Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:Serious damage has been proven many times around the world, including the USA.

 

WRONG!


 

There are always damaging weather events. Consider hurricanes and typhoons. There has been no change in the frequency of these. The accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) index gives a reasonable measure of total hurricane intensity per year. It is widely accepted as a standard in the field (i.e. your 97% accept that). The ACE varies a lot from year to year, but the overall trend is downwards. If you believe that the globe is warming, then you should note that a warmer world has less total hurricane energy.


 

Tornadoes are also down.


 

You mention a large number of "named storms" but there are two non-climate explanations for this. First, we've gotten much better at detecting storms. Before satellite coverage many storms that were formed out to sea were just unknown. Secondly, there has been a switch to doppler radar in measuring a storm's wind speed, and this measures the speed much higher than earlier methods, and overstates the wind speed. The wind speed of Matthew measured at the ground level and by buoys never got close to the Cat 3 and 4 numbers that were being released by NOAA.


 

Extreme cold weather events and blizzards cause many more deaths than warm weather. Biodiversity is orders of magnitude higher in warm regions. If the planet is warming then that's good for man and beast.

Quote:You posted one article that contradicts thousands of articles.

 

The facts in the article he posted about how the global temperature record has been continually altered with time are not contradicted by the people who altered the temperature record. Instead they staunchly defend the adjustments.


 

You need to be at least somewhat suspicious when every adjustment goes in the direction of increased alarm (= increased funding). That's like flipping a penny 50 times and having it come up heads every time. Is it possible that the penny has not been tampered with? Sure.


 

Is it likely?

Quote:No I am correct.  The CFL mandate does away with incandescent bulbs because they consume more electricity.  They are actually worse for the environment, but you won't hear about that.

 

Incandescent bulbs are cheaper to manufacture thus they are cheaper to purchase.  However, they consume more electricity and produce heat which might not be desirable.  They are banned.  Disposal of them doesn't harm the environment at all.

 

CFL bulbs are actually more expensive to manufacture and are more expensive to purchase.  The up side is that they use less electricity and don't produce heat.  The downside is in colder temperatures they take longer to produce the light that they are designed to produce.  Also disposal of them isn't as simple as throwing them out because they contain toxic properties that actually harm the environment.

 

LED bulbs are an alternative that has huge advantages and disadvantages.  They give off light immediately, consume less electricity and don't produce heat.  The downside is that they are WAY more expensive to produce and therefor more expensive to purchase.  Disposal of them has minimal impact on the environment since they don't have any toxic chemicals or gasses, but they do contain silicone which isn't biodegradable.

 

My point is though, people should be free to decide which kind of light bulb they want to use based on their needs.  It's not up to the government to tell us which kind to use.  The government as usual is/was wrong with this mandate because even though CFL bulbs consume less electricity, they actually harm the environment more than the other two technologies and the technology that they banned.

 

Let me add a few things:


 

1. The lifespan of CFL bulbs was, well, a flat out lie. They didn't last nearly as long as they claimed.


2. Like all fluorescents, CFL bulbs have a ballast. If you use them in a ceiling fan, the vibrations can cause the ballast to fail, and it can fail spontaneously too. This gives off a horrible odor. Whether or not it's toxic I don't know.


3. Tungsten filament bulbs are only a problem because of waste heat. Much of the energy is not released in the visible spectrum. But in a cold climate, the energy is not wasted, it just becomes part of heating the home.


 

4. CFLs are obsolete. LEDs are more efficient, and last much longer. You can't find CFLs on the shelves in Walmart these days.

My mom was shocked to hear there are so many CFL haters on this board and that I am the only one that knows how perfect they are. She wonders how the CFL haters are able to operate the light switches. 

Quote:My mom was shocked to hear there are so many CFL haters on this board and that I am the only one that knows how perfect they are. She wonders how the CFL haters are able to operate the light switches. 

 

Well the Canadian Football League did give us Josh Johnson.

Quote:There. Done. There is no debate or discussion in here, just two sides diametrically opposed to each other. 

 

No one is making you read it.

 

Besides, you're wrong. I've seen several people respond, albeit to stupid questions / comments from JaguarsWoman, with reasonable answers or evidence to support their claim.  

Quote:We are talking about a guy who wants to continue polluting the nation by boosting the coal industry and does not want to create jobs for producing environmentally friendly energy sources.

 

If you want your solyndra....  you can KEEP your solyndra.

Quote:If the Earth was cooling why is it quickly losing so much ice on the North Pole many polar bears are dying?

 

you poor poor dear... 

Quote:Yes we do. The year there were 28 named storms, it was a world record.

 

what about all the years where we didn't have ANY storms really threaten the United States.  Remember all the hysteria after Katrina?  "This is going to be every year!!!" 

 

By the way, we have only been able to monitor with satellites for about 50 years or so...  the earth is roughly 4 billion years old... 

 

nevermind. 

This is the most amazing trick the left ever pulled.  The most ardent supporters of AGCC have little to no idea what the actual data is or how the DOOMSDAY PREDICTIONS are calculated, yet through popular culture they provide a high level of emotional return on investment for agreeing with a cathartic narrative by calling it "science based."  They make people FEEL smart without actually having to learn anything or think critically. 

 

1.) Man is not responsible for a majority or even a plurality of the CO2 released into the atmosphere every year. 

 

2.) When you look at the raw data from the ICE core camples there is no direct correlation between estimated CO2 levels and surface temperatures.  Sometimes there is a lag affect of centuries between an increase in CO2 and an increase in temperatures, and in other cases there is actually an inverse causal affect of increased surface temperatures seeming to cause an eventual rise in CO2 (making more of the planet habitable for animal life that processes energy aerobically).  This is evidenced contemporaly by the fact that our surface temperatures have remained in relative stasis for the better part of this century despite continued gains in population and technological expansion. 

 

3.) As someone stated earlier, the raw data for the 97% number proves intent to defraud.  They had a survey of 10000 scientists threw out over half before analyzing a minority of the papers and then counted those that mention man having anything to do with the climate.  This includes people who said that it was negligiable, natural, and disagreed with the larger premise that AGCC was responsible for meaningful change let alone catastrophic change. 

 

4.) They got CAUGHT LYING... 

 

5.) If you look at the actual proposals these people are making, if we hand over the keys to our economy and accept decads of draconian energy austerity we will increase suffering, decrease growth, become insolvent because we wont be able to generate revenue to sustain our entitlement programs, and we might MIGHT be able to reduce surface temperatures by 1/10th of one degree over the next hundred years...  Ahhhhhhhhh no!

 

6.) There is a giant FUSION ENGINE AT THE CENTER OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM, RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL ENERGY ON THE PLANET.  IT'S OUTPUT FLUCTUATES!!!!!!!!  (If i had shoutier capitals i would use them!)

 

7.) The vast majority of the greenhouse affect (95%) is caused by water vapor.  This is natural (the blue planet) and completely beyond anything humans can control. 

 

8.) No matter what anyone says, until they find reliable alternative energy sources that can power 747's and the rest of the economy efficiently then this is all just dust in the wind. 

 

9.) IF the problem were really that serious then those SCIENTISTS would be majoring in fields to solve #8 instead of climate science. 

 

10.) The fact that the climate advocates aren't advocating natural gas and nuclear energy lets you know that they have another agenda.

 

11.) The U.N. has admitted, this is all cover for a redistribution scheme of rich countries to developing countries. 

Lol, MissJagsFanatic moves from OH to FL, walks outside and can see the "climate change" all around her.

Quote:Lol, MissJagsFanatic moves from OH to FL, walks outside and can see the "climate change" all around her.

Wow...

Just read her posts to see that anything she sees is the polar opposite of reality.

Quote:Just read her posts to see that anything she sees is the polar opposite of reality.

Polar... I see what you did there...

Sorry peeps, I just grilled some burgers. I used charcoal. Me evil?

Quote:Sorry peeps, I just grilled some burgers. I used charcoal. Me evil?

Depends how much you over cooked them.

Quote:Sorry peeps, I just grilled some burgers. I used charcoal. Me evil?

Charcoal and propane grills are the devil. Should've used one of those fancy solar grills.

Quote:Monetary gain will always supersede the threat of global warming.

What is so funny about this quote is its the exact opposite. Governments want the money, not the free market capitalists(in this case). Why do you think there are "going green" subsidies, and "carbon taxes"? Do you even know how toxic a lithium ion battery large enough to power a car is when you have to discard it? It's not as green as you think. Also, the 97% consensus is a myth. Any type of research, and not taking your government and their scientists' word for it, will reveal a lot more scientists disagree with man made global warming(lack of concrete evidence). An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore the alramist and his hockey puck projections have been proven as bunk. The numbers and parameters keep getting manipulated to try and make climate change a real issue. We emit Co2, there are 7 billion of us. Climates will always change, how was there an ice age with no humans present? Sure, protect the earth... But not with a government program.