leatherback
The Treedeemer
Read the article. More fundamental than hops.
Climate change
- Thread starter Cypress187
- Start date
Cajunrider
Imperial Masterpiece
I think this is very much a misleading comparison. If you are going to list the PhD student salaries then compare those to Engineering interns. You will find them to be comparable.
Since you are listing things at Yale, average professor salary at Yale is $174,000. They make much more than an engineer in the industry. And if they have tenure, they are like kings in their realms with much more benefits that any engineer can dream.
PS: If this is your way of cherry picking your data, well.....
Last edited:
leatherback
The Treedeemer
I happen to work at a top-200 tech-based university. Engineering PhD students are impossible to get at the moment, because industry offers our Msc students positions a full half year before graduation, at twice the pay we can offer them.
My example above is not cherry picking, but fact.
hich of course makes me a lot more sensitive to stories about academics being unfaithfull to their proofession, As a management team member I get to see VERY close hand how these things work.
Cajunrider
Imperial Masterpiece
Still you are comparing a temporary 2-4 years in-training positions to permanent positions so the pay will be much different. The lure to permanent jobs have always been there and the ratio in pay hasn't changed for since the 1970's that I knew about.
papymandarin
Shohin
you are SOO unbiased of course, as if a yale chaired professor was in any case representative of the average researcher (top position in top university, versus the plethora of post doc and contractuals making the most of the actual research effort, professor spend usually most of their time teaching or searching funds for their lab) Average salary for researcher is 77500 dollars in USA
AlainK
Imperial Masterpiece
Got an ad in my mailbox today, from a seed provider that has extended their activity to potted plants. They have a HOUBLON GOLDEN TASSEL® which I think would be a good candidate for grafting - I really must try that one day, you know, grafting hops on another species or vice-versa. I wonder what it would taste like...
https://www.graines-baumaux.fr/modu...292377921&mc_cid=bbc2080492&mc_eid=d2af3bbe53
Cajunrider
Imperial Masterpiece
Never claimed to be unbiased, just posting things to display the big contrast is not really that big. Average salary for researcher is 77.5K and average engineer salary is 87.1K but then average salary for Chemist working in the lab in the industry is only around 50K.
BTW, engineers now are very difficult to find as well. Kids don't go into engineering as much as they used to and the job market is good now.
papymandarin
Shohin
At least you would then agree than being a scientist can't really be accused to "profit for the climate change conspiracy", the amount is far from indecent for the level of education and far to make it the best way to make money...
Cajunrider
Imperial Masterpiece
I used to work in research and my children forgo higher paying jobs so they can stay in research. In general, to be in research to have to have passion in that field so in most cases the people in research are not in it for money. However, that doesn't mean that there aren't any who would skew things for money and fame. There are always some rotten apples in any field, research or not.
papymandarin
Shohin
indeed, but some here are implying this is the case for the 97% of climate scientist agreeing its real and human induced..... the accusation is a bit more than ""some rotten apples" kind of thing and completely unrealistic
Cajunrider
Imperial Masterpiece
That 97% number is the number I have doubt about. It is bantered about quite a bit and there has been much discussion about the claim so I'm not going to rehash the same argument. Within my little circle of scientific minded people, which is but a tiny tiny fraction of the population but is is my known circle, there is a general consensus about seeing the change but there is no where near the level of conviction that we can reverse it. All of the people I know talk about doing small things within the circle of influence but that's about it.
papymandarin
Shohin
it's simply a count made on all publications on the topic, nothing magical or mysterious. And indeed the matter is not anymore a question of reversing it, but of trying to limit its extent and then costs
AlainK
Imperial Masterpiece
I wonder...
At that time (one generation ago), who cared about the price of oil, making
Yeah, I want to make the earth a great place to live.
Considerig the state of the earth and the various govenments on the earth, I'm afraid we'll still have to fight on for a couple of generations.
But I'm desperately optimistic.
.
You obviously cannot tell the difference between a request and an order.
All those supposed ''97% of articles'' are based on the proposal that co2 causes warming which has still not been proved. Remember that consensus has nothing to do with science. There was a consensus that the earth was flat at one time. There was a consensus that we it was saturated fat causing heart disease and obesity. Both proved wrong by just one person.
I have no proof of conspiracy and never even mentioned it.
I have not suggested that either warming or ice regression is/has not been observed. But the amount is very slight and quite in line with what has happened many times in the past.
Is that all you got?
Very good. That is an observation. What's your point? That the weather is changing is some places. I already know that. How far back do the records go. 50? 100? 500, 1000 years? Do you honestly believe that you can change the weather? Tell me this. How long has the summer been hot and dry in the Mediterranean in summer and cool and wet in the winter? That is climate. When is starts raining in the summer for many years and the local biology cannot cope, then you can start to presume the climate is changing in a profound way. What you are observing is in no way proof of permanent change. Look up the Roman and medieval warm periods. Look up the little ice age. They all come and go. Nothing to do with humans.
Please Alain, don't talk rubbish, I wont respond favourably to it.
.
Well it is not getting worse. We do not have the heat waves as in the 80's here. The temps have been bang on average if not a little colder in winter. The frequency or severity of fires has not changed much in the short period from 2007 to 13. Even less so the further back you go. It all depends on where you start your graph as to weather you see a trend. The only reason we see increased temps from the 70's is because they start their lines there instead on the thirties when it was very hot. Hotter than it is now. It goes up and it goes down...get it? My prediction....it will go down in the next decade or 2 and the co2 driven climate theory will be dead once and for all.
The small increase in temperatures in the last 30 years or whatever have nothing to do with a change in biodiversity. That is caused by habitat loss and probably synthetic chemicals in the environment is a totally different subject.
Drought is associated with lower temperatures.
I suspect you are self-brainwashing with your music videos. Instead, study historical climate records going back as far as you can.
More made up pseudo science garbage. Here is the barley yield lately. Sorry to tip cold beer on your new scary story.
papymandarin
Shohin
as always with science denialists of any kind, always the same flawed arguments that were debunked for a long time over and over again , it's boringly repetitive....
what you do is exactly like saying you know better about bonsai than all all bonsai masters all over the word. that's ridiculous
what you do is exactly like saying you know better about bonsai than all all bonsai masters all over the word. that's ridiculous
Last edited:
papymandarin
Shohin
i pick one (i'm not going to do al the work for al arguemnts, info is everywhere to expain how all these points are just wrong) just to show how dishonest such positions are, the "once consensus about the earth being flat", you just forget to mention that this consensus was a religious-belief one from an era where science as we know it was not even existing and people that were daring claim the earth was not flat were judged as heretics.... you are actually just showing how mixing science with religious belief was detrimental to the progress of knowledge
papymandarin
Shohin
ho yes and Barley productivity (what you show) is hardly related to the total amount produced (which is what influence prices), whatever the productivity of your field is, the quantity produced can be 0 if a storm of drought is passing by there....
leatherback
The Treedeemer
And once again you are just shouting stufgf without any clue of reality. Really. Keep out of the discussion if you are not even willing to check your own misinformed claims. You sound like a baby not getting its way. Unless of course the Australian Bureau of Meteorology is just making there data up, which you will probably claim.
Australia is getting warmer, ALSO if you take the 30-ies in account. So yeah, Australia is now about 1.5C warmer than it was in the thirties when it was very hot.
If you look at the temperature, you see that a larger part of the country reaches the highest temperature class
If you look at rainfall you see that an ever increasing part of the country receives the highest level of rainfall
Putting the whole thing together:
You see clear increases in rainfall intensity and temperature over a period of 100 years. In response to this, we see that fruitflies change (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/308/5722/691), butterflies are modifying behaviour (http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2010/03/09/rsbl.2010.0053) and bird sizes are changing (http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/276/1674/3845.article-info)
So yeah, we are talking climate, and not individual events..
Maybe it is time to, you know..
