U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-13-2009, 08:49 PM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,315 posts, read 34,786,774 times
Reputation: 7093

Advertisements

Reporters that are clearly in the AGW camp.

This is a wonderful example of a AGW sheeple. Totally ignorant of the facts, gets her info directly from places like Greenpeace and is totally surprised of the list of facts he gives her.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cN6_R...layer_embedded

World class drubbing for this gullible sheep.

Last edited by sanrene; 12-13-2009 at 09:13 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-13-2009, 09:52 PM
 
Location: MO Ozarkian in NE Hoosierana
4,679 posts, read 9,990,490 times
Reputation: 6814
The question is if global warming is primarily or at least being edged on significantly due to mankind's pollution, from industrial, power generation, & transportation activities, etc. True, the planet would be better off if we did not create such byproducts and waste - and I am personally doing much to reduce, reuse, and recycle, both at home and at work. However, to state that these gases are the [or a significant] cause to this Global Warming is totally rubbish and BS. As a tree-hugging and nature-loving hillbilly that loves the outdoors, and desires a clean and green and healthy world, I also am a scientist/engineer, one that is cynical and doubting of "authorities" and mass media. With that said, here are these two links... please, take the time to read, to contemplate, to understand what is being said here:

Climate during the Carboniferous Period => especially the graph "Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time"
IPCC and the “Trick” « Climate Audit
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2009, 10:38 PM
 
Location: NY
9,525 posts, read 7,037,609 times
Reputation: 6091
How many young PhD's who've hooked their livelihoods to these people are looking at the potential of their careers tanking from this mess? It's called fraud when data has been deliberately "tricked" to match a hypothesis...I'll bet there are a lot of frantic young scientists out there wondering where this trainwreck is going to leave them.

And how soon before some of them start talking in an effort to salvage their reputations?

Last edited by Dockside; 12-13-2009 at 10:38 PM.. Reason: spelling
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2009, 11:08 PM
 
Location: Imaginary Figment
11,458 posts, read 11,176,731 times
Reputation: 4741
Quote:
Originally Posted by idahogie View Post
You deniers are so silly.

Honestly, a world-wide conspiracy of scientists? Really? But polluting industries with billions of dollars to spend on PR and lobbying - that's outragous. Couldn't happen.

I really wish you could see how funny you look.
Which is more believable? That a multibillion dollar industry fabricates evidence to keep the spigot open or that “liberal scientists” around the world are all in on a “hoax” as a means to secure more funding for further research? Clearly big oil has more to lose (or win) here.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2009, 11:14 PM
 
433 posts, read 162,695 times
Reputation: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
I see you are statistically challenged.

If they would have used the little green line after 1960, that is how it would have looked (a downward trend). It didn't quite fit in with the look they wanted, did it?

So they cut it off in 1960, made sure it was in the "background" and used other data that fit in with the trend they were looking for.

Even this simple little graph is beyond your comprehension.

Try this, taken from ice core data directly from NOAA;


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mxmo...layer_embedded

You won't like this either.

I see you are sight challenged. The supposed blown up portion does not even match the larger graph. They are not same. I can draw with crayons too and show it to you if you want? try taking a closer look at the pink and green lines
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2009, 11:17 PM
 
433 posts, read 162,695 times
Reputation: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
AP's Borenstein is a bit conflicted; He is a big AGW fanatic. Even after he is compromised in the emails, they put him on this story.

AP’s Seth Borenstein is just too damn cozy with the people he covers – time for AP to do something about it « Watts Up With That?


can we all just save time by assuming any and all post with realtive information will solicit the response of either its is conflicted, its been compromised, or that scientist is corrupt? it will be much easier
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2009, 01:13 AM
 
Location: Northern Wi
1,530 posts, read 1,165,817 times
Reputation: 420
The debate go's on.

RealClearPolitics - Video - Rep. Markey, Sen
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2009, 01:37 AM
 
Location: Northridge/Porter Ranch, Calif.
20,294 posts, read 23,612,517 times
Reputation: 5738
Quote:
Originally Posted by idahogie View Post
You deniers are so silly.

Honestly, a world-wide conspiracy of scientists? Really? But polluting industries with billions of dollars to spend on PR and lobbying - that's outragous. Couldn't happen.

I really wish you could see how funny you look.
What's to deny? If the climate wasn't changing (like it has since the earth has existed) that would be abnormal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2009, 04:18 AM
 
Location: Florida
14,902 posts, read 14,920,013 times
Reputation: 14260
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamer222 View Post
This amazingly ironic and I simply have to address it. Nomander and Sanrene, if anyone, are the antagonizing robots. Look at all the anti-GW threads on here. You will find them both at all hours of the day, seemingly all day long. The pat each other on the back, support each other like brothers in a fight together. Its comical. They speak as if they are super experts on the subject and put everyone down. I seriously think they are part of the anti global warming payroll. They sit on forums and spew out fallacy after fallacy about GW. They are political robots just like the birthers, the swift boaters etc. They are here for one reason. To spread doubt.
I have a hard time trying to figure out whether people like Dreamer are even debating the same issue as others when GW and AGW seem to be used either interchangably or without understanding there is a difference or erroneously.
Then throw in those who insist that those that doubt AGW (or even GW) also condone or do not care about pollution.
I must say the 'deniers' are more consistant,accurate and less confusing about terminology and provide better references.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2009, 05:40 AM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,315 posts, read 34,786,774 times
Reputation: 7093
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamer222 View Post
I see you are sight challenged. The supposed blown up portion does not even match the larger graph. They are not same. I can draw with crayons too and show it to you if you want? try taking a closer look at the pink and green lines
How many times must you be told?

They didn't use the part with the "decline". It really is that simple.

I know some are mentally stunted when it comes to Math and Statistics, but understanding these two graphs doesn't require anything but observation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $99,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:13 AM.

© 2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top