Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:I haven't even read what you have put. It will be some old nonsense from a blog.

And again like you I have zero knowledge in the area.

Has Malabar said what he does?

Quote:Has Malabar said what he does?

No idea? He's very ideological so I'm sure it clouds any rationality in whatever he does.


What do you do out of interest? I've got you down as a sweat Shop owner in my head.

Quote:No idea? He's very ideological so I'm sure it clouds any rationality in whatever he does.

What do you do out of interest? I've got you down as a sweat Shop owner in my head.

I'm a healthcare executive. I know, scum of the Earth and all, but we all gotta make a living.

Quote:Another expert. Let me guess from internet research?

 

The "consensus" of "science" was that the world was flat as well.

 

Because "science."

Quote:I haven't even read what you have put. It will be some old nonsense from a blog.


And again like you I have zero knowledge in the area.

 

Typical ad hom from the Left when they've lost the argument (which is always).

Quote:The scientists agree with me. Point out where they disagree with anything I said.

With certain points maybe but with your over all beliefs? 

 

This debate always ends up like debates of faith.


Can't prove what is right or wrong and nobody's opinion is going change either way.

Quote:This debate always ends up like debates of faith.


Can't prove what is right or wrong and nobody's opinion is going change either way.

That's what experts are for. They spend their lives working in fields. Makes sense to me to rely on and defer to them on matters that are not native to my field. That is if you don't have an agenda or a bias to confirm already.  

Quote:That's what experts are for. They spend their lives working in fields. Makes sense to me to rely on and defer to them on matters that are not native to my field. That is if you don't have an agenda or a bias to confirm already.

Yeah this board is really the only place I have heard man made climate change disputed so much. Then again I know very little about anything climate related so I don't wade in.

Quote:That's what experts are for. They spend their lives working in fields. Makes sense to me to rely on and defer to them on matters that are not native to my field. That is if you don't have an agenda or a bias to confirm already.  

 

So you buy into the idea that whether you have a good day or a bad day tomorrow will be decided by where the planets were when you were born?


 

You are no expert in astrology. Can't disagree with the experts.

Quote:This debate always ends up like debates of faith.


Can't prove what is right or wrong and nobody's opinion is going change either way.

 

True. There's a lot of similarity between religion and Climate Science.



http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/religion.htm

Quote:So you buy into the idea that whether you have a good day or a bad day tomorrow will be decided by where the planets were when you were born?


 

You are no expert in astrology. Can't disagree with the experts.

Nice strawman. Though astrology is a solid analogy for climate change denial though so it's really not surprising it's the one you chose to use. 

Quote:True. There's a lot of similarity between religion and Climate Science.


http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/religion.htm

This statement is the purest form of projection in politics at the moment. 

Quote:Nice strawman. Though astrology is a solid analogy for climate change denial though so it's really not surprising it's the one you chose to use. 

 

Nope. Anyone can be a CAGW skeptic. The analogy is better for the side that considers professional membership as a requirement.


 

 

Quote:This statement is the purest form of projection in politics at the moment. 

 

Did you read the link?

Quote:Nope. Anyone can be a CAGW skeptic. The analogy is better for the side that considers professional membership as a requirement.


 

 

 

Did you read the link?

 

Yes I did your link. It reads like a propaganda diatribe which works for you because it confirms your bias. It also does not make your statement any less a clear form of projection. 

 

Listening to experts is what rational people do. Thinking you know more than experts because you did some googling to confirm a bias tied to your personal identity is what irrational people do. 

 

 

Did you read this link I posted?

 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"><a class="bbc_url" href='https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/01/how-the-internet-makes-you-think-youre-smarter-than-you-really-are/?utm_term=.efff9a7b5ce7' title="External link">https://www.washingt...m=.efff9a7b5ce7</a>

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">“… People mistake access to information for their own personal understanding of the information.”

Quote:The "consensus" of "science" was that the world was flat as well.


Because "science."

Science is always evolving. Was that the view of scientists or just people in general? I bet many kept believing it was flat after science said it was round.


Hey we have people who think the world is a couple of thousand years old, I'm glad we have scientists.

Quote:Yes I did your link. It reads like a propaganda diatribe which works for you because it confirms your bias. It also does not make your statement any less a clear form of projection. 

 

Listening to experts is what rational people do. Thinking you know more than experts because you did some googling to confirm a bias tied to your personal identity is what irrational people do. 

 

 

Did you read this link I posted?

 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"><a class="bbc_url" href='https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/01/how-the-internet-makes-you-think-youre-smarter-than-you-really-are/?utm_term=.efff9a7b5ce7' title="External link">https://www.washingt...m=.efff9a7b5ce7</a>

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">“… People mistake access to information for their own personal understanding of the information.”

 

Now who's projecting? Just because the study found a subset of bozos who responded that way does not mean that everyone responds that way.


 

I posted that "propaganda diatribe" as you call it because it covers the similarities between climate science and religion better than I could, and there are a lot of them. The one it didn't mention that I observe is that science looks for evidence that a theory is wrong, religion looks for evidence that their dogma is right. If you look at the body of work of climate science, you'll see a lot of the latter and very little of the former.


 

I can draw my own conclusions. The data is out there, and the subject of climate is not that difficult. Don't take my word for it, but don't take the word of someone living off of taxpayer dollars which would go away if there were no implied problem either. Go look at the data.


We're talking about a one degree difference. That's typical of walking from one room in a house to another with a door in between. Severe weather is down, the science agrees with this. The rate of sea level rise has been constant for as long as there have been measurements, well over a hundred years. That is evident in the tide gauge data on NOAA.gov. It doesn't take a PhD in science to look at the data, so go look. Then be skeptical when the tax dollar leeches claim otherwise.

Warming at the current rate is not a disaster. Warmer is better. A lot more people retire to Florida than to North Dakota. Meanwhile, the CO2 enrichment of the atmosphere has increased the land area covered by vegetation (i.e. less desert), and that's a good thing in my book.

So worst case scenario of the majority of the scientists being wrong and a few extreme politicians being right is a bit of unnecessary taxation.


Worst case scenario of the scientists being right is all sorts of environmental mental destruction.


Hey and not to mention burning all our finite resources and needing renewable energy anyway.


Ps there is a world outside the USA as hard as that is to believe. I know not many of you get out and experience that, but maybe go to some Pacific nations and tell them the threat of changing climate is nonsense.

Quote:So worst case scenario of the majority of the scientists being wrong and a few extreme politicians being right is a bit of unnecessary taxation.


Worst case scenario of the scientists being right is all sorts of environmental mental destruction.


Hey and not to mention burning all our finite resources and needing renewable energy anyway.


Ps there is a world outside the USA as hard as that is to believe. I know not many of you get out and experience that, but maybe go to some Pacific nations and tell them the threat of changing climate is nonsense.

 

1. It's not just "a bit of unnecessary taxation." It's a LOT of taxation, plus regulations that double (or worse) electric rates. That hits the poorest people the most.


 

2. Most scientists are not in the "environmental destruction" camp, although they are willing to include it as a possibility since that greases the wheel for continued research funding.


 

3. If it were just about climate, the thrust would be towards building nuclear plants. The so-called 'renewable energy' is undependable (living in Oz you should know that first hand), and very expensive. If it weren't there would be no need to subsidize it. And by "subsidize" I mean direct payments to manufacturers, not just tax breaks. I'm all for renewable energy if it can stand on it's own without subsidies. Solar has some uses, but at 46% efficiency at the top level there's not a lot of potential improvement. Windmills cause environmental damage and require a huge amount of land area. Hydroelectric plants work fine (if you ignore the environmental damage to the ecosystem under the new lake) but we've pretty much run out of places to build them.


4. The sea level is rising at the same rate it has since at least 1900. If a Pacific Island nation has a problem it's not because of climate change, and all the taxes and regulations in the world won't stop it.

I see you are being an expert again! Down with scientists! All we need is politicians and conspiracy theorists.Fed by big energy of course.


I don't get why you are so fanatical about it, it's like a religion. Id happily change my mind tomorrow if the scientists get further facts and decide something else is causing the changes rather than man made.


But who will change your mind? Scientists? No. Maybe Trump, he's rich and therefore an expert in everything.