Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:2015 is the warmest year on record. Again. So it goes.

Well yeah, when you keep adjusting the past downward after the fact that tends to happen.

Quote:2015 is the warmest year on record. Again. So it goes.

 

Not in either of the records that are actually global.

Quote:I'm not going to sit here and debate (again) the idea of <del>global warming</del> climate change. The "science" involved will support either side of the debate. What gets me more is that this whole <del>global warming</del> climate change crap has made it's way into the DoD.

Actually it only supports one side.

Quote:Actually it only supports one side.

 

Yes, but the UN is firmly lined up on the other side.

Quote:Not in either of the records that are actually global.

Lol you guys are like roaches.

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.sciencealert.com/2015-was-officially-the-hottest-year-on-record-says-nasa-and-noaa'>http://www.sciencealert.com/2015-was-officially-the-hottest-year-on-record-says-nasa-and-noaa</a>


Yea it is. 2016 will break the record again. You'll deny that too. So it goes.

Quote:Lol you guys are like roaches.

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.sciencealert.com/2015-was-officially-the-hottest-year-on-record-says-nasa-and-noaa'>http://www.sciencealert.com/2015-was-officially-the-hottest-year-on-record-says-nasa-and-noaa</a>


Yea it is. 2016 will break the record again. You'll deny that too. So it goes.

 

What was the temperature in 1974? Because it's been changed about 3 times in the last year, and always, ALWAYS the direction that makes today look worse than it is. Almost like it's planned that way.

Quote:What was the temperature in 1974? Because it's been changed about 3 times in the last year, and always, ALWAYS the direction that makes today look worse than it is. Almost like it's planned that way.

Do you under the concept of average global temperatures?

Quote:Do you under the concept of average global temperatures?

 

No, I over them.

Here. Yes, it's a blog. Yes, it's still accurate.

 

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/claim-2015-was...kx5ry:0AYE

Quote:Here. Yes, it's a blog. Yes, it's still accurate.

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.mrctv.org/blog/claim-2015-was-hottest-year-ever-bogus#.gxkx5ry:0AYE'>http://www.mrctv.org/blog/claim-2015-was-hottest-year-ever-bogus#.gxkx5ry:0AYE</a>

A blog? Why not Nature, PloSOne, NCBI, JSTOR, IPCC, Science, etc etc? I can't take a blog seriously.

Quote:A blog? Why not Nature, PloSOne, NCBI, JSTOR, IPCC, Science, etc etc? I can't take a blog seriously.

 

I know, but they presented the issue clearly using small words. I thought that might help you.

Quote:I know, but they presented the issue clearly using small words. I thought that might help you.

I'm a scientist that studies this stuff. I think you might be the one that needs the small words buddy.

Quote:I'm a scientist that studies this stuff. I think you might be the one that needs the small words buddy.

 

lol.

Quote:lol.

Not sure what's so funny. I have a Bachelors of Science and MS in Environmental Sciences. I'm currently working on a PhD in Environmental Health Sciences and specialize in Microbial Ecology, Microbial Genomics, Environmental Microbiology and Biotechnology.

Good for you.

Apparently reading blogs and having an extreme political view trumps science. Science tends to kill a few of their beliefs...

Quote:Apparently reading blogs and having an extreme political view trumps science. Science tends to kill a few of their beliefs...

 

That explains the Left's support of the Global Warming scam.

Quote:That explains the Left's support of the Global Warming scam.

What are you on about. Science shouldn't be about political opinion. Let's say the science is wrong, isn't using renewables better than using up finite resources anyway?

Quote:What are you on about. Science shouldn't be about political opinion. Let's say the science is wrong, isn't using renewables better than using up finite resources anyway?

What should be is irrelevant, science is a political tool used to gain wealth and power.


And renewables are valid for the right price point, just like fracking our anything else.

Quote:What are you on about. Science shouldn't be about political opinion. Let's say the science is wrong, isn't using renewables better than using up finite resources anyway?

 

What do you mean by "renewables?"


 

Solar and wind are very bad for the environment. Home rooftop solar is marginally useful, especially if stored using a battery array, but trying to use wind and solar to feed the electrical grid is wasteful. Because they are intermittent sources they need to be backed up by other power plants on standby, so the savings in finite resources is minimal. Until we have a major breakthrough in storage technology (e.g. batteries) it's stupid to push for wind and solar, and wind still has the problem of killing endangered birds and bats.


 

Hydro power is useful, but pretty much every place it can be used it already is, so there's not a lot of growth potential there.


 

Corn ethanol production requires the use of fossil fuels, so much that it's nearly useless in reducing their use, and raises the price of food to boot, which disproportionately hurts the poor (as does more expensive electricity from wind and solar). Speaking of regressive policies, r
ight now tax dollars are subsidizing electric cars, which only the rich can afford.

 
I'm not opposed to the government investing in research in renewables and other advances that enable them. I prefer the X-prize method, where the government offers a huge prize to the developer of a wanted technological advance; that way it only costs the taxpayer if successful. I am opposed to using force to require or subsidize the use of technologies that have not been fully developed.


 

 

There's no need to push inefficient technologies today. There's plenty of time. We have sufficient fossil fuels for hundreds of years. Think of how much technology has progressed since 1816.