It's about time! I have no use for Al Gore or his politics. Shame on him for foisting this fraud on the people of the world. Shame on the media for allowing no debate or or even attempting the appearance of unbiased reporting.
click on the website and find that this article was wriiten my Maggie on April 1st..thats it..just Maggie...no last name lol
Dave
Loc: Upstate New York
tombrady wrote:
click on the website and find that this article was wriiten my Maggie on April 1st..thats it..just Maggie...no last name lol
Tom, shame on you - it took me less than a minute to see Maggie sharing her entire name and history - did you seriously look at it and jumpt to a conclusion - or did you just try to dismiss it with misleading info?
dave!!! its maggies notebook!!!!.. here a tip for you.. dont bileve a word al gore say...because i dont bielieve a word al gore says either...rather i look what the experts say (climate scientist) and 97% said global warming is real..when a poltician opens his mouth i automatic assume he or she is probaly lying and i dont care what party they from...dave im a scientist why didnt they ask me? lol
Dave
Loc: Upstate New York
tombrady wrote:
dave!!! its maggies notebook!!!!.. here a tip for you.. dont bileve a word al gore say...because i dont bielieve a word al gore says either...rather i look what the experts say (climate scientist) and 97% said global warming is real..when a poltician opens his mouth i automatic assume he or she is probaly lying and i dont care what party they from...dave im a scientist why didnt they ask me? lol
Tom - again - what you said originally is not true - she shows more than just her first name.
As to the 97% of scientists, I don't know 97% of them - I am aware that many scientist say one thing and many other say something else - and I do know scientific proof is not generally a function of consensus.
As to the issue itself, whether one calls it global warming or climate change, or like in the '70's nuclear freeze, the more important question is what one proposes to do about it. There are very few "solutions" that I've seen that provides me confidence that the only result from the proposals likely is a reduced standard of living for Americans along with a further reduction to our global competitiveness. My mind stays open though - and would suggest same for you.
Alene49 wrote:
It's about time! I have no use for Al Gore or his politics. Shame on him for foisting this fraud on the people of the world. Shame on the media for allowing no debate or or even attempting the appearance of unbiased reporting.
Not true....Do you people fact check anything before you spout off?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100729214718AAMg6oH
come on man don't spoil there delusions by posting facts
Dave
Loc: Upstate New York
tombrady wrote:
come on man don't spoil there delusions by posting facts
Tom - my comments to you dealt with, not the validity of the alleged lawsuit, but about the fact that the poster provided more information about herself than you suggested.
Meanwhile, before you get enthralled with tis Chardo character, you need to understand he's the left's version of the right's birthers. He actually suggested that Bush planned and executed 9/11 - nuts like that aren't worth much attention.
Tom is a product copied from hypocrites like the Al Gores, Bill Clintons, Saul Alinskys, Barack Hussein Obamas, Harry Reids and Nancy Peloskis of this world. They preach one thing but do another totally different.
Even though Chicken Little hasn't replied to my previous post, I thought I should add the following. On March 30th The Economist, a British publication, had an article about the failure of the "science-is-settled" climate models. This is the first time The Economist has deviated from the alarmist political line. Some climate bloggers think that the whole climate argument is about to collapse.
The article suggests the following possible reasons for the failures of the climate models.
The mismatch might mean thatfor some unexplained reasonthere has been a temporary lag between more carbon dioxide and higher temperatures in 2000-10. Or it might be that the 1990s, when temperatures were rising fast, was the anomalous period. Or, as an increasing body of research is suggesting, it may be that the climate is responding to higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in ways that had not been properly understood before. This possibility, if true, could have profound significance both for climate science and for environmental and social policy. http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions
oldroy
Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)
Of course, you saw that your source was from 3 years ago, I am sure.
Here is more on all the talk about "climate change" making the weather more severe.
Greg Carbin, the warning coordination meteorologist at NOAAs Storm Prediction Center in Norman, Oklahoma, said, There really is no scientific consensus or connection between global warming and tornadic activity....Jumping from a large-scale event like global warming to relatively small-scale events like tornadoes is a huge leap across a variety of scales.
In fact, NOAA statistics show that the last 60 years have seen a dramatic increase in the reporting of weak tornadoes, but no change in the number of severe to violent ones.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/new-and-cool
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.