Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

I've been voting 3rd party since the republicans took both sides of the isle in 1994.  As soon as they completed the contract with America they turned into tax and spend democrats.  It was then that I realized both major parties are two sides of the same coin.  

Quote:Mans effect on the climate in minimal IMO

 

Well that is one mans opinion.  I hope you are right, but no matter how we view climate change, we are (either forced or on our own) going to have to change how we produce energy.  

Quote:No, but it shows that climate can change without human intervention. The mere fact that it is slightly warmer now than it was in 1979 (the first year with actual GLOBAL measurements) is not proof that manmade CO2 has any effect on the climate. Physics predicts an effect, but that's in the laboratory. There are numerous confounding factors in nature. The fact that the global temperature hasn't changed since 2000 proves that other effects are at least as strong as CO2 in determining global temperature.

 

Well not exactly - http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/...mate-data/

Quote:Well not exactly - http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/...mate-data/

 

The cherry-pick claim is a flat our lie. No surprise that it comes from the guy who illegally accessed Heartland E-mails and then made up a fake document when he didn't find anything in the real E-mails showing what he wanted. Thanks for the link showing how a Warmist obviously lies to make his point when the actual data don't support his claim.


One does not have to cherry pick data, one simply has to start with the latest global temperature measurement (the present) and then go backwards in time as far as possible without a warming trend. This is then the period of no-warming. There is no cherry-picked start date in this method. When you do that you get values from about 9 to 18.5 years without warming, depending on the data set. The two data sets with the longest period of non-warming are the satellite measurements, which are the only truly global measurements. Funny how the article you linked to conveniently failed to reference the satellite measurements.

Quote:The cherry-pick claim is a flat our lie. No surprise that it comes from the guy who illegally accessed Heartland E-mails and then made up a fake document when he didn't find anything in the real E-mails showing what he wanted. Thanks for the link showing how a Warmist obviously lies to make his point when the actual data don't support his claim.


One does not have to cherry pick data, one simply has to start with the latest global temperature measurement (the present) and then go backwards in time as far as possible without a warming trend. This is then the period of no-warming. There is no cherry-picked start date in this method. When you do that you get values from about 9 to 18.5 years without warming, depending on the data set. The two data sets with the longest period of non-warming are the satellite measurements, which are the only truly global measurements. Funny how the article you linked to conveniently failed to reference the satellite measurements.

Fair enough. So do we not think the amount of pollution we add as humans impacts climate?

Quote:Fair enough. So do we not think the amount of pollution we add as humans impacts climate?

 

I impact climate just by having a body temperature higher than the outside air. I raise the sea level every time I take a swim in the ocean. The question is how much impact. My point is that the actual measurements prove that the effect of CO2 isn't any stronger than the sum of all other factors. It could possibly be much lower, but 'the pause' shows it can't possibly be higher. I personally believe that CO2 has some measurable effect on global temperatures. But there is still no scientific proof that my belief is true.


The uncertainty among scientists is much higher than (say) The Guardian makes it out to be, and the range of expectations as to what will happen varies from good to very bad. The press likes to print predictions of very bad, it makes for better headlines. Future climate disaster is more likely to come from the next glaciation than from any warming. The biosphere likes CO2, and it likes warm.

Quote:The uncertainty among scientists is much higher than (say) The Guardian makes it out to be

 

No it isn't. There is very little uncertainty.

Quote:No it isn't. There is very little uncertainty.

Yeah, I think the level of which we impact the environment is disagreed, but most scientist seem pretty concerned about what we are doing to the environment. I think people drawing lines in the sand just sounds political to me. I think they are still studying it so people on both sides should keep an open mind.

Quote:No it isn't. There is very little uncertainty.

 

Actually, the methodology used to achieve scientific "consensus" is well known to have been faulty and based more on John Kerry's statement about "97%" than any actual facts.

Quote:Actually, the methodology used to achieve scientific "consensus" is well known to have been faulty and based more on John Kerry's statement about "97%" than any actual facts.

Yes, I think most have seen that. Still the consensus amongst scientists is man made global warming is real.

Quote:Yes, I think most have seen that. Still the consensus amongst scientists is man made global warming is real.

 

Yeah... but what do scientists know compared to the knowledge of Jaguars MB members?

Quote:Yes, I think most have seen that. Still the consensus amongst scientists is man made global warming is real.

 

I agree that man made global warming is real. About half of it is warming made up by man.