BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting Obama's citizen...

There are 194332 comments on the Chicago Tribune story from Jan 8, 2009, titled BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting Obama's citizen.... In it, Chicago Tribune reports that:

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Friday whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama 's U.S. citizenship, a continuation of a New Jersey case embraced by some opponents of Obama's ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Chicago Tribune.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#185609 Feb 25, 2014
wojar wrote:
Changes in Solar Brightness Too Weak to Explain Global Warming
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/bright...
But certain moronic deniers are convinced that scientists are unaware of solar irradiance.
Libtards think the fact that our Sun was in a Solar Maximum in the late 2oth Century had absolutely nothing to do with global warming during the same time. Do you think it odd that the Maunder [Solar} Minimum had NOTHING to do with the Little Ice Age?!?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Num...

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#185610 Feb 25, 2014
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Oregon Garbage Man Saves American Flag Blown Off Pole
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =HYvcQ7aZncgXX
Yawn

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#185611 Feb 25, 2014
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you notice that article was written in 2006, the year before they changed "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"? Why did they change the name???
Did you know that Dr. David Hathaway prior to 2007 thought Solar Cycle #24 would be another hot cycle and the very next year changed his solar forecast and it has been running true as #24 is the coldest solar cycle in about one hundred years?
As so, just who is UCAR? Ah, our loony-lefties from the University of Colorado?!?
Simple.Because it involved a whole lot more than global warming. Warming IS causing change and so goes the vicious circle.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#185612 Feb 25, 2014
loose cannon wrote:
To deny and dispute the very real potential of a runaway greenhouse effect is nothing less than a fatalistic approach to a very serious anthropogenic problem
Kind of like Cold Fusion?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#185613 Feb 25, 2014
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Oregon Garbage Man Saves American Flag Blown Off Pole
http://www.youtube.com/watch ..
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Yawn
But if he ran over some baby ducks crossing the road, what you have done with him?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#185614 Feb 25, 2014
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Simple.Because it involved a whole lot more than global warming. Warming IS causing change and so goes the vicious circle.
But, in your opinion, it can not change and go back into another Little Ice Age simply because evil mankind is more powerful than our Sun?
Obskeptic

Canton, MI

#185615 Feb 25, 2014
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Simple.Because it involved a whole lot more than global warming. Warming IS causing change and so goes the vicious circle.
Again I ask the question Jacques, if in fact the climate is changing, as it always has continuously for centuries in both directions, is it more beneficial to human existence for temperatures to trend towards a warmer planet, or a colder one? Which extreme would terminate mans existence sooner, extreme cold or extreme warm?

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#185616 Feb 25, 2014
Obskeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
Again I ask the question Jacques, if in fact the climate is changing, as it always has continuously for centuries in both directions, is it more beneficial to human existence for temperatures to trend towards a warmer planet, or a colder one? Which extreme would terminate mans existence sooner, extreme cold or extreme warm?
I have no idea , do you? I do know that the inhabitants of the colder northern hemisphere live better and longer, are richer than the majority of the hotter and tropical south, even though they are often blessed with easier agriculture along with a host of natural resources. Why's that?

And again, I answer your question. I don't know. As I've told Rogue a million times, I leave things that are foreign to me, like climate science, to scientists. The majority of the latter tell us we are heading in the wrong direction with climate warming. One thing I find interesting is that the process we are supposedly going through has occurred before, 1000s of years ago, but at a much slower pace.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#185617 Feb 25, 2014
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Oregon Garbage Man Saves American Flag Blown Off Pole
http://www.youtube.com/watch..<quoted text>
But if he ran over some baby ducks crossing the road, what you have done with him?
If he had done it accidentally, nothing.

If he had done it one purpose, nothing, except that I'd think he's a heartless S.O.B. It is worst in my book than leaving the flag be.

P.S.: Oh, the garbage man (we don't call 'em that any more) folded the flag on a garbage can, did you see and hear? Shameful, no?

Hey, change of subject. What about that "cracker" definition I've given you twice now? Never any comment, except you come back with it on a regular basis. Should blacks not feel resentful at having the whip "cracked" at them by their masters? On the other hand, why would the whites have anything against "N worders?". What'd they do the crackers?

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#185619 Feb 25, 2014
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you notice that article was written in 2006, the year before they changed "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"? Why did they change the name???
Did you know that Dr. David Hathaway prior to 2007 thought Solar Cycle #24 would be another hot cycle and the very next year changed his solar forecast and it has been running true as #24 is the coldest solar cycle in about one hundred years?
As so, just who is UCAR? Ah, our loony-lefties from the University of Colorado?!?
The article summarized the conclusions of a paper published in Nature. However the rougetard has no rebuttal so he resorts to ad hominem bullcrap. The article referred to the global warming that occurred over the past 100 years and how solar irradiance changes could not possibly account for the entire magnitude of warming observed.

BTW, Hathaway's predictions about solar cycles have absolutely nothing to do with the findings that solar irradiance cannot account for the magnitude of warming. The rougetard is out in left field again and as dishonest as usual.
wojar wrote:
Changes in Solar Brightness Too Weak to Explain Global Warming
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/bright ...
But certain moronic deniers are convinced that scientists are unaware of solar irradiance.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#185620 Feb 25, 2014
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Libtards think the fact that our Sun was in a Solar Maximum in the late 2oth Century had absolutely nothing to do with global warming during the same time. Do you think it odd that the Maunder [Solar} Minimum had NOTHING to do with the Little Ice Age?!?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Num...
It is not odd that the illiterate rougetard thinks the article claimed that the Maunder Minimum had nothing to do with the Little Ice Age.

It is also not odd but sadly consistent that the illiterate rougetard thinks the article said solar irradiance had nothing to do with the warming observed over the past 100 years.

“Our results imply that, over the past century, climate change due to human influences must far outweigh the effects of changes in the Sun's brightness,” says Wigley.

Where does the rougetard find "nothing to do" in the article?
wojar wrote:
Changes in Solar Brightness Too Weak to Explain Global Warming
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/bright ...
But certain moronic deniers are convinced that scientists are unaware of solar irradiance.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#185621 Feb 25, 2014
Obskeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
Again I ask the question Jacques, if in fact the climate is changing, as it always has continuously for centuries in both directions, is it more beneficial to human existence for temperatures to trend towards a warmer planet, or a colder one? Which extreme would terminate mans existence sooner, extreme cold or extreme warm?
The fact that climate does change has nothing to do with the the impact of anthropogenic contributions to warming and the effects thereof. The fact is continued warming will have adverse effects and whether "extreme cold or extreme warm" would terminate man's existence sooner or later is irrelevant.
Obskeptic

Canton, MI

#185624 Feb 26, 2014
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no idea , do you? I do know that the inhabitants of the colder northern hemisphere live better and longer, are richer than the majority of the hotter and tropical south, even though they are often blessed with easier agriculture along with a host of natural resources. Why's that?
And again, I answer your question. I don't know. As I've told Rogue a million times, I leave things that are foreign to me, like climate science, to scientists. The majority of the latter tell us we are heading in the wrong direction with climate warming. One thing I find interesting is that the process we are supposedly going through has occurred before, 1000s of years ago, but at a much slower pace.
Are you implying that because we are being told that a majority of government funded "scientists" have concluded we are warming, using data that even some of them say has been manipulated and does not include all mitigating factors, that consensus now represents good science? Does one actually have to "know" to be able to apply some common sense and skepticism to what the political wing of science is telling us to be a fact? Could solar flares, el nino/la nina, water vapor, and volcanic activity have much more significant effects on weather patterns and cooling/warming trends then mans influence? Why have these political scientists and warming alarmists changed their labeling from "global warming" to "climate change"? Why do they consistently report loss of ice pack in the north while ignoring record ice packs in the south? I just refuse to buy in to their line of BS when their conclusion is to throttle back economic opportunity for all so they can have more control and dole it out to some.
Obskeptic

Canton, MI

#185625 Feb 26, 2014
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
The article summarized the conclusions of a paper published in Nature. However the rougetard has no rebuttal so he resorts to ad hominem bullcrap. The article referred to the global warming that occurred over the past 100 years and how solar irradiance changes could not possibly account for the entire magnitude of warming observed.
BTW, Hathaway's predictions about solar cycles have absolutely nothing to do with the findings that solar irradiance cannot account for the magnitude of warming. The rougetard is out in left field again and as dishonest as usual.
<quoted text>
So less then one degree over 100 years is "alarming" and "magnanimous". That to me is as stupid a statement as expressing alarm over a newborn growing enough to walk in a year. Solar irradiance is not the only influencing factor to temperature fluctuations on the planet.
Obskeptic

Canton, MI

#185626 Feb 26, 2014
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that climate does change has nothing to do with the the impact of anthropogenic contributions to warming and the effects thereof. The fact is continued warming will have adverse effects and whether "extreme cold or extreme warm" would terminate man's existence sooner or later is irrelevant.
So when the planet shifted from the ice age and experienced global warming significant enough to cause the glaciers to retreat far to the north and the highest elevations, the results were what? The establishment and proliferation of the human species and more plant and animal life then could be documented for centuries. Why again are you freaking out over this and want all of us too as well W? How about putting on some sun screen and enjoying a little sunshine my friend. It's good for the soul!
Obskeptic

Canton, MI

#185627 Feb 26, 2014
I think that all you lib's are trying way to hard to be smart. Thats what I think! Live your life and leave the rest of us the hell alone. How about that?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#185628 Feb 26, 2014
I guess Jimmy Carter does not like Barrack Obama being a bigger idiot than he is so he is off to Venezuela in an attempt to reclaim the title.

Ex-President Carter planning trip to Venezuela
Associated Press By JOSHUA GOODMAN 11 hours ago

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP)— Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter is expressing concern about Venezuela's escalating political crisis and wants to meet with leaders on both sides in an upcoming trip.

Carter, a mediator of past political conflict in the deeply polarized South American nation, made the offer in private letters he sent this week to President Nicolas Maduro and opposition leader Henrique Capriles.

Expressing "grave concern" about the loss of life in recent protests and the risk of more conflict ahead, Carter in the letter to Capriles said that for dialogue aimed at easing tensions to succeed both side must "send signals of their willingness to alleviate the present state of tension."

For the opposition, that means making clear its commitment to act within constitutional limits and strongly reject violence, the Nobel peace laureate wrote. In turn the government must guarantee the right to peaceful protest and impartial justice for jailed protesters.

http://news.yahoo.com/ex-president-carter-pla... --

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#185629 Feb 26, 2014
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that climate does change has nothing to do with the the impact of anthropogenic contributions to warming and the effects thereof. The fact is continued warming will have adverse effects and whether "extreme cold or extreme warm" would terminate man's existence sooner or later is irrelevant.
Obskeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
So when the planet shifted from the ice age and experienced global warming significant enough to cause the glaciers to retreat far to the north and the highest elevations, the results were what? The establishment and proliferation of the human species and more plant and animal life then could be documented for centuries. Why again are you freaking out over this and want all of us too as well W? How about putting on some sun screen and enjoying a little sunshine my friend. It's good for the soul!
I like it when he says global warming is BAD but he assumes global cooling is all good. I am much more worried about another Little Ice Age as it will bring FAMINE which will kill a billion people. Climate is just another way Mother Nature tries to correct human behavior. Either we adapt or we die!!! I think it would be difficult to live under a mile of ice!!!

“On Deck”

Since: Aug 08

French Polynesia

#185630 Feb 26, 2014
"Some people like to drive a Ford, not a Ferrari. Some people like to drink out of a red Solo cup, not a crystal stem," Blackburn fumed. "You're taking away their choice."

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#185631 Feb 26, 2014
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
It is not odd that the illiterate rougetard thinks the article claimed that the Maunder Minimum had nothing to do with the Little Ice Age.
It is also not odd but sadly consistent that the illiterate rougetard thinks the article said solar irradiance had nothing to do with the warming observed over the past 100 years.
“Our results imply that, over the past century, climate change due to human influences must far outweigh the effects of changes in the Sun's brightness,” says Wigley.
Where does the rougetard find "nothing to do" in the article?
<quoted text>
Ah, Dr. Hathaway did NOT say that solar irradiance had NOTHING to do with the warming observed over the past 100 years. Read read that article.
And where did I say that that ARTICLE said anything about the Maunder Minimum because I did not. You seem to put words in peoples mouths! In other words, you hear what you want to hear and disregard the rest.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 5 min Jane Dahlinger 100,196
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 8 min nanoanomaly 1,261,959
Abby 7-28-15 54 min mrs gladys kravitz 9
News Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 1 hr Mark 52,052
Double Word Game (Dec '11) 2 hr Lexus1985 1,698
Fun Song Combos (Sep '12) 2 hr Lexus1985 453
No reports of flash mobs recently? Because the... 2 hr Warning to tourists 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages