Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Now back to your regularly scheduled program, "Does Regulation Foster or Strangle Innovation?" starring DF with special guest EricC85.

 

:teehee:

Quote: 

Oh, and by the way, the whole premise of this thread turned out to be crap. Just like seemingly every other Anthropogenic Global Climate Change story.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...right.html

 

FTA:

 

"As a result, GISS’s director Gavin Schmidt has now admitted Nasa thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent."

 

Oops.

 

So essentially your argument is: "Scientists aren't completely sure this last year, which was incredibly hot, is in fact the hottest year on record. Therefor the entire theory supported by millions of scientists is bunk."

Quote:So essentially your argument is: "Scientists aren't completely sure this last year, which was incredibly hot, is in fact the hottest year on record. Therefor the entire theory supported by millions of scientists is bunk."

 

Hey, 100% of alchemists believe they can make gold from lead. Why should "climate scientists" be any different?

 

And again, the "hottest year on record" was well within the margin of error. So they don't KNOW but claim it anyway, because (religion disguised as) SCIENCE!

 

That's the issue, the claim knowledge that's constantly proven false and yet we should all still believe them because of their title. Have you seen the graph that shows the divergence between their faulty computer models and reality? They are so far off we should arrest and try them for malpractice crimes against humanity.

Quote:Hey, 100% of alchemists believe they can make gold from lead. Why should "climate scientists" be any different?

 

And again, the "hottest year on record" was well within the margin of error. So they don't KNOW but claim it anyway, because (religion disguised as) SCIENCE!

 

That's the issue, the claim knowledge that's constantly proven false and yet we should all still believe them because of their title. Have you seen the graph that shows the divergence between their faulty computer models and reality? They are so far off we should arrest and try them for malpractice crimes against humanity.

They couldn't be sure compared to the other hot years which were 2010 & 2005. Perhaps we could distinguish a similarity between the years 2014, 2010 & 2005. Like the fact they all occurred within the last ten years.

 

To disregard the entire theory because we can't be certain 2014 was the hottest is like saying Peyton Manning has had games with a perfect passer rating. His last season his passer rating was 101.5. Clearly he has never been and never will be a Hall of Fame quarterback.

Quote:Hey, 100% of alchemists believe they can make gold from lead. Why should "climate scientists" be any different?


And again, the "hottest year on record" was well within the margin of error. So they don't KNOW but claim it anyway, because (religion disguised as) SCIENCE!


That's the issue, the claim knowledge that's constantly proven false and yet we should all still believe them because of their title. Have you seen the graph that shows the divergence between their faulty computer models and reality? They are so far off we should arrest and try them for malpractice crimes against humanity.

You have an extremely poor handle on the situation. You've been brainwashed--that is not an exaggeration. You can't fault yourself tho as far greater powers than your reasoning ability have conspired to trick you into acting against your own best interest.


To me, it's fascinating on a sociological level that people actually would rather believe a politician (career liar, bought and sold, no data) than a scientist (math, peer-reviewed, published works, science speaks for itself).


Again, the science is simple. If you concede that the greenhouse effect exists (which the existence of actual greenhouses prescribes) and that co2 is a greenhouse gas, that co2 is captured in the atmosphere, then you cannot help but arrive to a singular conclusion. It's a valid argument. The premises are true and the conclusion follows from the premises. You might as well argue that the sky is green if you are going to argue against climate change, it would make as much sense.

There's a difference in acknowledging the climate changes and accepting the political theory of climate change. I think most reasonable people accept the climate is constantly changing, as to why or how and what can be done about is the debate. 

I love the ACC faithful. Worshipping at the altar of Gaia, led by the clergy of academia. Soon we'll be on to the Inquisition and the burning of us blasphemous heretics.

Eric has the gist of it. Man didn't do it, man can't change it, and it's hubris to think otherwise.

Interesting article about the rapid loss of Arctic Ice due to greenhouse emissions. 

 

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2014/07/...rescue-it/

Quote:There's a difference in acknowledging the climate changes and accepting the political theory of climate change. I think most reasonable people accept the climate is constantly changing, as to why or how and what can be done about is the debate. 

 

While I disagree this is even the case, that a certain side of a political party mostly refuses to admit it's even happening, I do think the debate isn't even close to what you describe. It's one side saying it's all our fault we have to do something and the other side saying it's not happening I am not spending money on it.

 

The problem I have with the right's view is more than just their stance on climate change. The right has shown they don't care about the environment at all if it costs even a penny more of their massive profits. Pollution is ok. Toxic waste is ok. Having a regulatory body to stop these things is evil. Anything is fine if it makes businesses more money. They gave zero poops about the future at all. They claim to be high and mighty moral folk but dont care what kind of world they leave behind wants they fade into the dirt. At least that's the impression I get. 

Quote:I love the ACC faithful. Worshipping at the altar of Gaia, led by the clergy of academia. Soon we'll be on to the Inquisition and the burning of us blasphemous heretics.

Well, this republican politician bankrolled by Big Pollution had a compelling talking point, so I choose to believe that because I'm a goldfish.


Strong strategy you have there, hoss.

Quote:Well, this republican politician bankrolled by Big Pollution had a compelling talking point, so I choose to believe that because I'm a goldfish.

Strong strategy you have there, hoss.

What in the blue hell are you on about?

Quote:What in the blue hell are you on about?

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.theguardian.com/environment/gallery/2015/jan/20/everyday-climate-change-in-pictures'>http://www.theguardian.com/environment/gallery/2015/jan/20/everyday-climate-change-in-pictures</a>

Quote:<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.theguardian.com/environment/gallery/2015/jan/20/everyday-climate-change-in-pictures'>http://www.theguardian.com/environment/gallery/2015/jan/20/everyday-climate-change-in-pictures</a>

Didnt really answer my question about your little rant up there. I know its hard for you true believers, but I'm not the one who posted an article that was immediately disproven to be true. I'm just one of a few watching the false prophets of ACC make error after error and NOT trying to justify it.

Quote:You have an extremely poor handle on the situation. You've been brainwashed--that is not an exaggeration. You can't fault yourself tho as far greater powers than your reasoning ability have conspired to trick you into acting against your own best interest.


To me, it's fascinating on a sociological level that people actually would rather believe a politician (career liar, bought and sold, no data) than a scientist (math, peer-reviewed, published works, science speaks for itself).


Again, the science is simple. If you concede that the greenhouse effect exists (which the existence of actual greenhouses prescribes) and that co2 is a greenhouse gas, that co2 is captured in the atmosphere, then you cannot help but arrive to a singular conclusion. It's a valid argument. The premises are true and the conclusion follows from the premises. You might as well argue that the sky is green if you are going to argue against climate change, it would make as much sense.

 

So true about the unnecessary politics being injected into a issue like this. 

 

I read an article on how Jax Beach is frustrated with the city council because they cant get the proper funding to restore beach erosion from the rising sea levels and the more frequent tropical disturbances. 

Quote:So true about the unnecessary politics being injected into a issue like this. 

 

I read an article on how Jax Beach is frustrated with the city council because they cant get the proper funding to restore beach erosion from the rising sea levels and the more frequent tropical disturbances. 

 

When the proposed answer is political it cannot be anything else.

Quote:When the proposed answer is political it cannot be anything else.

Look within yourself and reflect upon that statement you just made.

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jan/21/republican-live-stream-cuts-obama-climate-denial-remarks'>http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jan/21/republican-live-stream-cuts-obama-climate-denial-remarks</a>

Quote:Look within yourself and reflect upon that statement you just made.<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jan/21/republican-live-stream-cuts-obama-climate-denial-remarks'>http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jan/21/republican-live-stream-cuts-obama-climate-denial-remarks</a>

I look deeply and see what is always there, a man living in a world full of people who will use any means to exert control over his life. Politics, war, science, religion...its all the same; one group's attempt to dominate all the others.

Quote:I look deeply and see what is always there, a man living in a world full of people who will use any means to exert control over his life. Politics, war, science, religion...its all the same; one group's attempt to dominate all the others.

No, science is math and logic.


Evidently, you didn't do so hot in fourth grade. Here is a refresher on the scientific method:

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

Quote:No, science is math and logic.


Evidently, you didn't do so hot in fourth grade. Here is a refresher on the scientific method:

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method'>http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_</a><a class="bbc_url" href='http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method'>method</a>

 

And ACC has become religion. The more you're shown to be wrong the more zealous you become.