Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Uh-Oh.  Can't say the glaciers are melting like Obama said.  A new narrative regarding Famine, Floods, Fire, Fumes and Fighting needs to be developed.

.

 

Quote:One has basis in science the other does not. It's the attempting to call it a religion as an insult which is humorous (and very telling of how they view there own structures).

 

One CLAIMS to have a basis in science. A scientific theory requires predictions that can be falsified. When you falsify the predictions of a religion, they just vaguely adjust the religion so that it includes the observations. This is exactly what CliSci is doing.


 

No warming? No problem. It needs to be for at least 10, er 15, er 17, er 25 years before our theory is wrong. Or it's hidden in the deep ocean (miraculously bypassing the top layers) and ignoring that if the deep ocean can absorb the warming there's no problem. Or it's because of Chinese aerosols. Or we'll just make another adjustment to the data and voila! "see it's still warming." How is this any different than getting all of your followers to give you their worldly possession and wait in a field for the rapture, and when there's no rapture claiming a slight miscalculation, "but it'll happen next year?"


 

How is this science? Because those who expound this call themselves scientists and give each other PhDs?


 

And while several of the skeptics here are religious, I have yet to see an argument against Global Warming based on religion. I'd expect religious people to disagree with other religions. That's hardly hypocritical, or however you see it as being humorous.


 

 

Quote:Every one of those arguments applies to science deniers of all topics. 

 

Wrong! None of those arguments apply to skeptics of catastrophic global warming. Where have skeptics demanded that everyone make sacrifices? Where have skeptics limited the argument to a chosen few?
 Skeptics have always asked for the chance to debate. The believers refuse because they haven't won these debates in the past. Skeptics accept raw data, they don't adjust it to fit their beliefs.

Quote:.


One CLAIMS to have a basis in science. A scientific theory requires predictions that can be falsified. When you falsify the predictions of a religion, they just vaguely adjust the religion so that it includes the observations. This is exactly what CliSci is doing.


No warming? No problem. It needs to be for at least <del>10</del>, er <del>15</del>, er <del>17</del>, er 25 years before our theory is wrong. Or it's hidden in the deep ocean (miraculously bypassing the top layers) and ignoring that if the deep ocean can absorb the warming there's no problem. Or it's because of Chinese aerosols. Or we'll just make another adjustment to the data and voila! "see it's still warming." How is this any different than getting all of your followers to give you their worldly possession and wait in a field for the rapture, and when there's no rapture claiming a slight miscalculation, "but it'll happen next year?"


How is this science? Because those who expound this call themselves scientists and give each other PhDs?


And while several of the skeptics here are religious, I have yet to see an argument against Global Warming based on religion. I'd expect religious people to disagree with other religions. That's hardly hypocritical, or however you see it as being humorous.




Wrong! None of those arguments apply to skeptics of catastrophic global warming. Where have skeptics demanded that everyone make sacrifices? Where have skeptics limited the argument to a chosen few?
Skeptics have always asked for the chance to debate. The believers refuse because they haven't won these debates in the past. Skeptics accept raw data, they don't adjust it to fit their beliefs.

Yes yes and evolution only claims to have basis in science. This has been the deniers stance about nearly ever position science has taken that people don't want to believe or accept. It's fine. People come around.



Does just saying something is wrong really work in your circle? Clearly everyone of those applies. You don't see because dum dum dummmm you are blinded by your "beliefs". I'm shocked you didn't just reply with insults like you did with my previous legitimate question about security. That's the difference between you guys and the science community. When they get questioned they just research more. When you guys get questioned or shown your own hypocrisy which you blindly ignore you scream insults and WRONG!!! As if this somehow proves a point anywhere but inside your own sounding bubble.


I'm going to check out of this cesspool and let you two go back to slinging insults at each other. Clearly that works for you.

Quote:Yes yes and evolution only claims to have basis in science. This has been the deniers stance about nearly ever position science has taken that people don't want to believe or accept. It's fine. People come around.

 

This thread has nothing to do with evolution.



Clearly everyone of those applies.

 

And yet you don't cite a single example.



I'm going to check out of this cesspool and let you two go back to slinging insults at each other. Clearly that works for you.

 

Good for you. Can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Quote:.

 


 
One CLAIMS to have a basis in science. A scientific theory requires predictions that can be falsified. When you falsify the predictions of a religion, they just vaguely adjust the religion so that it includes the observations. This is exactly what CliSci is doing.


 
No warming? No problem. It needs to be for at least <del>10</del>, er <del>15</del>, er <del>17</del>, er 25 years before our theory is wrong. Or it's hidden in the deep ocean (miraculously bypassing the top layers) and ignoring that if the deep ocean can absorb the warming there's no problem. Or it's because of Chinese aerosols. Or we'll just make another adjustment to the data and voila! "see it's still warming." How is this any different than getting all of your followers to give you their worldly possession and wait in a field for the rapture, and when there's no rapture claiming a slight miscalculation, "but it'll happen next year?"


 
How is this science? Because those who expound this call themselves scientists and give each other PhDs?


 
And while several of the skeptics here are religious, I have yet to see an argument against Global Warming based on religion. I'd expect religious people to disagree with other religions. That's hardly hypocritical, or however you see it as being humorous.


 

 


 
Wrong! None of those arguments apply to skeptics of catastrophic global warming. Where have skeptics demanded that everyone make sacrifices? Where have skeptics limited the argument to a chosen few?
 Skeptics have always asked for the chance to debate. The believers refuse because they haven't won these debates in the past. Skeptics accept raw data, they don't adjust it to fit their beliefs.

There are no legitimate skeptics of anthroporphic climate change. Blogs don't count. You've lost that argument, friend. Take solace in the fact that your politicians are winning the PR battle. That's what counts.

Quote:There are no legitimate skeptics of anthroporphic climate change. Blogs don't count. You've lost that argument, friend. Take solace in the fact that your politicians are winning the PR battle. That's what counts.

 

Another appeal to authority. Thanks!


 

May the gifts you deliver toward proving me right never end.

Quote:Another appeal to authority. Thanks!


May the gifts you deliver toward proving me right never end.

Mm hmm. Just so you know, an appeal to authority is only a fallacy if the authority is illegitimate.

Progressive stuff this


http://www.sciencealert.com/the-netherla...em-by-2018


Very impressive. America should take notice.

"Frankenvirus"


http://www.afp.com/en/news/frankenvirus-...-wasteland


Pretty sure they made an x-files about this.

Quote:Progressive stuff this

http://www.sciencealert.com/the-netherla...em-by-2018


Very impressive. America should take notice.

 

1. And when the wind stops blowing the trains stop running? "I'm sorry Bjorn, but we'll have a four day delay until the wind picks up. Just sit tight." The real joke is that nuclear power is cheaper, stable 24/7/365, generates no CO2, and has a lower incidental CO2 output (think service vehicles) than wind. Yet that far better option is off the table. It's not like Denmark is lacking in water access for cooling, or that it suffers from 
tsunamis.

 

2. Denmark has the highest electricity cost in the world. I
f we were to emulate Denmark's power generation in the US, most of our poor would have to give up their cell phones and cable TV in order to pay their electric bills.

Quote:2. Denmark has the highest electricity cost in the world. If we were to emulate Denmark's power generation in the US, most of our poor would have to give up their cell phones and cable TV in order to pay their electric bills.

 

It does not matter, we must have blood for the blood god. Their happiness will be a satisfactory sacrifice.

Quote:It does not matter, we must have blood for the blood god. Their happiness will be a satisfactory sacrifice.

Quote:

 

I know, it's hard for you when your faith is called out for what it is.

Oof...this one stings.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energ...nge-means/


“In a stationary climate, a climate where we don’t have any trend or long-term change, we expect hot and cold records to be broken at almost the same rate,” explains Sophie Lewis, the lead study author and a researcher at the Australian National University in Canberra. “But in the last 15 years, we see a dramatic increase in the frequency of hot records and the decrease of cold records.”


...


Sure enough, the study found that from 1910 to 1960, the ratio of hot to cold records was close to 1 to 1. From 1960 to 2014, however, that changed, as hot records started to happen much more frequently than cold records — and from 2000 to 2014, outnumbered them by more than 12 to 1.



This is becoming all too real.

This one is kind of interesting.

 


Arctic Has Gained Hundreds Of Miles Of Ice The Last Three Years

Quote:Oof...this one stings.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energ...nge-means/


“In a stationary climate, a climate where we don’t have any trend or long-term change, we expect hot and cold records to be broken at almost the same rate,” explains Sophie Lewis, the lead study author and a researcher at the Australian National University in Canberra. “But in the last 15 years, we see a dramatic increase in the frequency of hot records and the decrease of cold records.”


...


Sure enough, the study found that from 1910 to 1960, the ratio of hot to cold records was close to 1 to 1. From 1960 to 2014, however, that changed, as hot records started to happen much more frequently than cold records — and from 2000 to 2014, outnumbered them by more than 12 to 1.



This is becoming all too real.

 

The so-called study is looking at local records. As the population increases and more and more people add more and more asphalt and more and more AC, only an idiot would expect the number of cold records to keep up. This proves nothing as far as the global temperature is concerned, this is local urban heating and microclimate. If you install an air conditioner near a thermometer, the heat from the outside exchanger will make the thermometer readings higher in the summer. If you pave over a nearby grassy area the thermometer will read higher at night. There is no comparable cause for locally cooling the thermometer readings other than a few rare cases where pavement has been dug up and replaced by grass.


 

The number of US state cold records broken since 1990 is greater than the number of hot records broken, and the total number is less than expected for a 25 year period so there's no indication of an increase in extremes either. State records are not as easily affected by local changes since population centers are rarely in the warmest or coldest parts of the state.

 

Quote:The so-called study is looking at local records. As the population increases and more and more people add more and more asphalt and more and more AC, only an idiot would expect the number of cold records to keep up. This proves nothing as far as the global temperature is concerned, this is local urban heating and microclimate. If you install an air conditioner near a thermometer, the heat from the outside exchanger will make the thermometer readings higher in the summer. If you pave over a nearby grassy area the thermometer will read higher at night. There is no comparable cause for locally cooling the thermometer readings other than a few rare cases where pavement has been dug up and replaced by grass.



The number of US state cold records broken since 1990 is greater than the number of hot records broken, and the total number is less than expected for a 25 year period so there's no indication of an increase in extremes either. State records are not as easily affected by local changes since population centers are rarely in the warmest or coldest parts of the state.

Oh, hi Malabarjag. Fancy seeing you here. Your first paragraph is complete bunk. I'd be interested in seeing some citation for the second, then we can talk about it.

Quote:Oh, hi Malabarjag. Fancy seeing you here. Your first paragraph is complete bunk. I'd be interested in seeing some citation for the second, then we can talk about it.

 

1) Thanks for another well thought out response from you.


 
2) Here's a link. While wiki is generally not good for controversial topics, the US state records aren't controversial. The data here agrees with other sources, and is more compact and easier to read. If you don't like wiki there are plenty of other sources, just google "US state record temperatures."


 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state...e_extremes
 
I was wrong about there being more cold records, an additional hot record I hadn't seen since the last time I looked at this data has balanced them out. Since 1990 there have been 8 record highs and 8 record lows, only two each since 2000. That 25 year period is roughly 18% of the period since 1885 which is the year of the earliest record, meaning one should on average expect 9 record highs and 9 record lows in that period. So recent weather hasn't been extreme, at least temperature-wise, compared to the past. It also hasn't had an excess number of high records compared to low records, as would be expected during a warm period in history.


 
Looking closer at the dates one can see four separate heat events (five states set records from one hot spell in June 1994) and five separe cold events (three states in Jan. 1994, two in Feb. 1996). No meaningful difference there either.


 
 So much for global warming or extreme weather in the US.


 
And before someone points out that the US is only 3% of the globe, it is 1) PART of the globe so if the warming is global it should show up here too, and 2) the US has a significant percentage of the world's long-term (since 1900) thermometer readings. There are no thermometers in the 70% of the world that comprises the ocean, and nothing until recently in most of Africa, or South America. Not a lot of measurements in Antarctica either.

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/09...dents.html


Way to go Alabama! Who would have thought.

Letter from the governor of California to dr Ben Carson, republican presidential candidate