Only two-thirds of Millennials believe the Earth is round

Status
Not open for further replies.
JOhnH said:
After the peer review and recommendations, who actually approves the money that will be spent on each project? Scientists or politicians?
Click to expand...
Politicians don't even have time to read much of the legislation that they vote on. Where are they going to find the time to read all the grant applications that are submitted?
 
Palmpilot said:
Politicians don't even have time to read much of the legislation that they vote on. Where are they going to find the time to read all the grant applications that are submitted?
Click to expand...
They rely on Lobbyists to ‘splain it to them.
 
Palmpilot said:
Politicians don't even have time to read much of the legislation that they vote on. Where are they going to find the time to read all the grant applications that are submitted?
Click to expand...
If politicians are involved then reading the proposal is not a concern.
 
JOhnH said:
After the peer review and recommendations, who actually approves the money that will be spent on each project? Scientists or politicians?
Click to expand...
In my experience we had a budget up front (from those controlling the money, in one case a charity, another one of the National Institutes), thus we had a pretty set idea of how many proposals we could fund. We did a sort of triage for the poorest proposals (in reality most were good, just not excellent) and then figured out which of the best would get the money. In every instance it came down to who had the best science.
 
JOhnH said:
They rely on Lobbyists to ‘splain it to them.
Click to expand...
Where are politicians going to find the time to listen to lobbyists for all the grant recipients?
 
JOhnH said:
who actually approves the money that will be spent on each project? Scientists or politicians?
Click to expand...
When I was reviewing proposals for the NSF (SBIR), there was a panel of reviewers drawn from universities and industry. The panel would rate the proposals, and the NSF would make the final decisions based on the ratings.
However, I am an engineer, not a scientist and certainly not a politician.
 
steingar said:
In my experience we had a budget up front (from those controlling the money, in one case a charity, another one of the National Institutes), thus we had a pretty set idea of how many proposals we could fund. We did a sort of triage for the poorest proposals (in reality most were good, just not excellent) and then figured out which of the best would get the money. In every instance it came down to who had the best science.
Click to expand...
People don't want anthropogenic global warming to be true, so they invent stories to explain why it "must" be a hoax. Looking into the actual processes by which the scientific community works seems to be of no interest to some.
 
Climate change is (isn’t) caused by the gradual flattening of the earth into a thin elliptical disc with pepperoni, sausage and mozzarella covering the the land masses and the seas turning into tomato sauce. This in turn will cause the earth to travel nearer the sun (which is actually wood burning) and make a humongous pizza as the tomato sauce under flows onto the land masses.

This is being directed by Aliens located in Hangar 18 at Wright-Patterson AFB.

This is known as Universal Unifying Theory of Looniness and is fully explained in a yet unreleased highly esoteric paper by the late Steven Hawking, funded jointly by Fox News, MSNBC and the Russians.

Cheers
 
Palmpilot said:
I don't think politicians have time to even vote on individual grant applications.
Click to expand...
Congress critters (or their staff) can and do influence funding. Obviously we’re talking big ticket items to get political attention.
 
X3 Skier said:
Climate change is (isn’t) caused by the gradual flattening of the earth into a thin elliptical disc with pepperoni, sausage and mozzarella covering the the land masses and the seas turning into tomato sauce. This in turn will cause the earth to travel nearer the sun (which is actually wood burning) and make a humongous pizza as the tomato sauce under flows onto the land masses.

This is being directed by Aliens located in Hangar 18 at Wright-Patterson AFB.

This is known as Universal Unifying Theory of Looniness and is fully explained in a yet unreleased highly esoteric paper by the late Steven Hawking, funded jointly by Fox News, MSNBC and the Russians.

Cheers
Click to expand...
Could we get bacon and jalapeño instead of sausage? Oh, and make it to go please.
 
Sundancer said:
If Darwin is correct, humans will get better looking, dumber, and sicker. It kinda looks like the dumber thing is proceeding along. . .
Click to expand...

And sicker, based on tv commercials and how busy it is at work. (I work in healthcare.). Better looking? Too bad that one hasn’t panned out yet. ;)
 
Palmpilot said:
People don't want anthropogenic global warming to be true, so they invent stories to explain why it "must" be a hoax. Looking into the actual processes by which the scientific community works seems to be of no interest to some.
Click to expand...

I think for those who are open-minded and could be convinced one way or the other, the problem is that too many of the solutions and responses on both sides seem to favor political agendas rather than either science or practical factors.

For example, the tree-huggers who live along Route 28 have been fighting a 4-inch natural gas pipe for more than a decade, despite the fact that it would enable tens of thousands of residents to switch from oil, wood, or propane to natural gas, which is at least cleaner than what it would be replacing.

Or the ones who install wood stoves and pretend that they're doing the environment a favor, when all they're really doing is depriving the fossil fuel industry of an infinitesimal portion of its profits while increasing carbon emissions -- and that's not even counting the emissions from harvesting, cutting, and transporting the wood, nor the energy used to dry it if it's kiln-dried.

I also lump the anti-nuclear folks in the group of eyebrow-raisers, especially those who oppose even thorium research, which would eliminate at least some of the problems associated with uranium-based energy technology, while providing an emissions-free way to produce hydrogen in addition to electricity.

Or speaking of hydrogen, we also have the people who oppose all hydrogen research because the present hydrogen infrastructure is owned by oil companies (it's a by-product of their processes), and they would be the initial beneficiaries of a large-scale implementation of hydrogen. Hydrogen is about as perfect a fuel as exists, yet many oppose it solely because "Big Oil" might initially profit from it.

Enough of these so-called "solutions" that consistently favor a particular politico-economic position (in this case, hating fossil fuel companies), with little if any practical environmental benefit (or in some cases, a decidedly negative effect on the environment), can't help but make people in the middle wonder whether AGW is in fact a political scheme rather than a scientific fact, especially if they don't personally understand the science.

The arguments coming from the other side tend to be simpler to explain (sunspots, cosmic rays, natural cycles, etc.). They also are less obviously insulting to common sense, unlike the arguments of people who oppose a gas line that would reduce emissions, but who think that increasing emissions by burning wood is somehow good for the environment. That doesn't mean the arguments are true, mind you. It just means they make more sense to someone who doesn't understand the more complex science of the other side, that they're less obviously-motivated by political beliefs, and that they seem less full of inherent contradictions.

The self-interest part of it is obvious, but the "deniers" don't even attempt to "deny" that part. It would make them look as silly as the greenie who burns wood instead of propane and believe he or she is saving the planet by doing so.

In short, it's not the science that turns off open-minded people in the middle. It's the absurdity and inherent contradictions of the politics that has grown alongside the science. I actually feel bad for the scientists because they are dependent upon the politicians, but the politicians are more concerned with their agendas than they are with the science. It must be very frustrating.

Rich
 
Palmpilot said:
People don't want anthropogenic global warming to be true, so they invent stories to explain why it "must" be a hoax. Looking into the actual processes by which the scientific community works seems to be of no interest to some.
Click to expand...
It's not true.
 
RJM62 said:
Or the ones who install wood stoves and pretend that they're doing the environment a favor, when all they're really doing is depriving the fossil fuel industry of an infinitesimal portion of its profits while increasing carbon emissions -- and that's not even counting the emissions from harvesting, cutting, and transporting the wood, nor the energy used to dry it if it's kiln-dried.
Click to expand...

Actually, those are the only things you count. Emission from direct burning of wood isn't an issue (CO2-wise). Even if you don't burn the tree, at some point it will fall over, decompose and get released as CO2 into the atmosphere anyway.

But digging up carbon that has been sequestrated over millions of years however is a very different story.
 
Clark1961 said:
That’s nice. If you have some sort of agenda then just go ahead and state it rather than playing games.
Click to expand...
I think every one of us that has an opinion has an agenda. But I'm not playing games, and I don't think I am being vague.

I don't have a problem with science and research in general. But I do have a problem with it when it becomes bent and politicized. As for climate change, I am one of those that is sure that it is occurring, I don't know how much impact man has made, I don't really believe that can be measured with today's tools, and I don't think there is very much we can do about it anyway. I do think we should be cleaning up the environment for the sake of a clean environment though.
 
deonb said:
Actually, those are the only things you count. Emission from direct burning of wood isn't an issue (CO2-wise). Even if you don't burn the tree, at some point it will fall over, decompose and get released as CO2 into the atmosphere anyway.
Click to expand...

Which may be a hundred years from now if you leave it alone. In the meantime, it continues diligently absorbing carbon until some zealot decides to cut it down and burn it to spite the oil companies.

deonb said:
But digging up carbon that has been sequestrated over millions of years however is a very different story.
Click to expand...

How so? Does the atmosphere know the difference between carbon from a dinosaur and carbon from a tree?

Rich
 
JOhnH said:
I think every one of us that has an opinion has an agenda. But I'm not playing games, and I don't think I am being vague.

I don't have a problem with science and research in general. But I do have a problem with it when it becomes bent and politicized. As for climate change, I am one of those that is sure that it is occurring, I don't know how much impact man has made, I don't really believe that can be measured with today's tools, and I don't think there is very much we can do about it anyway. I do think we should be cleaning up the environment for the sake of a clean environment though.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much my opinion, except that I think we also need to be addressing the changes (for example, by fortifying or moving the populations of vulnerable geographic locations).

I'm also getting a little tired of my generation and my parents' generation being blamed for air pollution. Quite the contrary, we were the generations who started cleaning it up. If we hadn't, the mess would certainly be a lot worse today.

This is the New York I grew up in.

01ABOUT1-superJumbo.jpg


Rich
 
Flat earthers are attention whores. They will say anything controversial just to get a rise out of people or gain an audience. Conspiratards are not just millennials. The media uses the word millenial to attract a demographic that their advertising is tuned into. Simply clicking that link is perpetuating the entire thing.
 
JOhnH said:
I think every one of us that has an opinion has an agenda. But I'm not playing games, and I don't think I am being vague.

I don't have a problem with science and research in general. But I do have a problem with it when it becomes bent and politicized. As for climate change, I am one of those that is sure that it is occurring, I don't know how much impact man has made, I don't really believe that can be measured with today's tools, and I don't think there is very much we can do about it anyway. I do think we should be cleaning up the environment for the sake of a clean environment though.
Click to expand...

You asked a very open ended question and seemed to want an answer selected from two choices you provided. It so happened the two choices indicated an unspoken agenda and those two choices did not include a significant portion of what might be the best answer.

You then responded to my answer by arbitrarily limiting the responses to your original question. Unfortunately the added limit did not place the answer within the two choices you originally specified.

I think your agenda is misguided at best. The products of research and politics have always been intertwined. Politicians always seek some public advantage and use whatever is at hand to achieve it. History has repeatedly shown that politicians know no bounds when pursuing power. It is what it is.
 
Palmpilot said:
People don't want anthropogenic global warming to be true, so they invent stories to explain why it "must" be a hoax. Looking into the actual processes by which the scientific community works seems to be of no interest to some.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, this is utterly the case. Those who don't believe in the scientific evidence vis-a-vis climate change are very quick to attack those who promulgate those findings. I've known some of them, and I can tell you from personal experience that they are just as driven and committed to the truth as anyone else in scientific endeavors. I honestly can't blame lay people, they see two different viewpoints and don't have the technical expertise to differentiate between them. I do have the expertise to evaluate how these people get funds and how they publish, since I do the same things. And like I said, I've known some of them.

The other problem is the solution to climate change is utter anathema to entrenched interests on either side of the dominant political spectra. So we do nothing, and your children will inherit a broken world. Glad I don't have any.
 
RJM62 said:
How so? Does the atmosphere know the difference between carbon from a dinosaur and carbon from a tree?
Click to expand...

Carbon from a tree is part of a short cycle (as in dozens of years). Grow tree. Burn tree. Grow tree. Decompose tree. Grow tree. etc.

It has little or no effect on the surface & atmosphere of the planet - you're just moving around carbon from one place to another. Even if we have an "oops" moment and we figured out we burned too many trees - we can replant and mostly reverse the change in 10 or 20 years.

Using carbon deposits from storage where it's been for millions of years and hasn't interacted with the surface in millions of years is different. This DOES increase the net amount of carbon on the surface, in the atmosphere etc. Obviously it also eventually goes back to being sequestered into tar, oil and coal, but this takes millions of years, not dozens.

If we had a process where we dig up fossil fuels and then take surface carbon and move it back down in it's place, that would be fine.

But we don't right now - though some people are thinking about it:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080513101652.htm
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2266747/
 
deonb said:
Carbon from a tree is part of a short cycle (as in dozens of years). Grow tree. Burn tree. Grow tree. Decompose tree. Grow tree. etc.

It has little or no effect on the surface & atmosphere of the planet - you're just moving around carbon from one place to another. Even if we have an "oops" moment and we figured out we burned too many trees - we can replant and mostly reverse the change in 10 or 20 years.

Using carbon deposits from storage where it's been for millions of years and hasn't interacted with the surface in millions of years is different. This DOES increase the net amount of carbon on the surface, in the atmosphere etc. Obviously it also eventually goes back to being sequestered into tar, oil and coal, but this takes millions of years, not dozens.

If we had a process where we dig up fossil fuels and then take surface carbon and move it back down in it's place, that would be fine.

But we don't right now - though some people are thinking about it:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080513101652.htm
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2266747/
Click to expand...

The point is that regardless of where it's coming from, it's being released into the air today; and there are plenty of people who don't think we have 10 or 20 years to stop spewing carbon into the air. But some of these same folks seem to think there's some elemental difference between carbon from oil and carbon from trees (or between Chinese carbon and American carbon, etc.).

I agree that the emissions from one wood-burning stove are negligible. But so are the emissions from one propane or natural gas furnace. So all that really matters, if carbon is the issue, is the total carbon released today. Trees will absorb carbon from other trees or from fossil fuels with equal enthusiasm, so even the short-cycle argument doesn't matter in any practical sense. What matters is reducing carbon emissions today.

If reducing carbon is the goal, then burning wood is ridiculous. It's one of the dirtiest heating fuels. It emits about twice as much CO2 per kWh as burning natural gas or propane, about 70 percent more CO2 per kWh than burning fuel oil, and about 10 percent more CO2 per kWh than burning coal. When you factor the hydrocarbons emitted from harvesting, cutting, transporting, and possibly kiln-drying, and also factor in the loss of the tree's sequestrating ability, the argument against wood gets even worse. Burning wood simply makes zero sense from an AGW viewpoint.

I can respect someone who installs solar panels or windmills. I'm actually thinking about solar panels myself. I can also respect someone who installs a wood stove to save money or because they just like burning wood. I'm fine with all of that. I can even understand if they just want to screw oil companies. At least they're being honest. But when they tell me they're doing it to save the earth, that's when I'll think they're either a fool or an ideologue (or more likely, both).

Rich
 
Last edited:
JonH said:
Flat earthers are attention whores. They will say anything controversial just to get a rise out of people or gain an audience. Conspiratards are not just millennials. The media uses the word millenial to attract a demographic that their advertising is tuned into. Simply clicking that link is perpetuating the entire thing.
Click to expand...
Yup. I knew people from a generation older than me who believed everything they read in the National Enquirer. Those people would be 90+ now if still alive.
 
Clark1961 said:
The flat earthers do believe the earth is round....on the outer edge...and flat on top...anyway that why it is shown as round on the fake space station views of earth...
Click to expand...

bflynn said:
Everyone knows that if the earth was flat, cats would have pushed everything off the edge by now.
Click to expand...

You beat me to making that statement. And if you've ever been owned by a cat (people don't own cats, the opposite is true, especially around our house) you KNOW this to be true.

weilke said:
Why do we need chemtrails if we have public schools and CNN ?
Click to expand...

Not so sure about public schools (my wife is a retired school teacher), but chamtrails make a plausible reason for people believing CNN. :p

JOhnH said:
I think every one of us that has an opinion has an agenda. But I'm not playing games, and I don't think I am being vague.

I don't have a problem with science and research in general. But I do have a problem with it when it becomes bent and politicized. As for climate change, I am one of those that is sure that it is occurring, I don't know how much impact man has made, I don't really believe that can be measured with today's tools, and I don't think there is very much we can do about it anyway. I do think we should be cleaning up the environment for the sake of a clean environment though.
Click to expand...

The climate on Earth has been changing throughout the history of the planet. Nothing new, but if you can blame it on people it becomes much easier to have government regulations to run their lives. I don't believe that government is smart enough to run peoples' lives, and, indeed, the US Constitution was written in a manner to prevent exactly that. That is, of course, it you believe that the writers of the Constitution said what they meant, and meant what they said. Otherwise, you (foolishly) believe that the Constitution is a "living document" that means whatever you want it to mean at a particular moment.
 
Dav8or said:
I think it's funny that climate deniers are making fun of flat earthers.
Click to expand...

Haven't seen much of that, but I assume there are some. Lining up the Swiss cheese holes a bit there, in any event.

I have observed that there is a great deal of abuse heaped upon those who, without denying the existence of climate change (it'd be nuts to do so - of course it changes!), might take issue with the scope and nature of proposed remedies, and the effects those remedies have on the people impacted. It seems it is easier to call these people names (like "climate denier") than to engage in open and honest discussion.

But (as is so often the case), Rich has expressed it better than I could ever dream of doing, so...

RJM62 said:
I think for those who are open-minded and could be convinced one way or the other, the problem is that too many of the solutions and responses on both sides seem to favor political agendas rather than either science or practical factors.

For example, the tree-huggers who live along Route 28 have been fighting a 4-inch natural gas pipe for more than a decade, despite the fact that it would enable tens of thousands of residents to switch from oil, wood, or propane to natural gas, which is at least cleaner than what it would be replacing.

Or the ones who install wood stoves and pretend that they're doing the environment a favor, when all they're really doing is depriving the fossil fuel industry of an infinitesimal portion of its profits while increasing carbon emissions -- and that's not even counting the emissions from harvesting, cutting, and transporting the wood, nor the energy used to dry it if it's kiln-dried.

I also lump the anti-nuclear folks in the group of eyebrow-raisers, especially those who oppose even thorium research, which would eliminate at least some of the problems associated with uranium-based energy technology, while providing an emissions-free way to produce hydrogen in addition to electricity.

Or speaking of hydrogen, we also have the people who oppose all hydrogen research because the present hydrogen infrastructure is owned by oil companies (it's a by-product of their processes), and they would be the initial beneficiaries of a large-scale implementation of hydrogen. Hydrogen is about as perfect a fuel as exists, yet many oppose it solely because "Big Oil" might initially profit from it.

Enough of these so-called "solutions" that consistently favor a particular politico-economic position (in this case, hating fossil fuel companies), with little if any practical environmental benefit (or in some cases, a decidedly negative effect on the environment), can't help but make people in the middle wonder whether AGW is in fact a political scheme rather than a scientific fact, especially if they don't personally understand the science.

The arguments coming from the other side tend to be simpler to explain (sunspots, cosmic rays, natural cycles, etc.). They also are less obviously insulting to common sense, unlike the arguments of people who oppose a gas line that would reduce emissions, but who think that increasing emissions by burning wood is somehow good for the environment. That doesn't mean the arguments are true, mind you. It just means they make more sense to someone who doesn't understand the more complex science of the other side, that they're less obviously-motivated by political beliefs, and that they seem less full of inherent contradictions.

The self-interest part of it is obvious, but the "deniers" don't even attempt to "deny" that part. It would make them look as silly as the greenie who burns wood instead of propane and believe he or she is saving the planet by doing so.

In short, it's not the science that turns off open-minded people in the middle. It's the absurdity and inherent contradictions of the politics that has grown alongside the science. I actually feel bad for the scientists because they are dependent upon the politicians, but the politicians are more concerned with their agendas than they are with the science. It must be very frustrating.

Rich
Click to expand...
 
deonb said:
If we had a process where we dig up fossil fuels and then take surface carbon and move it back down in it's place, that would be fine.
Click to expand...

Oil companies have been sequestering CO2 through the use of injection wells for over 40 years now. Same goes for many of the nation's ethanol and coal fired power plants. They're starting to sequester their CO2 output and are actually partnering or selling it back to the oil companies for enhanced oil recovery projects.

Where have you been? As an environmentalist you should know this sh*t. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Don't anger the earth turtle!

images


But legit, the new generation is very soft shoed and weak minded, put anything in a "study" and they will believe it over their own two eyes and not question anything. Follow the masses, yeah it's always been that way to an extent, but it feels like it's trending more and more that way.

And we all know money talks and stats can be shifted, I always follow the money and it's interests when I read a "scientific" study.
 
SCCutler said:
Haven't seen much of that, but I assume there are some. Lining up the Swiss cheese holes a bit there, in any event.

I have observed that there is a great deal of abuse heaped upon those who, without denying the existence of climate change (it'd be nuts to do so - of course it changes!), might take issue with the scope and nature of proposed remedies, and the effects those remedies have on the people impacted. It seems it is easier to call these people names (like "climate denier") than to engage in open and honest discussion.

But (as is so often the case), Rich has expressed it better than I could ever dream of doing, so...
Click to expand...

I'm sure the flat earth people feel they are getting heaps of abuse too. Is "climate denier" really a "name"? I don't know. Is "climate skeptic" better? If it is, I'll use that one next time.

I'm sorry that you can't see the parallel, maybe more time needs to elapse because the topic is so recent and flat earth has been around for centuries. Basically flat earth people say that the spherical earth "theory" is wrong because one can tell with their own eyes that the world is flat. In addition, things don't start rolling faster and sliding off as you walk along, so clearly there can't be 3 dimensions. When confronted with "science" they refuse to believe it. Even when we finally went to space and showed them pictures and movies, they say it's fake.

In the case of the climate skeptic, it first took years to get them to believe the climate was changing. Back when it was called Global Warming, they would say stuff like- "It's crazy freezing outside here! This is the coldest winter on record in my area. Clearly there is no global warming."

Finally the scientific community seems to have at least convinced these folks now that the climate is changing, but in spite of the world's climate scientist's efforts, they can't convince these folks that it is most likely humans causing the change and nothing else. They say the science is fake and either politically motivated, or just motivated by greed. They can't be convinced humans are causing climate change because, well... not that much comes out of their car's tailpipe and the temperature has gone up and down over the millennia. There is little to no evidence that a natural source is causing the climate to heat and there are computations to show mankind is to blame, but no... it can't be so. To make matters worse, we now live in the era of the internet and anybody can type anything, so people tend to gravitate to what they want to believe and there is a lot of fake news out there.

I used to be a climate skeptic, back when it was called global warming and what got me to switch my thinking was the fact that the entire world's climate scientists... not just the climate scientists in America, pretty much all of them everywhere agreed that the climate was indeed warming and that mankind was the most likely reason why. Even America's oil companies say humans are to blame! At some point, it's hard to argue with everyone in the climate science profession. These are people that have dedicated their lives to the science. I'm just a regular guy.

I didn't want to be a Flat Earther anymore.
 
GRG55 said:
...and not to be trusted.
​
99% of us Boomers believed that when we were in our 20s. ;)
Click to expand...

And when we were kids, the adults believed we were lazy idiots, obsessed with sex, and not likely to amount to anything.

Admittedly, two out of three ain't bad.....

Ron Wanttaja
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top