or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by SDW2001

You've got that backwards. I'm not going to bother with you until you stop pretending that I've not seen data like you've posted. If you don't understand why using it to prove "global warming" is problematic, I'm not going to explain it to you.
 You know what I find convincing?  Evidence.  The kind where, you know, temperatures and sea levels actually rise, storms actually become more intense and frequent, and extremely unusual weather actually happens.  Also, the kind that shows that carbon dioxide actually causes warming.  Got any of that?  
 Laughable for so many reasons, including NOAA's own data.   This doesn't even get into the problem with using GAT measured in tenths of a degree as a gauge for warming. 
 The only fact I am asserting is that the Earth is not warming significantly and/or abnormally.   There is, of course, some variation (say within .5 degrees), but that is entirely normal from a historical perspective (and certainly from a scientific historical one).     You're starting to get personal and condescending now, but I'll put that aside for a moment.  Are you seriously asking for a study about studies being manipulated?  LOL.  We don't need a "rigorous study,"...
 That's an asterisk.  
 Um, what does that prove?  That's Greenspan's opinion.  It doesn't serve as evidence of anything you posted.  It's simply the former Fed chair's opinion.  It's certainly noteworthy and debate-worthy.  It doesn't do anything for your conspiracy theory, though.,  
 I am not here to defend him.  However, we are not talking about opinion.  We are talking about facts.  The facts are that temperature data has been manipulated for years.  There are multiple examples of this, and I think you know it.   You guys can keep posting the term "peer-reviewed" all you want.  It won't magically make the facts different.  The Earth is not warming appreciably despite the best predictions of the best scientists and computer models.  The theory of AGW...
 We won't.  And do you have any idea how much we spend on federal highway funds?    That's because you're ignorant.  We spend less on defense as a percentage of GDP than we need to.  Defense is one of the only areas of spending authorized specifically by the Constitution.  And you want to cut it because "we don't need" that many aircraft carriers.    I'd love to see some support--ANY support of this theory.  By the way, the Bush tax cut did not lead to less revenue, it led...
Just this morning, we see the kind of thing that the Warmists ignore.   The Biggest Science Scandal Ever  
 Clearly it's because Republicans hate the environment.  I'm sure it has nothing to do with the conservation movement being hijacked by radicals and hucksters.  Right?  
New Posts  All Forums: