Hurley's Gold

Scientists reject Biden over Trump because of - Science?

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Aus_Schwaben

    First to know - Last to care!
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Jan 31, 2019
    3,760
    96
    Abilene, TX

    I am not a scientist - I just play one on TV (and in graphic novels) - but it seems to me that rejecting Biden over Trump because Trumps rejection of the "climate change science" is not very scientific.
    DK Firearms
     

    Dougw1515

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 14, 2020
    3,488
    96
    USA
    So... I suppose they will also endorse Nasty's opponent because she said "Come on to Chinatown - every things fine here!!!"

    Phukin' details always getting in the way...
     

    gdr_11

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 1, 2014
    2,895
    96
    Scientific American stopped being a publication that represented the true sciences a long time ago. The last 10 years they have mainly focused on the geo-political scientific issues of importance to the United Nations and WHO. Hard science takes a back seat to deforestation, global warming, environmental issues and anything that is a not button in Europe.

    In 2015, Scientific American was bought by the multi-billion dollar educational publishing conglomerate Springer Nation from Germany who also owns the largest English language textbook publishing company, McMillian Education. If you think about where Germany and worldwide education is on the political spectrum, you have some idea of why they embrace Biden and reject Trump. It has nothing to do with Science just like Scientific American has nothing to do with America anymore. It would be more appropriate to change the title to Scientific European.

    Of course, the MSM is fawning over this because it means the "scientists" reject Trump which is in itself a bunch of crap. Trump's position on military and space funding is pumping billions into hard science which, in turn, feeds the scientists themselves, not the academic PhDs who are always being quoted by the MSM.

    Bottom line is that this endorsement means nothing. They would have endorsed Hillary last time around but everything thought she had it in the bag so they continued to pretend to be neutral. Typical German strategy.
     

    bbbass

    Looking Up!!
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 2, 2020
    2,825
    96
    NE Orygun
    I used to read Scientific American long ago, back when their articles were so full of "science" that one really had to have some background to understand. But I gave up decades ago after they switched to full on psuedoscience and propaganda mongering. Globalists abound!!!
     

    MacZC7

    Well-Known
    BANNED!!!
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 11, 2020
    1,412
    96
    Texas
    969C0413-CDCD-4BC2-940A-4527C9D9BA6A.png
     

    flgfish

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 16, 2020
    327
    76
    The Woodlands
    I am somewhere in the middle on Climate Change.

    I’m a believer that environmental pollution is Bad (tm) and we should be taking steps to engineer it away.

    I have read the IPCC climate reports. There is no accounting for the sun’s current output or any energy except visible spectrum light. They pretend like the sun is a static object and then ignore it. This does not give me confidence in the models.

    I am also very familiar with numerical models and large computer simulations. I don’t believe the output of the current climate models. They have written simulations, sure, but none have matched reality over the last two decades. Simulation is a tool to make guesses and narrow down options for real physical hypothesis testing - computers do not magically predict the future. They do the math you tell them to do.

    I am strongly pro-nuclear. I think the wacko “greens” who want solar and are against nuclear are fighting a losing battle. The world could be mostly emission free today if we actually wanted it to be.

    I am not sure where this leaves me on the political spectrum for climate change, but it’s certainly not aligned with the Green New Deal folks.
     

    oldag

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Feb 19, 2015
    17,429
    96
    I am somewhere in the middle on Climate Change.

    I’m a believer that environmental pollution is Bad (tm) and we should be taking steps to engineer it away.

    I have read the IPCC climate reports. There is no accounting for the sun’s current output or any energy except visible spectrum light. They pretend like the sun is a static object and then ignore it. This does not give me confidence in the models.

    I am also very familiar with numerical models and large computer simulations. I don’t believe the output of the current climate models. They have written simulations, sure, but none have matched reality over the last two decades. Simulation is a tool to make guesses and narrow down options for real physical hypothesis testing - computers do not magically predict the future. They do the math you tell them to do.

    I am strongly pro-nuclear. I think the wacko “greens” who want solar and are against nuclear are fighting a losing battle. The world could be mostly emission free today if we actually wanted it to be.

    I am not sure where this leaves me on the political spectrum for climate change, but it’s certainly not aligned with the Green New Deal folks.
    Nuclear is a great option, probably the best. Sadly it has been regulated out of business.
     

    rotor

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 1, 2015
    4,239
    96
    Texas
    Scientists reject Biden over Trump. Don't you mean scientists reject Trump and endorse Biden?
    The cure for climate change will come once fusion as an energy source is developed. None of this other stuff would work without tax subsidy essentially to the rich. That $100,000 car is not what the common man will be driving. Good luck Californians charging your car to escape the fires when the electricity is off (my brother's situation).
     

    MacZC7

    Well-Known
    BANNED!!!
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 11, 2020
    1,412
    96
    Texas
    Scientists reject Biden over Trump. Don't you mean scientists reject Trump and endorse Biden?
    The cure for climate change will come once fusion as an energy source is developed. None of this other stuff would work without tax subsidy essentially to the rich. That $100,000 car is not what the common man will be driving. Good luck Californians charging your car to escape the fires when the electricity is off (my brother's situation).
    Climate change is cyclic, man gives himself too much credit. Don’t believe Al Gore...
     

    SA_Steve

    Well-Known
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Oct 1, 2014
    1,544
    96
    San Antonio, Texas USA
    I'd like to read a scientific article on the new discovered natural gas bubbling up from the ocean off the NW coast (greenhouse gas) and I wonder if the recent forest fires make any co2? Those fires were man made in a couple different ways.
     

    gdr_11

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 1, 2014
    2,895
    96
    I had the opportunity to work at the DOE National Laboratory in Berkeley a number of years ago. Their Earth Science department is among the top in the world. I used to enjoy long discussions with the Director about the global warning nonsense that was floating around then and he used to laugh about the "media scientists" who will say anything to see their name in print or on tv.

    He told me that Earth Science looks at the world in million year slices; anything less than that is foolishness. They understand that man's contributions to climage change are like a fart in the wind; one volcanic eruption like Mt. St. Helens can overshadow everything modern technology does over a 50 year period.
     

    MacZC7

    Well-Known
    BANNED!!!
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 11, 2020
    1,412
    96
    Texas
    I had the opportunity to work at the DOE National Laboratory in Berkeley a number of years ago. Their Earth Science department is among the top in the world. I used to enjoy long discussions with the Director about the global warning nonsense that was floating around then and he used to laugh about the "media scientists" who will say anything to see their name in print or on tv.

    He told me that Earth Science looks at the world in million year slices; anything less than that is foolishness. They understand that man's contributions to climage change are like a fart in the wind; one volcanic eruption like Mt. St. Helens can overshadow everything modern technology does over a 50 year period.
    Read post #12
     

    angel71rs

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 1, 2009
    504
    76
    El Paso
    I am strongly pro-nuclear. I think the wacko “greens” who want solar and are against nuclear are fighting a losing battle. The world could be mostly emission free today if we actually wanted it to be.

    I am not sure where this leaves me on the political spectrum for climate change, but it’s certainly not aligned with the Green New Deal folks.
    It leaves you in the logical thinkers section... like me! I too believe nuclear is a much more viable option than solar or wind. Too bad more can't see past the wacko's demonization of it...
     

    Axxe55

    Retiretgtshit stirrer
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 15, 2019
    47,022
    96
    Lost in East Texas Elhart Texas
    It leaves you in the logical thinkers section... like me! I too believe nuclear is a much more viable option than solar or wind. Too bad more can't see past the wacko's demonization of it...

    I''m very pro-nuclear energy as well. Done properly, it's the cleanest and cheapest energy available.

    It doesn't require using any sort of fossil fuels our of the ground to sustain.

    I do think that solar is much better alternative energy source that wind power. I think that solar is a good source for supplimenting other energy sources.
     
    Top Bottom