Do Wisconsin taxes affect your quality of life? (moving, education)

[milt14]

Originally Posted by MKEastsider

What's wrong with Alabama? Aside from the fact that it spends more federal money than it pays into the system

that is common with states or cities that have a higher population of blacks, just like states that higher populations of indians (reservations), or military bases, etc.

you've already admitted science, business, finance or anything to do with numbers isn't your strong point, so can we talk about something else?

[MKEastsider]

Originally Posted by milt14

that is common with states or cities that have a higher population of blacks, just like states that higher populations of indians (reservations), or military bases, etc.

you've already admitted science, business, finance or anything to do with numbers isn't your strong point, so can we talk about something else?

Really Milt? So what about Illinois, Michigan, California, and New York? All have large black populations, yet pay much more into the fed than they get back.

Could it be that the free market warriors like yourself who run the red states are too ignorant to understand that when you pay workers poverty wages, or hinge your economy on the FEDERALLY-ran military; that you make yourself dependent upon that big, bad gub'mint you and your yokel ilk are always railing against?

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by milt14

wow, didn't realize you're so young. in the 80s, when your parents were going to school, the big thing was "global cooling" and "the new ice age". when they get back home, ask them about it as it was all the rage not only on madison's campus, but i'm sure throughout the 'educational' systems.

it was funny how serious those people took it back then, just like they did in the global warming fraudulent era. props to them keeping a straight face when they mention weather, aka 'climate change'.....like that's never happened before in the history of the earth.......

Actually that isn't true at all. Global cooling was never a real thing to scientists. You must be referring to the few pop science articles on the next ice age and global cooling, which was from pop science writers (Michael Cricton, Newsweek, Popular Science, Time), not scientists. This is a complete myth perpetuated by ignorant folks along the lines of Lou Dobbs.

In fact, there were significantly more articles published in peer review scientific journals in the 1970s on global warming than global cooling. By the 80s the notion of global cooling never even came up in serious scientific circles. Review of climate change literature from the mid 60s through early 1980 found less than 10 global cooling pieces and over 40 global warming publications.

Please, you should keep to what you know, whatever that is.

[thefragile]

milt, do you know the difference between climate & weather? I'm thinking you don't.

[milt14]

Originally Posted by thefragile

milt, do you know the difference between climate & weather?

i do, but stating it the way i do reflects upon the absurdity of their constantly changing chicken little prognostications.
now "climate change" is about as absurd as calling it "weather".

[ram2]

Originally Posted by HyperionGap

Yawn.

Thirteen of the fourteen warmest years on record have all occurred in the 21st century, and each of the last three decades has been warmer than the previous one, culminating with 2001-2010 as the warmest decade on record.

WMO Annual Climate Statement Highlights Extreme Events

You have accurate, measured data from 1000, 2000, 3000, 5000 years ago?

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by ram2

You have accurate, measured data from 1000, 2000, 3000, 5000 years ago?

He said "on record" which is accurate, though we do have both climate change trends and good ideas of climates over periods going back thousands of years, they can be determined a variety of ways, from pollen cores indicating species composition and changes over time, tree cores measuring growth rates (going back well over 1000 years), and ice cores indicating changes in percentages of gases and elements in the atmosphere which are directly attributable to changes in climate (these can go back well over 10000 years).

This is why we know the rate of change we're experiencing now is so incredibly far outside the norm.

It is truly amazing what science can tell us, if we want to listen.

[milt14]

Originally Posted by timberline742

Actually that isn't true at all.

you are right, global cooling, global warming, and whatever they need to call it to make it pass are all frauds. good thing you have finally accepted that environmentalism is little more than a closed off religion, a cult.

Global cooling was never a real thing to scientists. You must be referring to the few pop science

you must get your information on the information out there from the progressive liberals as, well, par for the course for them, it's either a lie or a severe distortion of the truth, reality.

in the 1970s-1980s, 'global cooling' and 'the new ice age' was all the rage among all the activist scientists and edumakators in government schools. but if you think the university of wisconsin is full of 'pop science', then i hope you maintain that consistency for the recent past when it was global warming, and these days, when they gave up and just called it 'climate change' because the data kept not supporting their premise, their rationale for social engineering, controlling peoples lives and options.

national science foundation, noaa, also saying global cooling is true, same as they said global warming is true, same as they say climate change is true, same as, well, weather changes i guess.

1974, from the UW:
http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-cont...09/12/1974.pdf

you don't seem to well informed on theses things, so i'll help you further (i was at the UW in those eras).
all of this stems from rachel carson's book, silent spring. she was a progressive liberal activist that used extremely faulty logic and methodology that some believe was 'science'. but it wasn't and it still isn't. sorry for the lefty types but science never says 'the case is closed' like they do now, especially with something as complex as world weather/climate. algore is a firm believer in carson's social engineering, but i think he's just scamming that to become a billionaire off of it.

anyway, you might want to check this out, carson's fraudulent and faulty book:

Rachel Carson's Silent Spring at 50 Years - Reason.com

hope i was able to help you out.

[milt14]

Originally Posted by ram2

You have accurate, measured data from 1000, 2000, 3000, 5000 years ago?

i've always thought it funny that the greenie cult cite 'modern' data from 100 years ago, 1914......

they have to keep changing the baseline data to get their fantasy right and when it changes, they change the timeline's base data, thus global cooling, global warming, ok, neither of those are right, let's just call it "change". no time frame for 'change', so pretty hard to debate it, but like algore yelled, the discussion is over......
now just pay up.....

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by milt14

y

you don't seem to well informed on theses things, so i'll help you further (i was at the UW in those eras).

Too bad the education didn't help.

The reality is my statement is correct, and it is supported by a myriad of research and reviews of research on the matter.

The easiest summary published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
"The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus"
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

There are several others that found the same thing.

There were very few proponents of the notion of global cooling in the scientific ranks in the late 60s through 70s. There were many times more scientists predicting global warming over the same period. The peer reviewed scientific publication record shows this.

Those are facts.

Originally Posted by milt14

in the 1970s-1980s, 'global cooling' and 'the new ice age' was all the rage among all the activist scientists and edumakators in government schools. but if you think the university of wisconsin is full of 'pop science', then i hope you maintain that consistency for the recent past when it was global warming, and these days, when they gave up and just called it 'climate change' because the data kept not supporting their premise, their rationale for social engineering, controlling peoples lives and options.

Where are the peer reviewed scientific publications supporting this position?