• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

UW-Milwaukee Study Could Realign Climate Change Theory

J

jujuman13

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Messages
4,075
Reaction score
579
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Dear oh dear, does this debunk Gore?
He couldn't care less, already made his millions from his scare tactics and is influencing his chum 'Fingers Obama'.
Link
UW-Milwaukee Study Could Realign Climate Change Theory - Milwaukee Weather News Story - WISN Milwaukee

A Socialist Government will ALWAYS seek ever more ways to Tax an already overtaxed population.
Gee, lets put a "Cap and trade" policy in place.
For sure this will make people think about whether to heat/cool themselves before being able to afford to put food on their plate.

Cap and Trade, does not mean that pollution will go away, nor even that it will reduce.

All it does mean is that the Government gets more cash from Industry.

These extra costs are then inevitably passed on to their Customers.
 
No doubt! Now we get to PAY for pollution. So when you're water has crypto sporidium, or your air stinks and burns your lungs, you'll know where you're money's going. That's pretty creative. :roll:
 
jujuman13 said:
Cap and Trade, does not mean that pollution will go away, nor even that it will reduce.
Click to expand...

Thank You. Try explaining this and "offsets" to the knuckleheads out there.

They're not reducing pollution, they're merely buying someone elses allotment.

Notice the shift in terminology by the enviroloons, it's not global warming anymore, it's climate change.

How clever, climate change can mean anything.
 
The intelligent and pertinent part of this article is this:

"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.

The planet has frozen and thawed three times in the ancient past before man ever really roamed earth; until the Global warming fear mongers can explain these events, they should be laughed off the planet for their nonsensical BS.

The notion that anyone can believe the bile spewed by the dumbest man in America, Al Gore, defies logical explanation.

:2wave:
 
"Climate change" presupposes that some snapshot in time was the ultimate ideal in global climate.

Before the liberals get all their panties in a bunch, shouldn't we stop paying them to investigate the change and wait until they come up with a complete scientific synthesis defining exactly when this ideal time was, and what made it ideal?

Seriously, we need to stop wasting taxpayer's money (that's my money) on frantic panic over climate change until the people worried about the changing climate have invested their own money defining what the ideal era is and we get to vote on whether we agree with them or not. This study shouldn't be done too quickly. I figure fifty years would suffice.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
"Climate change" presupposes that some snapshot in time was the ultimate ideal in global climate.

Before the liberals get all their panties in a bunch, shouldn't we stop paying them to investigate the change and wait until they come up with a complete scientific synthesis defining exactly when this ideal time was, and what made it ideal?

Seriously, we need to stop wasting taxpayer's money (that's my money) on frantic panic over climate change until the people worried about the changing climate have invested their own money defining what the ideal era is and we get to vote on whether we agree with them or not. This study shouldn't be done too quickly. I figure fifty years would suffice.
Click to expand...

Silly idealist; do you REALLY think this is about "climate control"?
 
GottaHurt said:
Thank You. Try explaining this and "offsets" to the knuckleheads out there.

They're not reducing pollution, they're merely buying someone elses allotment.

Notice the shift in terminology by the enviroloons, it's not global warming anymore, it's climate change.

How clever, climate change can mean anything.
Click to expand...

I like that term; enviroloons.
 
Truth Detector said:
The planet has frozen and thawed three times in the ancient past before man ever really roamed earth; until the Global warming fear mongers can explain these events, they should be laughed off the planet for their nonsensical BS.
Click to expand...
Anyone besides me remember back in the 70s when the scientists were predicting the onset of a new ice age?
 
Goobieman said:
Anyone besides me remember back in the 70s when the scientists were predicting the onset of a new ice age?
Click to expand...

Yes, but the enviroloons have already predicted this would be used and so they have numerous quotations that suggest it was just a media thing and non-scientific but that TODAY we have science behind global warming.

Yet even those scientists who claim they have better science cannot answer why it is the earth has cooled and warmed on three other prehistoric occasions.

Without this answer, any theories attempting to suggest that the current warming trend, which began before man invented the automobile, are caused by man are beyond specious; they are loony. :cool:
 
jujuman13 said:
Dear oh dear, does this debunk Gore?
Click to expand...

That humans are having a negative effect on the habitats of this earth and the natural environments? Good luck on that.

If taxing higher prevents lazy people getting in a car every damn day and walking once in a while - Job well done
 
Last edited:
Truth Detector said:
Yes, but the enviroloons have already predicted this would be used and so they have numerous quotations that suggest it was just a media thing and non-scientific but that TODAY we have science behind global warming.

Yet even those scientists who claim they have better science cannot answer why it is the earth has cooled and warmed on three other prehistoric occasions.

Without this answer, any theories attempting to suggest that the current warming trend, which began before man invented the automobile, are caused by man are beyond specious; they are loony. :cool:
Click to expand...

Enviroloons are like watermellons:
Green on the outside, but Red on the inside.
 
Laila said:
That humans are having a negative effect on the habitats of this earth and the natural enviroments? Good luck on that.

If taxing higher prevents lazy people getting in a car every damn day and walking once in a while - Job well done
Click to expand...
At least -you- have the honesty to admit that its not about the environment, its about changing society to be what to you think it should be.

:applaud
 
Goobieman said:
At least -you- have the honesty to admit that its not about the environment, its about changing society to be what to you think it should be.

:applaud
Click to expand...

:confused:

You missed my point but whatever turns you on
It's all about the enviroment and preserving what we have.

It's only lazy people who use cars when there is perfectly good public transport - Trains, trams, buses, bikes and you choose petrol? :roll:
 
Laila said:
That humans are having a negative effect on the habitats of this earth and the natural environments? Good luck on that.

If taxing higher prevents lazy people getting in a car every damn day and walking once in a while - Job well done
Click to expand...

Laila said:
t's only lazy people who use cars when there is perfectly good public transport - Trains, trams, buses, bikes and you choose petrol?
Click to expand...

I could embrace your arguments here if it weren't for 3.5 reasons:

1) Our government

2) Most auto manufacturers

3) Enviroloons

3.5) I'm not lazy (can't speak for everyone, so .5)

1-3 are the root cause on this issue. Our governments knew back in the '70's about the potential problems faced by being reliant on oil.

Yet, they did nothing, along with most of the auto manufacturers.

1977 Volkswagen Rabbit 50 mpg highway 40 mpg city. What happened?

32 years ago, VW was clearly on top of the problem. Today we have auto manufacturers touting 36 mpg highway. :3oops:

Our governments failed to implement satisfactory standards, the auto manufacturers ignored the wants of the consumer, and the enviroloons didn't lobby hard enough for the right reasons, to achieve the desired results.

Now we're in panic mode (needlessly), and we're seeing common sense being thrown to the wayside, for unproven expensive alternatives, that can't even be guaranteed to solve our transit/oil reliance problems. Let alone address the ill conceived notion that we, as humans, are causing catastrophic, irreversable changes to Mother Earth.

Want to study the generational patterns on Mother Earth, look to the geologists for answers:

By the way, this is the chart, based on ice core readings taken in Antarctica, that Gore uses in his film An Inconvenient Truth. Gore doesn’t try to explain why this roller coaster has occurred, since if changes in carbon dioxide levels were causing the cycle of glaciations and interglaciations, as Gore implies, then the logical question is what caused the changes in carbon dioxide levels?

Gore doesn’t say, because to do so would destroy his case, but here’s what science says: temperature changes precede carbon dioxide level changes by several hundred years, and temperature changes are caused by changes in solar intensity called the Milankovitch Cycles, not carbon dioxide. The Milankovitch Cycles, based on the earth’s changing position in relation to the sun, appear to be the ultimate drivers of climate over the past few million years.

FALSE ALARM: Why Almost Everything We’ve Been Told About Global Warming is Misleading, Exaggerated, or Plain Wrong Climate change: Learning to think like a geologist
 
GottaHurt said:
I could embrace your arguments here if it weren't for 3.5 reasons:

1) Our government

2) Most auto manufacturers

3) Enviroloons

3.5) I'm not lazy (can't speak for everyone, so .5)

1-3 are the root cause on this issue. Our governments knew back in the '70's about the potential problems faced by being reliant on oil.
Click to expand...

I'm aware US faces more worse problems than Europe generally.

I have always wondered, does US have trains that takes you from one state to another and if not, why not? Surely it'd be more cheaper and enviroment friendly than flying.
 
Laila said:
:confused:

You missed my point but whatever turns you on
It's all about the enviroment and preserving what we have.

It's only lazy people who use cars when there is perfectly good public transport - Trains, trams, buses, bikes and you choose petrol? :roll:
Click to expand...

No. I choose gasoline....because my gas-hog V8 van one-ton cargo van is perfectly good transport to take one fat lazy American to work all by himself, and back again, too.

It's my fat lazy life, not someone else's. I don't recall electing anyone to interfere in my private business.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No. I choose gasoline....because my gas-hog V8 van one-ton cargo van is perfectly good transport to take one fat lazy American to work all by himself, and back again, too.

It's my fat lazy life, not someone else's. I don't recall electing anyone to interfere in my private business.
Click to expand...

Thanxs for letting me breath the fumes from your gas hog, COUGH.
 
Laila said:
I'm aware US faces more worse problems than Europe generally.

I have always wondered, does US have trains that takes you from one state to another and if not, why not? Surely it'd be more cheaper and enviroment friendly than flying.
Click to expand...

In England, you go more than 200 miles in a single direction, and you're most likely in salt water.

That's a commute for some people I know that work in Los Angeles but live in San Diego. Everyweekend, off they go...

We fly because its..

faster for the distances travelled,
safer,
and cool.

Almost all of Europe can be fit into California and Oregon. It's three thousand five hundred miles from LA to New York. A choo choo train takes a week, one way.

A "bullet train" would take all day, assuming some terrorist hasn't destroyed the tracks. Who the hell would want to take a train to span an entire continent?
 
winston53660 said:
Thanxs for letting me breath the fumes from your gas hog, COUGH.
Click to expand...

No prob.

Any time.

The wifey drives a nice big Suburban, too.

I'm doing my part as a good citizen to delay the next ice age. Have you done your share?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No prob.

Any time.

The wifey drives a nice big Suburban, too.

I'm doing my part as a good citizen to delay the next ice age. Have you done your share?
Click to expand...

Of course I have. I live in Texas where there is no such thing as public transportation and cities are spread out wide and far.
 
Laila said:
I'm aware US faces more worse problems than Europe generally.

I have always wondered, does US have trains that takes you from one state to another and if not, why not? Surely it'd be more cheaper and enviroment friendly than flying.
Click to expand...

Convenience.
 
GottaHurt said:
Thank You. Try explaining this and "offsets" to the knuckleheads out there.

They're not reducing pollution, they're merely buying someone elses allotment.

Notice the shift in terminology by the enviroloons, it's not global warming anymore, it's climate change.

How clever, climate change can mean anything.
Click to expand...

The change was because people who don't understand the theory seemed to think that because SOME places were getting cooler that it somehow debunked Climate Change - however, the notion that some places will get cooler (or that places will have cooler winters and hotter summers) is perfectly consistent with the theories and what is known about prior climate change events.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No. I choose gasoline....because my gas-hog V8 van one-ton cargo van is perfectly good transport to take one fat lazy American to work all by himself, and back again, too.

It's my fat lazy life, not someone else's. I don't recall electing anyone to interfere in my private business.
Click to expand...

Except that your choices is producing more pollution than someone who makes responsible choices and that is negatively effecting everyone around you - especially the environment.
 
ludahai said:
The change was because people who don't understand the theory seemed to think that because SOME places were getting cooler that it somehow debunked Climate Change - however, the notion that some places will get cooler (or that places will have cooler winters and hotter summers) is perfectly consistent with the theories and what is known about prior climate change events.
Click to expand...

How can one "debunk" "Climate change"? Everyone except the AGW fanatics understand that the Earth's climate is essentially variable and that change is the normal process.

Only the AGW fanatics believe that 1955 was the Optimal Climate Year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom