Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

The figures are based on averages across multiple job categories in the federal sector. State and local figures weren't averaged in, and since the majority of prosecutors/defenders are state/local employees...

Besides, it's not going to be long before it's not just the government paying you peanuts for a law degree.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

Doesn't Rupert Murdoch own the Wall Street Journal? Jeez Jubber. You pick the worst sources. Try the BBC next time if you want to look credible.

If you're listening to people who make ridiculous mischaracterizations of what the science actually says, then yes they might sound ridiculous. What scientists are actually saying makes a lot more sense.



Hmm, I could swear that someone said "It's easier to laugh off sources than deal with reality" earlier in this thread. I don't know if what you're saying about the IPCC actually happened or not, but it's irrelevant to the vast number of studies that have been done to give us a pretty good idea of how the global climate works.



Exactly. In 100 years people will be complaining that all that worry about global warming was for nothing, because we put in all that effort to reduce our emissions and all we have to show now for it is a lack of catastrophe. When we stop doing things that fuck up the planet we depend on for our existence, perhaps the cycle will be broken.



There will be some benefits to warming in certain areas. The harm to the rest of the planet far outweighs those benefits.



If it can, do that searching and link the results here. The word "credible" is a bit of a moving target, but I'd be interested to see who you regard as a credible scientist who thinks that global warming is bullshit.

Laelia Komi Anomalocaris

That's fair. I didn't actually read your first link, and I'm still in French mode so I took "federal" to mean "government employee." All the same, in terms of legal employment at any rate, graduates are definitely not chomping at the bit to be anything other than prosecutors in the public sector, and even then it's in the hopes of making the bench (and because you can really never, ever, ever lose a criminal case when you're the prosecutor, especially on appeal).



I read that article 2 months ago. Good thing that poor bastard went to Seton Hall, which is a garbage school that charges you 40k a year. Most of the reason the situation for law graduates is so stormy is because they all expected to get a free ride to 160k a year, and they'll refuse to consider any job offering less than that. When you refuse to be employed, it's easy to be unemployed.

Times changed, sure. The sky isn't falling, though. These idiots are self-fulfilling prophecy.

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

What's shitty is that around here all the best and brightest become defense attorneys(because crime DOES pay) and then they're the ones who become judges.

so we have a bunch of judges in greensboro that are very loyal to their less than lawabiding connections.

Can't disagree with that. I think another part of the problem is the word "scientist." It needs to disappear from the lexicon. You say "scientist" and people automatically think, "hey, this guy knows what's going here, alright," but in reality, you get...good example: Dr. Laura. She has, I believe, a degree in anatomy or something silly, but bills herself as...well, I'm not sure what. I think an 'expert's' scientific specialization should be their designation in print/newscasts, not a blanket word like "scientist." Most of the people on the fringe that are put forth by more radical groups are "scientists," but not in any field relevant to what they're speaking on.


Well, I researched the addled remembrances my brain was telling me existed, and found this:

[url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html]The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.
Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.[/url]

You expect me to put faith in an organization that does this? This was a purposeful, calculated lie...with political aims. The only difference between balking at the IPCC and balking at my linked Heritage study is that no one at Heritage is admitting after the fact that they purposely lied to advance a political agenda.

There is a difference between reviewing information and finding it bogus and simply claiming something is specious simply because of you don't like the source. I think you realize that, I'm not so sure about others here, but maybe the BBC can do a report to convince them.

It may be wrong of me to look on more recent IPCC work with the stink eye, since this happened in 2007, but this is exactly the sort of behavior that makes events like the East Anglia incident seem like part of a minor conspiracy.


I think we agree there, but like I said, the thing that makes people doubt is the "now we must do X, Y, and Z!" Most of those people are seeing it impact their jobs/lives/finances while individuals like Al Gore are living a relative life of luxury expanding their carbon footprint to take private planes around the globe to tell us plebes to stop being wasteful, selfish wankers.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

A scientist is someone who does science, not someone who has a certain qualification. What Dr. Laura does is not science.



Again, this has nothing to do with the vast amount of research that has been done on the topic. The IPCC is a summary of the science, nothing more. Any reasonable and scientifically literate person with enough time on their hands could completely ignore it and read the original papers themself, and would come to the same conclusions.

As for the charge that the Himalayan glacier paper was included to put pressure on policy-makers, the purpose of the IPCC is to put pressure on policy-makers by showing them the science, so I don't see where the conspiracy is. The author interviewed in the article doesn't say that he thought the WWF report was wrong, just that he was aware it wasn't peer reviewed. It turns out the report was wrong and it was an error to include it, but a few errors are inevitable when you put together a report that's thousands of pages long, and they still don't affect the soundness of the underlying science the rest of the report is based on.



I understand why people don't want to take action, but that the rational course of action is clear - reduce emissions now so our grandchildren don't have to suffer for our wasteful actions.

Laelia Komi Anomalocaris

That's exactly my point. What some of these so-called "scientists" do isn't science, either. That's why we need to retire the word. Science is a huge umbrella that covers multiple disciplines. We should identify the alleged experts according to their discipline. At least that way people would ask, "Why the fuck is a botanist talking about climate change? What's that got to do with botany?"

I know that something as large as climate change would impact multiple scientific disciplines, but I'd rather hear about atmospheric phenomena from a meteorologist than an entomologist.



I think we have a vastly different understanding of what the purpose of bodies like the IPCC is. It is there to provide information so that policy-makers can make informed decisions, it is not there to mislead them into making the decisions that the IPCC and/or its contributors think best...or as you put it, "put pressure" on them. There is a galaxy of difference between those two concepts. The reason we have bodies like the IPCC to develop these reports is precisely because policy-makers don't have the time to go through the entirety of the report, and generally skim down to the summaries. If the research was meant to be peer-reviewed, it all should have been, and the parts that were not definitely not should not have been the parts highlighted in the "this is what this whole thing boils down to" section. If you want to say that's not bad science, that's fine, but it's still a dishonest misrepresentation of the facts, and therefore unworthy of trust.



It's not that people don't want to take action, it's that they see a lot of the action as completely unnecessary at worst or excessive at best. It's hard to sell to normal people when the (self-proclaimed) poster-child for the environmental movement leases a strip-mine on his private property and travels everywhere by private jet.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

The IPCC is composed of climate scientists and others who do research on the climate. All scientists should know the basics about climate change, including biologists who work on organisms that will be affected by future changes, but the actual research and most of the outreach on the subject is done by people who are experts in the field. You seem to be making up problems here that have nothing to do with how sound the underlying science is. If you want to talk to a climate scientist about this go do that, but I don't think there are any posting on the FUBU forums.



The claim about Himalayan glaciers was not in the summary of the report (it wasn't "highlighted in the "this is what this whole thing boils down to" section"). It was a single paragraph among the 938 pages of volume II of the report. There's no evidence it was put in there to deceive or for dishonest purposes; the mere fact that a paper is not peer-reviewed does not mean it's false. At the time the IPCC report was written, there was no requirement for every reference to be peer-reviewed (as there is a tremendous amount of information from government reports etc. that doesn't get peer-reviewed). Perhaps there should have been, and I believe they have changed the rules now to prevent this from happening in the future.

Absolutely none of this impacts the strength of the rest of the report. Again, we're back to "It's easier to laugh off sources than deal with reality." The evidence for global warming is extensive and well-documented, and a single error does not detract from that. If you insist on dismissing the entire field of knowledge because of a single error on a single page of a single report, you are a hypocrite.

Laelia Komi Anomalocaris

Humans are made of 70% water.

there are roughly 6.5 billion people on the planet.

Assuming an average weight of 150 pounds, that's roughly 105 pounds per person of water. a little over 2 pounds of water is 1 gallon, so that's roughly 52.5 gallons of water per person on the planet.

Average body temperature is 98.6 F

6.5 billion x 52.5 gallons of water at 98.6 degrees farenheit? the answer is clear. we must kill half of all humanity.


Starting with canada.

I thought one gallon weighs closer to 8lbs.

Regardless of that flaw, I do support the extermination of Canadians. Where do I sign up?

I don't think anyone suggested we need a climatologist here on the FUBU forums, and I think you may feel I'm suggesting you're not qualified to discuss the subject, which is not the case. I'm saying that it is misleading to use Dr. So-and-so as a mouthpiece to present evidence relating to one field when he specializes in another, especially when the whole point of doing so is merely to legitimize misinformation that anyone working in the relevant field would never utter.
I don't know why you would think "all scientists" would know "the basics of climate change," given that there are disciplines of science unrelated to the matter and that some of those even in relevant fields dispute the findings of their colleagues. This is one of the reasons why I have a problem with phrases like "settled science," because once-upon-a-time, it was "settled science" that everything revolved a big, flat Earth and anyone who dared disagree was tormented by the church.
While I don't see anyone being tortured, there is evidence of possible collusion to professionally persecute "deniers" (I'll assume "heretic" is no longer fashionable) in the released Climategate e-mails, in which there are suggestions that those working as scientific journals refuse to publish the work of "deniers."
I was also under the impression that science, at least at the academic level, was supposed to open and honest, yet after the Climategate incident, researchers at East Anglia were refusing to release their research under relevant public disclosure laws, and had even "accidentally" destroyed some of the requested information.
I am not merely "laughing off the source," as some others here have done. I have scrutinized it and found it lacking, for all the reasons I have outlined. When others who have mocked organizations like The Heritage Foundation or press outlets like USA Today can give a reason other than, "they're LOLCONSERVATIVE" or 'dumb' and can point to a history of errors, lies and distortions, and unethical (and possibly illegal) actions such as is evident at the heart of the global warming "research" community, I'll cede the point.



So now that we've arrived at the proper conclusion about the ethical/moral ramifications of "putting pressure" on policy-makers, you're saying that isn't what they were actually trying to do? That is clearly not the case, since according to the Daily Mail article, "The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders."
I think an admission of guilt qualifies as evidence. That's probably just me, though.



Which is why I admit that it may be unduly biased of me to suggest that more recent reports cannot be trusted.


Oh, but it does impact the strength of the rest of the report, and others like it. If someone lied to you 4 out of every 10 times you talked to them, how much trust could you put in anything they told you? We're not talking about a "single error," we're talking about multiple (possibly coordinated, given the Climategate e-mails) incidents of dishonesty and unethical actions, with the stated goal of "pressuring" policy-makers.
Again, this is why I don't trust allegedly impartial/unbiased agencies. This is supposed to be science, not a push for political agendas. At least organizations with an agenda are saying, "this is what we believe, here is the data that supports our conclusions," and not, "we're completely trustworthy because we have no axes to grind, so you cannot disbelieve us." Much like the policy-makers these reports are produced to aid, I don't have time to read through thousands of pages of data, most of which I'd need references to understand, and even if the science is sound in the sections of importance to the scientific community, it is being skewed in the parts meant for mass consumption.
I also take exception to the notion that those who don't agree with the "consensus" only do so because they're "hacks for the oil/coal/gas/insert lobby here industry," yet there is no scrutiny paid to the profit motivation of allegedly "impartial scientists" who have a vested interest in keeping the subject alive so that their work will remain funded by private and public grants...not that anyone here has mentioned that as yet, but it always crops up eventually.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

Although Gore isn't a scientist, he's one of the most prominent voices in that box and he's heavily invested in green industries.

which means he has a lot to gain if/when tech starts to go that way.

I am MORE willing to lean in the direction that he thinks that 1) it is the way we should go AND 2) thinks that is the way we WILL go rather than 1) he thinks he can make some bank off it and 2) he has a strong enough lobby/etc to get it going.

but then people are evil and stupid, so who knows.

Who is this "Dr. So-and-so" who knows nothing about climate science and is being used as a mouthpiece? This seems to be a made up problem. As for all scientists knowing the basics of climate change, they absolutely should; this is the most important scientific issue today, and reaches across almost every field of science. When I took my PhD comprehensive exam, my examiners asked me a few questions about it, even though it's not directly involved in my research. It's just a very important topic.



The quotes from the scientist, rather than the spin from the author of the article, are "‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action" and "We knew the WWF report with the 2035 date was “grey literature”". Where is the guilt? He was wrong to think the data was correct, but he doesn't in any way say he thought it was incorrect before including it.



You're blowing this out of proportion. You've pointed to one error in the IPCC report. This isn't "being lied to 4 times out of 10", this is an organization making a single mistake. There's no evidence of intentional dishonesty in the writing of the report or in the vast amount of underlying research in the field. No matter how much you want to spin this, you're refusing to accept the science because of your political ideology, and that makes you a hypocrite.

Laelia Komi Anomalocaris