romney knows hurricane clean up
- Thread starter UncleBuck
- Start date
FreedomWorks
Well-Known Member
Sussman was born in 1956 in East Los Angeles, California. During his youth, his family moved to Glenview, Illinois, outside of Chicago, Illinois. He attended Glenbrook South High School, graduating in 1974. After high school, he went on to study at the University of Missouri. He is married to the former Sue Rittenhouse, and together, they have three sons and one daughter, three of whom were adopted. Sussman and his wife have been quoted saying, "We have four kids, three were adopted, but we forget which three."
FreedomWorks
Well-Known Member
Media Matters? Thats as far left wing as you can possibly get. All kinds of spinning in that link.
If Al Gore is such an expert when it comes to "global warming", then why won't he debate Sussman? Why is he so scared?
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
The fieriest rebuttal I could muster would pale beside Carne's link. Just ~shakes head~ wow. cn
Carne Seca
Well-Known Member
It's like talking to a Muslim fanatic. Facts and truth be damned.
FreedomWorks
Well-Known Member
You have over 20,000 posts of rubbish. Why don't you ever have anything of substance to say? How are people supposed to respond to you if its always "blah,blah ,blah”
Carne Seca
Well-Known Member
It's only blah blah blah if you don't have the intellect to comprehend multiple syllable words... and can't spell.
Once again:
Your - possessive. Your house. Your car. Your lack of comprehension.
You're - contraction. Combination of you and are. You are going to fail miserably. You are not very bright.
Sinking in yet?
FreedomWorks
Well-Known Member
SHOW ME SOME FACTS! SHOW ME SOME TRUTH! I've been asking for two damn pages on this thread now.
WTF is your problem?
FreedomWorks
Well-Known Member
Carne Seca
Well-Known Member
http://epa.gov/climatechange/facts.html
this is the part where you dismiss the evidence because you don't "trust the source."
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I think part of the problem may have to do with the expectations those untrained in science have ... of science.
So far science has been of two sorts: compiling and speculative.
The compilers have been gathering and assessing climatic data, which so far are not complete and are sometimes plagued with statistical noise.
The speculators have been running computer models, but as they're using the compilers' incomplete data sets together with sometimes seemingly arbitrary premises, they're getting quite a spread of results.
So the perspective from unpoliticized science is: We're working on it.
Trouble is that most folks want a hard prediction for political purposes: a hard prediction can be championed or crucified. "We don't know yet" seems so unsatisfying when the torches begin to sputter and the pitchforks get heavy. cn
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
well, if you throw in some paper products to that rubbish then we can call mitt romney and he'll come clean it up. just like cleaning up a hurricane.
FreedomWorks
Well-Known Member
What Mitt Romney said was an analogy.... Get over it
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
and what i said was a joke, not a dick. don't take it so hard.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
[video=youtube;Vur_Mg1yffg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vur_Mg1yffg[/video]
FreedomWorks
Well-Known Member
We do know. Its just that you are so caught up in the hype, you think the boogeyman is going to build a hurricane and tear your house down.
Listen to me very carefully. By far the hottest decade of the 20th century was the 1930s. Well before the burning of fossil fuels was even an issue. The more meteorologists compile data and look into the matter, the easier it is to understand why Al Gore is not open to debate.
FreedomWorks
Well-Known Member
????? I'm not
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
| Year | Global[SUP][59][/SUP] | Land[SUP][60][/SUP] | Ocean[SUP][61][/SUP] |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2005 | 0.6183 | 0.9593 | 0.4896 |
| 2010 | 0.6171 | 0.9642 | 0.4885 |
| 1998 | 0.5984 | 0.8320 | 0.5090 |
| 2003 | 0.5832 | 0.7735 | 0.5108 |
| 2002 | 0.5762 | 0.8318 | 0.4798 |
| 2006 | 0.5623 | 0.8158 | 0.4669 |
| 2009 | 0.5591 | 0.7595 | 0.4848 |
| 2007 | 0.5509 | 0.9852 | 0.3900 |
| 2004 | 0.5441 | 0.7115 | 0.4819 |
| 2001 | 0.5188 | 0.7207 | 0.4419 |
| 2011 | 0.5124 | 0.8189 | 0.3970 |
| 2008 | 0.4842 | 0.7801 | 0.3745 |
| 1997 | 0.4799 | 0.5583 | 0.4502 |
| 1999 | 0.4210 | 0.6759 | 0.3240 |
| 1995 | 0.4097 | 0.6533 | 0.3196 |
| 2000 | 0.3899 | 0.5174 | 0.3409 |
| 1990 | 0.3879 | 0.5479 | 0.3283 |
| 1991 | 0.3380 | 0.4087 | 0.3110 |
| 1988 | 0.3028 | 0.4192 | 0.2595 |
| 1987 | 0.2991 | 0.2959 | 0.3005 |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record
FreedomWorks
Well-Known Member
Why did you quote me before posting that graph?
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
While this is correct, it suffers from two problems of presentation.
1) Cherry-picking. Why only the 20th century? Perhaps to occlude the fact that the 2000s, the decade just finished, were hotter yet?
2) The unspoken conclusion: This injures the likelihood of global warming. However that is jazzhands at its finest, since it doesn't. Who, by reading the stock charts stopped one week prior, could predict the dumps of '87 and '10 ... or the crashes of 1929, 2001 and 2015?
Between you and me, Al Gore bores me. Equating a belief that global warming might be real with an adherence to that buffoon is not honest, and it's a way to demonize/ridicule the entire concept of global warming (false dichotomy). It's all capsularized in your bold proclamation that "we do know". We don't, and I worry that when a change comes, it will be fast (but not Hollywood fast! Two days??) and nasty. *If* that happens, (and you cannot guarantee that it won't! In our lifetimes, even, maybe!) all this righteous coaldigger swagger will read like a history of the Counterreformation. My opinion. cn