Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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 03-23-2009, 08:36 AM
 
Location: Washington DC
5,922 posts, read 8,050,760 times
Reputation: 954

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by triton74 View Post
Been posting this link to the so called educated people, but none dare answer. Maybe your superb intellect can help me out understand this article cause I'm too stupid to make anything out of it. Of course, you can call me names. That is the best way to settle any argument!

UW-Milwaukee Study Could Realign Climate Change Theory - Milwaukee Weather News Story - WISN Milwaukee

"In climate, when this happens, the climate state changes. You go from a cooling regime to a warming regime or a warming regime to a cooling regime. This way we were able to explain all the fluctuations in the global temperature trend in the past century," Tsonis said. "The research team has found the warming trend of the past 30 years has stopped and in fact global temperatures have leveled off since 2001."The most recent climate shift probably occurred at about the year 2000.Now the question is how has warming slowed and how much influence does human activity have?"But if we don't understand what is natural, I don't think we can say much about what the humans are doing. So our interest is to understand -- first the natural variability of climate -- and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural," Tsonis said.
It's really very simple. The statements are factually incorrect.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-23-2009, 08:38 AM
 
Location: Washington DC
5,922 posts, read 8,050,760 times
Reputation: 954
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey View Post
Then prove this person wrong with credible facts. Your usual drive-by simply indicates that you are aware the facts are not on your side.
He's been proved wrong time after time. No one has to prove him wrong again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2009, 08:51 AM
 
Location: Interior alaska
6,381 posts, read 14,522,611 times
Reputation: 3520
It is funny how out of millions of years of global warming and cooling, man has decided that in the last few years, he has a handle on what is good and bad in for the planet.

At one time the Polar regions were lush gardens, that is where the swamps that became oil came from...

To the loons that believe every word Gore and his cronies spout... go buy some Carbon Credits... Put your money on something that can be used in an outhouse when paper runs low...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2009, 09:15 AM
 
Location: Tyler, TX
23,661 posts, read 23,982,865 times
Reputation: 14993
There's no point in arguing with these people. They're absolutely, positively, incontrovertibly convinced that they're right, everyone who even thinks of disagreeing with them or demanding more substantial scientific evidence is wrong, and we MUST make Al Gore and Obama's Chicagoland commodity trader buddy, Richard Sandor (the guy who's going to be in charge of the carbon credit exchange and who donated $50k to Obama's inauguration) very, very rich.

To those who are convinced that we need this carbon credit scam - are you so completely convinced about your position that you're willing to see your energy (electricity, gas, motor fuel, etc) bills triple? Are you so convinced about your position that you're willing to pay a double-digit price increase for just about everything else you buy? Are you so convinced about your position that you're willing to see many, many more families lose their homes as a result of these price increases? You may think that imposing these heavy taxes (that's all the scheme is - just a very heavy tax) on these evil polluters will teach them a lesson, but you're the ones in denial if you think they'll just absorb these costs and not pass them on to the purchaser of their goods and services.

Again, there's a reason I don't subscribe to any organized religion, and the "climate change is man made" crowd provides the best example possible of why that is...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2009, 09:26 AM
 
114 posts, read 180,047 times
Reputation: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlchurch View Post
It's really very simple. The statements are factually incorrect.
They are factually incorrect because they don't match your factually incorrect data?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2009, 09:27 AM
 
Location: Washington DC
5,922 posts, read 8,050,760 times
Reputation: 954
Quote:
Originally Posted by swagger View Post
There's no point in arguing with these people. They're absolutely, positively, incontrovertibly convinced that they're right, everyone who even thinks of disagreeing with them or demanding more substantial scientific evidence is wrong, and we MUST make Al Gore and Obama's Chicagoland commodity trader buddy, Richard Sandor (the guy who's going to be in charge of the carbon credit exchange and who donated $50k to Obama's inauguration) very, very rich.

To those who are convinced that we need this carbon credit scam - are you so completely convinced about your position that you're willing to see your energy (electricity, gas, motor fuel, etc) bills triple? Are you so convinced about your position that you're willing to pay a double-digit price increase for just about everything else you buy? Are you so convinced about your position that you're willing to see many, many more families lose their homes as a result of these price increases? You may think that imposing these heavy taxes (that's all the scheme is - just a very heavy tax) on these evil polluters will teach them a lesson, but you're the ones in denial if you think they'll just absorb these costs and not pass them on to the purchaser of their goods and services.

Again, there's a reason I don't subscribe to any organized religion, and the "climate change is man made" crowd provides the best example possible of why that is...
I buy green electricity here in Washington DC and it costs 1¢/kWh more than the undifferentiated stuff. The cost for compliance is very modest and it creates jobs in the United States, not rich oil sheiks in radical Muslim countries.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2009, 09:28 AM
 
Location: Washington DC
5,922 posts, read 8,050,760 times
Reputation: 954
Quote:
Originally Posted by triton74 View Post
They are factually incorrect because they don't match your factually incorrect data?
Please state your source for the inaccuracy of the NASA data. You saying it doesn't mean much to me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2009, 09:37 AM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,325 posts, read 44,874,903 times
Reputation: 7118
Quote:
It's really very simple. The statements are factually incorrect.
That chart of yours - very misleading because of scale - if it were based on actual mean temps, it would be a virtual straight line.

And that's not taking into consideration using only the last 130 years to make....what point?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2009, 09:38 AM
 
Location: Flyover Country
26,212 posts, read 19,471,341 times
Reputation: 21678
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
That chart of yours - very misleading because of scale - if it were based on actual mean temps, it would be a virtual straight line.

Of course it would.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2009, 09:41 AM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,325 posts, read 44,874,903 times
Reputation: 7118
Quote:
Of course it would.
For some odd reason, I thought the earth was older than 130 years.

Yeah, let's talk about the Mann Hockey stick graph as one of the most misleading the GW-fanatics have tried to pass off as legitimate "science".
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 $104,000 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 09:11 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top