Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

Well, there are certain to be variables, it's not surprising that there are some people paid below market rates. The idea that someone thinks that government employees in general are underpaid is really surprising to me, though. I guess given that someone spends the majority of his time around people who are basically government employees (professors) who, if my experience is any indicator, are constantly bitching about how their noble efforts don't bring them the financial rewards beings of their exalted station deserve, it's not surprising. Everyone thinks they're underpaid, so government employees suggesting such a thing is hardly ridiculous. The numbers just don't reflect...how was it said? Oh yes, their "version" of reality, that's what the phrase was.


I have a hard time accepting a lot of global warming (I thought the semantics had changed to 'climate change' now) stuff, especially after the East Anglia debacle came to light. It's probably wrong of me, but I tend to trust people who are up front about what their agenda is more than people who allege any sort of impartiality. I especially become skeptical when I hear phrases like "settled science" or anything involving the word "consensus" in a scientific context. People with agendas are easier to scrutinize, the impartial are generally flim-flam artists and I have no idea where to look first for the snake-oil.

I think that if anything, this conversation has made me realize that I need to apply for a federal position.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

People in high school always mocked me because both of my parents are engineers for the federal government. Yet my parents had amazing benefits, great sick/vacation leave options, excellent retirement plans and still made 6 figures. You won't find anyone in the government making millions of dollars per year so you won't find many ultra wealthy government employees but it is definately a very comfortable lifestyle.

There are certainly downsides to being an employee in the government and my parents are by no means representative of all government workers but it can definitely be a great lifestyle.

Scientists are actually one of the categories that are not overpaid in the Heritage analysis you linked, and in the US professors in public universities are paid less than those in private universities (although I think you could reasonably argue that the pay difference represents different skill levels, at least in some cases).




And the back-tracking begins.

Laelia Komi Anomalocaris

Global Warming, aka Climate Change, might be real but we're not to blame. Fuck what ya hurd.

Does this mean I can start citing Huffington Post and ThinkProgress as 100% fact?

RETIRED.
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Mayonaise[/armory]
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Jerkonaise[/armory]

I'm not back-tracking. Just be ready to dumb-down a lot of things when I ask for explanations. I'm still trying to puzzle out why some people are so certain they can determine what a large system is going to do several years from now when they still have difficulty determining what it's going to do scant days from now.

The only thing we really know in science is that we really don't know that much for certain. As our knowledge grows, it changes. It's a lot to keep track of when you're not immersed in it.

I'm all for not spewing tons of crap into the air/water/earth, but I don't think a lot of people on the side of the issue that hugs the trees thinks about the cost-benefit aspect of some of the things they propose. I have a problem with taking actions that have an immediate harmful impact on people's lives when the exchange in the future can't be quantified.

I'm probably just jaded by years of the "this will fix the problem" that is followed by "now we need a fix for the problem caused by the fix." It reminds me of this story I read once, where there is a family full of idiots, and the mother brews a cup of tea, and puts salt in it instead of sugar. Well, they spend the bulk of the story adding things to the tea to bring the taste back to where it should be, without getting the desired result. They consult a learned gentleman who suggests, "Why not just brew a new cup of tea?" The idea had not occurred to them. I think our society is a lot like that. We've already got the salt in, and some peppermint, and this and that and the other thing, what do we add next? I don't think it ever seriously occurs to anyone that our "fixes," married to them some of us may be, aren't inherently necessary, and it might be a good idea to start from scratch with some new solutions.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

If you're going to argue "we need the jobs", why not legalize seal-clubbing or panda-raping? Imagine the jobs we could get from those!

RETIRED.
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Mayonaise[/armory]
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Jerkonaise[/armory]

This should probably be split off into another thread, but I'll give this a shot.



The climate is not the same as the weather. I can make a pretty reliable prediction that Tucson will be probably be hot and dry in June 2015 and that Ushuaia will be cool and wet in April 2017, because I know what the climate is like in those areas, and climate is pretty predictable at that scale. It's much easier to predict averages over time (ie. climate) than what exactly is happening on a given day (eg. how many mm of rain tomorrow, what exactly will the temperature be on Saturday - the weather).



While it's true that we always have more to learn, we do know a tremendous amount about the atmosphere and climate. Here's a list of references for a single chapter of the most recent IPCC report. There are too many for me to count, but there are a huge number of peer-reviewed papers on just the aspect of climate science reviewed in that particular chapter.



There is some uncertainty about how bad future impacts will be, but it's very clear there will be some level of harm. It's possible the impacts will be less than what is being currently predicted, but it's equally possible they will be worse. It's foolish to assume the best case scenario when the most likely and worst case scenarios both predict very serious consequences for not taking action.



We can fix problems in the environment. The Montreal protocol phased out chemicals that harm the ozone layer, and now the hole over the Antarctic will probably recover within 50 years. Brazil has had serious problems with deforestation, but better regulation and enforcement have caused rates to drop rapidly, while the country's economy is booming. It may seem like we're just tossing out solution after solution, but the world has a lot of problems and we can't just brew a new Earth.

Laelia Komi Anomalocaris

I'm skeptical because climate change occurred many, many times before we've ever started spewing shit into the atmosphere. If it's happened before without human contribution then why are we certain we can stop something so large?

Really, I have a feeling this might all be based on our ability to gather more data and understand it better than we have in the past. Mind you, a few decades ago the big fear was global cooling. When the planet didn't cool, we called it global warming. In the last few decades we survived both global warming and cooling... but now that no one knows what the fuck is going on, we call it climate change - it's bad and we're all going to die from it!

The global climate has indeed fluctuated a lot in the past. The spot where I'm typing this was under hundreds of meters of ice 15000 years ago, and was under a tropical sea 450 million years ago. Neither of those would be very conducive to living here. As for why we think we can stop (or minimize, since we're already committed to some warming based on past emissions) this current change, it's because we know what's causing it. If we bring our emissions down enough, the global ecosystem will be able to handle the greenhouse gases produced by humans, atmospheric concentrations of those gases will stop rising, and the harm caused by extreme warming will be averted.



Global cooling was never a well-supported idea. It was hyped by some in the media because they love dire tales of global disaster, and there were a few scientists who worked on the idea, but there wasn't much a scientific basis behind it. While global warming also has a lot of media hype, the idea is actually supported by a massive amount of science. The reason some people prefer to use the term "global climate change" is because the effects in some areas may actually result in cooler temperatures due to changes in circulation, but the overall effect is still clearly going to be warming.

Laelia Komi Anomalocaris

Government employees are employed by a 'company' that is trillions of dollars in the red.

They should be glad to still have jobs at all.

I'd have killed for just a pay drop.

Well, the way you say that, it makes sense, since that's the way those areas are now, but the thing with global...w/e...is that it's made to sound like the seasons are going flip, what's hot will be cold, everything will dry up into a desert if it's not flooded by melting ice, and cats will have babies with dogs. I think a large part of the issue is that there are some people out there making some ridiculous assertions.


Well, see, there's another one of those allegedly impartial groups. Wasn't there some controversy about the ICC attributing conclusions to scientists who later said they didn't agree with the findings or the ICC changing the report after the scientists signed off?


I don't think anyone would disagree with taking steps to avert crisis if any of the previous warnings had ever come to fruition. There is a lot of weariness from the general public that has been hearing how this thing or that thing is going to happen...but never does. Then there is of course the "well of course it didn't, we did A, B, and C to stop it." However, this often seems to be followed by "now we must do X, Y, and Z," leaving people to say, well, if A, B, and C worked, why do we need more?

I've been hearing since I was about 10 that, among other things, New York was going to be underwater, and it just doesn't happen. Every new-disaster-is-just-around-the-turn prediction just rings more and more hollow. I see where some people have used the environment as a means to enrich themselves (ethanol), or control people's behavior.

In short, I don't believe what people are trying sell me anymore. While I don't want us dumping tons of crap, I know that people need jobs, that certain things need to be produced, and that those two things alone produce waste. Where is the happy medium? At what point are we doing enough for the future without damaging the present?


Well, I wouldn't suggest a "new Earth," but if we have to find solutions to our solutions, wouldn't it be more practical to go back to the first solution that needed a solution and try a different solution?

Wow, that sentence is going to confuse the fuck out of some people.

In the case of Brazil, crisis was real and measurable. I don't think a lot of people view climate change-global-warming/cooling the same way...because, as I said, all the prophecies of doom and gloom don't come to pass. There's also the factor of people not being able to utilize their land because of things like...bureaucrats deciding they can't because they don't want to damage a population of pestilent biting flies. It doesn't make sense to anyone and it plays badly in the press (if it's covered).

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

There's no pandas here, and I don't think there's any seals either.

I'll split this later.



And this is why law graduates are all fighting each other to be public defenders and giant private corporate firms are so utterly devoid of life.

If destruction exists, we must destroy everything.
Shuruppak Yuratuhl
Slaad Shrpk Breizh

Or... what if the melting ice reveals more ripe and fertile land for vegetation to grow and help bring down temperatures? What if the influx of fresh-water increases precipitation so rainfall falls in once arid areas, increasing growth there? What if the increase in water surface area helps bring down temperatures?

As Jubber said, I can't buy into all the doom-and-gloom hype that surrounds this subject. The information presented by the IPCC (which I've read enough of to say, 'Ya, wateva') could, most likely, be easily countered with a bit of searching on the web by equally credible scientists that say global climate change, and our impact on it, is mostly bullshit.