Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:How is making fun of your stupid petition a personal attack?

 

 

Quote:Lol you did not just bring up the thoroughly debunked Oregon petition signed online by 'scientists' like Mickey MouseYou really are a loon
.

Quote:I haven't found anyone who denies that the climate changes. Do you have any examples of statements by people who deny that the climate changes?

But that's the thing isn't it? I recall recently, during the Bush years, many people scoffing at climate change. Heck, everytime it snowed, Fox news would bang the climate change denial. Laughing and saying, where's your global warming now???


As time goes on, they have had to change the rhetoric... now it's not, there is no climate change, it's we can't confirm its caused by man... eventually they will drop the topic altogether. Pretending they were never wrong

Quote:But that's the thing isn't it? I recall recently, during the Bush years, many people scoffing at climate change. Heck, everytime it snowed, Fox news would bang the climate change denial. Laughing and saying, where's your global warming now???

As time goes on, they have had to change the rhetoric... now it's not, there is no climate change, it's we can't confirm its caused by man... eventually they will drop the topic altogether. Pretending they were never wrong

Even you have to admit that it was pretty funny that every time Fat Albert dropped the G5 at a Global Warming conference that city would get hit with record snowfall. It was so obvious that God hates Al and his message that they had to rename the movement to its current label because, as you said, it made it too easy for us non - believing heretics to dis the High Priest.

Quote:Even you have to admit that it was pretty funny that every time Fat Albert dropped the G5 at a Global Warming conference that city would get hit with record snowfall. It was so obvious that God hates Al and his message that they had to rename the movement to its current label because, as you said, it made it too easy for us non - believing heretics to dis the High Priest.

Exactly. Just how God sent Hurricane Katrina to New Orleans. Cause that's how the world works.

For the people saying it's 100% not settled: Okay.  Fair enough.  It's not.  But you can't really say that, and then not be open to the possibility that climate change is being caused by humans.  It's fine to be skeptical.  Most of us aren't scientists.  It's another to be an outright denier. The fact that it's not settled means that you can't just accept one outcome, and then proclaim that the other side is wrong/lying/a hoax.


And of course people who do think climate change is being caused by humans have to deal with the people who make ridiculous arguments that aren't based on science at all.  They make stupid arguments like "It's cold outside today!"  and "It's snowing!"  It'd be like saying "You know, World Hunger is solved.  I had a burrito for lunch."  


The fact that it's not settled yet means that you can't dismiss the possibility of it happening.  It's okay to have questions and concerns.  It's not okay to dismiss 97% of the climate change scientists because of partisan politics.  People like to dismiss climate science as similar to astrology, but that's pretty far from the truth.  Even a non-scientist should be able to understand the difference between the two.  Weatherforecasting is much more accurate than most people would like to admit, and there's a major difference between climate and weather (which some deniers will never get drilled through their heads)  


The real problem is that the so-called skeptics/deniers are basically deciding that it's settled, and then saying it's not settled.  They aren't open to the idea that these scientists could be right.  And before someone says "Well, the climate change people aren't open to the idea that it's not happening" the problem is that most of the time we aren't arguing with skeptics who agree on scientific principles and who don't outright dismiss everything they say.  


If you're not willing to admit that there's a good chance humans are causing global warming, then you're not a skeptic.  You're a denier.  And you can't really say "Well it's not really settled" to back your claim, because you're assuming it's not settled on the right side yet (which is YOUR side according to you).  You've made the conclusion that your side is right, the other side is wrong.  

Quote:For the people saying it's 100% not settled: Okay.  Fair enough.  It's not.  But you can't really say that, and then not be open to the possibility that climate change is being caused by humans.  It's fine to be skeptical.  Most of us aren't scientists.  It's another to be an outright denier. The fact that it's not settled means that you can't just accept one outcome, and then proclaim that the other side is wrong/lying/a hoax.


And of course people who do think climate change is being caused by humans have to deal with the people who make ridiculous arguments that aren't based on science at all.  They make stupid arguments like "It's cold outside today!"  and "It's snowing!"  It'd be like saying "You know, World Hunger is solved.  I had a burrito for lunch."  

The fact that it's not settled yet means that you can't dismiss the possibility of it happening.  It's okay to have questions and concerns.  It's not okay to dismiss 97% of the climate change scientists because of partisan politics.  People like to dismiss climate science as similar to astrology, but that's pretty far from the truth.  Even a non-scientist should be able to understand the difference between the two.  Weatherforecasting is much more accurate than most people would like to admit, and there's a major difference between climate and weather (which some deniers will never get drilled through their heads)  

The real problem is that the so-called skeptics/deniers are basically deciding that it's settled, and then saying it's not settled.  They aren't open to the idea that these scientists could be right.  And before someone says "Well, the climate change people aren't open to the idea that it's not happening" the problem is that most of the time we aren't arguing with skeptics who agree on scientific principles and who don't outright dismiss everything they say.  

If you're not willing to admit that there's a good chance humans are causing global warming, then you're not a skeptic.  You're a denier.  And you can't really say "Well it's not really settled" to back your claim, because you're assuming it's not settled on the right side yet (which is YOUR side according to you).  You've made the conclusion that your side is right, the other side is wrong.

It's that and this:

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/05/27/3662739/climate-change-echo-chambers/'>http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/05/27/3662739/climate-change-echo-chambers/</a>

Can we agree that most of the worlds problems, issues, etc are man made? Rivers and lakes that stink. Air that stinks and in some areas harmful. Now...do these issues factor into some sort of domino effect, which could alter other things? It sure altered the foods we eat. Water we drink. Air we breathe. So, what is the harm in trying to reduce these causes?

As far as the "man made" debate? Man has proven to screw up plenty, and when it comes to the ultimate root cause? Its the almighty dollar. Point being, the uber powerful and rich, whose fortunes come from say, manufacturing, imports,oil,etc will of course want deniers out there. It affects the bottom line. So money is pumped into the bull crap barometer, and putting out the hoax factor. 

And THAT is the bottom line...cuz Stone Cold said so!!!

Quote:Can we agree that most of the worlds problems, issues, etc are man made? Rivers and lakes that stink. Air that stinks and in some areas harmful. Now...do these issues factor into some sort of domino effect, which could alter other things? It sure altered the foods we eat. Water we drink. Air we breathe. So, what is the harm in trying to reduce these causes?

As far as the "man made" debate? Man has proven to screw up plenty, and when it comes to the ultimate root cause? Its the almighty dollar. Point being, the uber powerful and rich, whose fortunes come from say, manufacturing, imports,oil,etc will of course want deniers out there. It affects the bottom line. So money is pumped into the bull crap barometer, and putting out the hoax factor. 

And THAT is the bottom line...cuz Stone Cold said so!!!

Agreed. I'd like to add that whether we are the cause of the change in the climate or even a small part of it, we are definitely the cause of dirty air and water as you have said. There are things we can do to fix those are at least greatly improve on them that over time will have a real and lasting effect. It's possible a side effect could be a an improvement in the overall climate as suitable to all life. It's also possible there will be no impact other than directly effecting the air we breathe or the water we drink thus effecting the food we eat. These are real and tangible things we can and, IMO, ought do if for no other reason than we can. 

Quote:Agreed. I'd like to add that whether we are the cause of the change in the climate or even a small part of it, we are definitely the cause of dirty air and water as you have said. There are things we can do to fix those are at least greatly improve on them that over time will have a real and lasting effect. It's possible a side effect could be a an improvement in the overall climate as suitable to all life. It's also possible there will be no impact other than directly effecting the air we breathe or the water we drink thus effecting the food we eat. These are real and tangible things we can and, IMO, ought do if for no other reason than we can. 

 

Equating climate change to real pollution is a strawman made by the Warmists. There are a lot of real, proven problems that need to be addressed. Many have been, and air and water in the US is significantly cleaner than it was circa 1970, while some, especially agricultural runoff in the Mississippi and elsewhere, still need to be addressed.

Quote:But that's the thing isn't it? I recall recently, during the Bush years, many people scoffing at climate change. Heck, everytime it snowed, Fox news would bang the climate change denial. Laughing and saying, where's your global warming now???


As time goes on, they have had to change the rhetoric... now it's not, there is no climate change, it's we can't confirm its caused by man... eventually they will drop the topic altogether. Pretending they were never wrong

 

First off, they were scoffing at catastrophic global warming, not 'climate change.'


 

Secondly, when you get an article (quoting Dr. David Viner) that says that snowfall is just a thing of the past, then ANY snowfall refutes the statement. It would only take ONE object definitively known to be moving faster than the speed of light to invalidate relativity. Pointing to 100 cases of warm weather does not prove a theory, but pointing to one case of weather that was predicted to not happen proves it wrong.


 

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment...24017.html

Quote:It's not okay to dismiss 97% of the climate change scientists because of partisan politics. 

 

Do 97% of them agree the Earth is round? Do 97% of them agree that broccoli tastes horrible? Well, duh!

 

Please tell us exactly what statement was made that "97% of the climate change scientists" agree to that the skeptics don't.

Quote:Equating climate change to real pollution is a strawman made by the Warmists. There are a lot of real, proven problems that need to be addressed. Many have been, and air and water in the US is significantly cleaner than it was circa 1970, while some, especially agricultural runoff in the Mississippi and elsewhere, still need to be addressed.

I'm not sure if I made the connection as much as said it's possible or possibly not. I was just saying if it is then cool we might be doing something but if it is not I don't think that's a good reason to ignore the problems we can address.

Quote:I'm not sure if I made the connection as much as said it's possible or possibly not. I was just saying if it is then cool we might be doing something but if it is not I don't think that's a good reason to ignore the problems we can address.

 

Sorry, I should have made it clear I was not referring to you.

Quote:Do 97% of them agree the Earth is round? Do 97% of them agree that broccoli tastes horrible? Well, duh!

Please tell us exactly what statement was made that "97% of the climate change scientists" agree to that the skeptics don't.

I don't know why I have to keep posting this. This is literally the third time.

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/'>http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/</a>


That's from NASA. You know, the guys that put a guy on the moon via (gasp) science. But don't trust them. They are evil. Obviously. They use science.

Quote:I don't know why I have to keep posting this. This is literally the third time.

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/'>http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/</a>


That's from NASA. You know, the guys that put a guy on the moon via (gasp) science. But don't trust them. They are evil. Obviously. They use science.

 

They haven't put a guy (or gal) on the moon since they took up CliSci. They can't even (gasp) put a person into orbit any more. Besides, you stated that Gavin Schmidt wasn't a real scientist.


 

The money quote from your link is:


 

"Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities."

 

But that is not what the 97% were found to agree on in the papers that were cited. So try again.

 

Since the list also includes some scientific societies that subscribe to Global Warming, let me add the list of those societies that polled their members on this topic:

 

 

.

Quote:Exactly. Just how God sent Hurricane Katrina to New Orleans. Cause that's how the world works.

 

Quote:Exactly. Just how God sent Hurricane Katrina to New Orleans. Cause that's how the world works.

 

God reduced Katrina from a cat 5 to a cat 3 before it hit New Orleans. I'd say that was a good thing. New Orleans survived the initial hit. The levee's broke the next day and flooded the city 
because of government corruption diverting maintenance funds. The left blames Bush, the right blames mayor Nagin. Neither was at fault, the fault lies with the local bureaucracy.

 

To get back to the original topic, it has gotten cold and snowy so many times where Al Gore held conferences that it has been given a name.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gore_Effect

 

Of course it's all just coincidence, but it's funny.

Quote:They haven't put a guy (or gal) on the moon since they took up CliSci. They can't even (gasp) put a person into orbit any more. Besides, you stated that Gavin Schmidt wasn't a real scientist.


The money quote from your link is:


"Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities."


But that is not what the 97% were found to agree on in the papers that were cited. So try again.

Since the list also includes some scientific societies that subscribe to Global Warming, let me add the list of those societies that polled their members on this topic:


.

I don't need to "try again." You need to open your mind up to the possibility that politicians are lying.


You know that old joke about how you can tell if a lawyer is lying? His lips are moving.


When did America become so gullible that they take what POLITICIANS (career liars) say at face value despite mountains of evidence at odds with their position?


When did it make more sense to believe a guy who is just talking (paid to no less) over someone published (merit-based)?

Quote:I don't know why I have to keep posting this. This is literally the third time.

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/'>http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/</a>


That's from NASA. You know, the guys that put a guy on the moon via (gasp) science. But don't trust them. They are evil. Obviously. They use science.

 

Looking at the list of "societies", "associations" and "unions" it would be interesting to "follow the money".  I would wager that at least half of these groups are pretty much liberal "think" tanks that siphon money from the American people.  I wonder how many of those groups actually "fudge" their data in order to keep the money flowing?

 

Also, I'm not exactly clear on why NASA (National Aeronautical and Space Administration) would even be involved in global warming climate change.  I suspect that the answer lies with my first statement.  Follow the money.  Rather than research and develop means to explore Space, they are now tasked to "research" global warming climate change.

Quote:God reduced Katrina from a cat 5 to a cat 3 before it hit New Orleans. I'd say that was a good thing. New Orleans survived the initial hit. The levee's broke the next day and flooded the city 
because of government corruption diverting maintenance funds. The left blames Bush, the right blames mayor Nagin. Neither was at fault, the fault lies with the local bureaucracy.

 

To get back to the original topic, it has gotten cold and snowy so many times where Al Gore held conferences that it has been given a name.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gore_Effect

 

Of course it's all just coincidence, but it's funny.

 

I agree, it is quite humorous.  To think that this loon (Al Gore) could have been the U.S. President is alarming.  The guy is probably second on the list (behind the Clintons) as being the most all time corrupt politicians.