Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:Mm hmm.


This is just a reminder that there is a reality to deal with too:

<a class="bbc_url" href='https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming'>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming</a>

 

The reality of false data? Of intentional misrepresentation of factual data? The willful misdirection of investigations of conclusions and methodologies?

 

How about those realities?

 

Nah, we all gonna die.

Quote:The reality of false data? Of intentional misrepresentation of factual data? The willful misdirection of investigations of conclusions and methodologies?


How about those realities?


Nah, we all gonna die.

Oh, is that what's happening? You should clue the rest of us in and update the Wikipedia article then. Just be sure to provide your sources

Quote:Oh, is that what's happening? You should clue the rest of us in and update the Wikipedia article then. Just be sure to provide your sources

 

Like I'd waste my time with Libopedia. 

Quote:Like I'd waste my time with Libopedia.

Indeed, knowledge is most definitely the domain of the left.

Quote:Indeed, knowledge fantasy is most definitely the domain of the left.

 

FTFY.

Quote:FTFY.

Do I really need to run down the laundry list of rightwing fantasies?

Quote:Do I really need to run down the laundry list of rightwing fantasies?

 

1. The Left can be taught the foolishness of their ways.

Quote:I still don't get it. What if you climate change deniers are wrong? What are your motivations to believe the majority of scientists are wrong? What do the likes of Obama gain by believing in climate change? Why does it seem to be a belief held by typically right wing voters? Since when why science political?

Since the advent of a business model basedon grant money from politicians.

Breaking records, baby!


http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2...re-records

Copy... And paste

Don't put yo' time to waste!

Quote:Breaking records, baby!

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2...re-records

 

http://m.smh.com.au/environment/climate-...ovfq7.html


Beyond the threshold. And this article has pictures, btw.

Quote:<a class="bbc_url" href='http://m.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/confirmed-southern-hemisphere-co2-level-rises-above-symbolic-400-ppm-milestone-20160515-govfq7.html'>http://m.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/confirmed-southern-hemisphere-co2-level-rises-above-symbolic-400-ppm-milestone-20160515-govfq7.html</a>


Beyond the threshold. And this article has pictures, btw.

This is my "mostly symbolic" concern.

I'll just leave this here.

 

Interesting quote from the piece.

Quote: 

Practically everything you have been told by the mainstream scientific community and the media about the alleged detriments of greenhouse gases, and particularly carbon dioxide, appears to be false, according to new data compiled by NASA's Langley Research Center. As it turns out, all those atmospheric greenhouse gases that Al Gore and all the other global warming hoaxers have long claimed are overheating and destroying our planet are actually cooling it, based on the latest evidence.

Quote:2 + 2 will always equal 4 regardless of the political affiliation of the mathematician. Logic works the same way as math. If all men are mortal, and Socrates was a man, it follows that Socrates was mortal. You simply can't challenge that. Science is based on math and logic. It doesn't care how you vote.


So, no, the science does not support both positions, that is literally impossible.


Also, the science is extremely easy to understand; I can explain it to you if you like.

Conservatives don't understand science.

Between 1998 and 2012, climate scientists observed a slowdown in the rate at which the Earth's surface air temperature was rising. While the rise in global mean surface air temperature has continued, between 1998 and 2012 the increase was approximately one third of that from 1951 to 2012.


This trend — referred to as a "global warming hiatus" — has sparked a lot of debate and given rise to a reasonable question: Is global warming coming to a halt?


According to Norman Loeb, an atmospheric scientist at NASA's Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia, and the principal investigator of a space-borne sensor called the Clouds and Earth's Radiant Energy System, or CERES, the answer is almost certainly no.


"Heating is still going on," he said. "It's just not in terms of the surface air temperature."


Loeb explained the science behind that statement Tuesday, Aug. 5, during a talk at NASA Langley titled "The Recent Pause in Global Warming: A Temporary Blip or Something More Permanent?"


Though Loeb believes there are a handful of short-term factors that drive changes in surface air temperature, like the El Niño and La Niña phenomena that cause temperature fluctuations in the tropical eastern Pacific approximately every two years, he thinks there is a longer term factor that is a significant and overlooked contributor.


....


In other words, as humans and nature continue to apply pressure to the Earth's climate through increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, temperatures are still rising. But as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation briefly tames temperatures at the planet's surface, the oceans are where the real heating is happening.


"If you add extra heat to the Earth system, approximately 93 percent of that extra heat ends up stored in the ocean, and the ocean is very deep," Loeb said. "When we look at air temperature, we are just looking at the surface. There's a whole deep ocean where heat can be stored."


http://climate.nasa.gov/news/1141/

Quote:<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.naturalnews.com/040448_solar_radiation_global_warming_debunked.html'>I'll just leave this here.</a>


Interesting quote from the piece.

Conservative mouth piece that has taken data from NASA's Langley Center out of context. Where is your other "evidence"?

Quote:Conservative mouth piece that has taken data from NASA's Langley Center out of context. Where is your other "evidence"?

Roflmao

Quote:Roflmao

Hey, you tried.

Quote:Since the advent of a business model basedon grant money from politicians.

What the hell are you talking about? When we (yes I am a scientist) write grants we are applying for federal tax payer funded dollars. There are tons of grants that get funded that don't necessarily align with certain special interest, even when their puppets have the greater degree of political influence. Big tobacco and Big Pharma are two of them. Typically, when Republicans are elected to office funding for grants are cut, and that is mostly a product of conservatives being anti-science. They just can't seem to reconcile the best available science with their religious and economic views.