Go to IT CURES HOARSENESS! The "Global Warming" Hoax
- Add a comment
- Go to Is 98% of What I Write Concerning “Global Warming” “Quite Unreliable”?
Re: One more thing: the tornado data was to refute your statement concerning
But all you did was share the same data I did. I'm still waiting for you to actually refute the information I presented about it, in which I exposed the erroneous interpretation of the data by two news networks, and disproved the notion that the tornadoes were due to "global warming."
posted by
WriterofLight
on June 12, 2008 at 3:01 PM
| link to this | reply
One more thing: the tornado data was to refute your statement concerning
same. I had no intention of linking it to Global Warming; just demonstrating that your statements were faulty.
posted by
Xeno-x
on June 12, 2008 at 11:17 AM
| link to this | reply
WOL
The data clearly shows a warming trend. The data clearly shows a correlation between CO2 levels and rising temperatures. The data clearly shows that in recent years there have been more hurricanes than in the past. The data clearly shows that this year the U.S. has many more tornadoes than the average. The data clearly shows that the Arctic Ice is shrinking. I have pointed out many other occurrences that clearly are the result of rising temperatures.
I don't know where you get the idea that "that "concrete wall" of "global warming" theory is built consists of the sand and mud of ignorance, panic-mongering, emotionalism, greed and corruption.
It's not a theory, and no amount of calling it one will make it one. Anyone that refers to the data I have mentioned can see that.
I am also trying to figure out where you come down on the issue. In this comment and some others you almost seem to deny that Global Warming is a reality; while in others, you say I am wrong when stating such, that the issue is whether or not it is the result of human activity (I would refer to my blog on the subject for a comment on that). Consistent statements help to make your position more believable.
You and I are on different sides of the issue, obviously. While you call your position " logic and common sense" and mine "ignorance, panic-mongering, emotionalism, greed and corruption", I would conversely call my position logic and common sense, and yours, ignorance, panic-mongering, emotionalism, greed and corruption.
The difference, though, is in the data. The data clearly supports Global Warming.
posted by
Xeno-x
on June 12, 2008 at 11:15 AM
| link to this | reply
Re: FIRST THE FACTS -- REFER TO MY BLOG ON GLOBAL WARMING
The problem is that you present all kinds of data, which I have praised you for doing, but you don't prove that the data has anything to do with the conclusion that you try to support with it.
Your sharing of NOAA tornado data was a perfect example. The data was entirely accurate. But you made absolutely no case whatsoever to tie it to "global warming" - and just as well, because you would have been mistaken to do so.
That said, I like that last line. The problem there is that the foundation upon which that "concrete wall" of "global warming" theory is built consists of the sand and mud of ignorance, panic-mongering, emotionalism, greed and corruption. I'm not swatting mosquitoes; I'm doing my best to dig away that foundation and get to the bedrock of sound climatology, meteorology, logic and common sense.
posted by
WriterofLight
on June 9, 2008 at 8:39 PM
| link to this | reply
FIRST THE FACTS -- REFER TO MY BLOG ON GLOBAL WARMING
Check the links.
No odd little blurbs here and there to knock and make fun of.
Just data and cold, hard facts that no one can deny.
Scroll down and check the graphs and data I have presented.
The "hockey stick" you speak of -- I have presented that graph numerous times.
This is all information from the National Weather Service (NOAA), a government agency. Again, cold, hard facts.
It's sort of like a concrete wall.
You keep swatting at mosquitoes, but the concrete wall still stands. You don't even make an effort to dispute the data.
posted by
Xeno-x
on June 5, 2008 at 1:46 PM
| link to this | reply