Comments by "Arthur Mosel" (@arthurmosel808) on "UNDISPUTABLE PROOF Having A College Degree DOES NOT Make You Smart!" video.
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
@derrick4544 Again, the "scientist" referenced the report as the reason for his sction and stated that it was proof of the problem. So yes, it was a short video, but the "scientist" stated this himself not the person making the YouTube video. Nothing was stated about additional training on climatology or hard sciences. Courses don't always need to be in a college. For example, my case. I started out to be an engineer, but found that people using what was built never figures into the classes. Changed majors to psychology, no minor since I had physics, biology, chemistry and various math classes (trig, calculus, etc.). Picked up statistical analysis in the psychology program and took 500 level courses in Human Factors/Industrial Psychology (Industrial engineers took the same classes but called it something 3lse in their catalogue). The Air Force provided additional training in administrative management before I ended up in emergency planning which gave me equivalent to two years of college on chemical, biological and radiological warfare and accidents as well as training on volcanology, earthquakes, meteorology and several other issues. I have been through several tropical storms, one typhoon, one hurricane (really the same as the typhoon), one major earthquake, and assorted other issues. When I got out, I went to work for a nuclear utility and had continuing health physics courses and training on BWR and PWR reactor types. Those unrelated to graduate level class taken after that in management, international relations, and addition industrial psychology classes. There were several other military schools along the way. Am I an expert on the climate; no, but I am knowledgeable enough to understand that the issue is far more complex than any one factor. I do know that modeling without including all factors is an exercise in futility. There are several cycles that exist from axial tilt, to orbital excentricity, to the world wide ocean current that takes around 1,000 years to complete. I do know there is geological evidence for extremely long droughts in the US (at least) on both about an average of 50 years for a multiple year drought in he Great Plains and Southwest and a multi-decade long one on around a 500 year cycle (strangely the last occurred around the gtime of the Little Ice Age). There is archeological evidence that areas of the Greenland coast were in fact ice free before the Little Ice Age, there are medieval documents discussing the rapid growth of glaciers during that time, just as there is written evidence that cyclic extreme cold periods have occurred with a peak to trough interval of around 500 years or in other word a complete cycle of around 1,000 years. Guess what using the historical record, we are reaching the peak of the warm part of the cycle, that started in the first decades of the 1800s (exact date is debated). Can man effect the cycle or cause local climate/weather affects, yes. In Chicago, the wall of very tall buildings have diverted weather that used to come straight down Lake Michigan either to the southeast or southwest of the city and the winter storms that used to go straight down the lake and sometimes down to Kentucky don't happen. Heat islands exist around major urban areas which provide a very phony appearance of global warming because too many readings from measuring stations around them are the evidence for global warming; while world wide weather satellite measurements have only around 50 years of data. In other words, realize that the world is a very complex environment controlled by many factors, man can control them; but only add to or mitigate them. The money spent on the global climate change concept would be better spent on mitigation of climate change on human populations and their food supplies.
1