory of evolution is sound is simply bias (sic)?

Psychological projection is such a childish argument,
but there it is again, as popular as ever.

According to psychologists Trump uses what is known as the "Illusory Truth Effect" on his supporters where the tendency is to believe false information becomes true after repeated exposure.
Repetition makes statements easier to process, leading people to perceive them as more truthful and can influence beliefs and perceptions even if they initially know the information is false.

 

[Halbhh]

For only the second time in its 179 year old history has the publication backed a presidential candidate.
Hopefully posting this in the science forum will lead to a more respectful dialogue......

Vote for Kamala Harris to Support Science, Health and the Environment

Kamala Harris has plans to improve health, boost the economy and mitigate climate change. Donald Trump has threats and a dangerous record

www.scientificamerican.com

Did it work?

One of the more interesting theories about why many support Trump is they basically want (metaphorically) to "blow up" the system/status quo (that is, America as it is).
It's a kinda resentment based thing (as I understand the theory), where they (have been led to) believe that somehow others ('liberals' etc.) have caused them to be disadvantaged, etc. and so they want to blow things up. Collapse the system. For this theory to be correct, though, it seems to me this would imply they don't believe in Christ (regardless of what they claim) since an actual belief would lead to paying attention to things he instructed us such as the pro-active golden rule (Matthew 7), and that we welcome and take care of those in need, such as desperate immigrants that Trump promises to deport... To support Trump is to directly go against what Christ said. So, Trump seems clearly a candidate to appeal to those who in their hearts want a Savior, and don't yet have one, and are easy to mislead. If that's so, for such it won't help much to argue with them then, but instead the only help would be to hear the gospel and gain faith in Christ.

 

[Shemjaza]

This broad sweeping statement is not reasonable at all and really is quite ridiculous.

How so?

I didn't make any claims that they oppose all scientific research and certainly not all results... but comments on climate change and epidemiology and also all the statements about universities brainwashing young people paint a pretty clear picture.