Who still takes global warming seriou...

Who still takes global warming seriously?

There are 30925 comments on the Farmington Daily Times story from Jan 28, 2010, titled Who still takes global warming seriously?. In it, Farmington Daily Times reports that:

Despite the recent discovery of the e-mails that resulted in "Climate Gate" and the fact this has been one of the coldest and harshest winters in many years, Gov.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Farmington Daily Times.

SpaceBlues

United States

#31434 Feb 4, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
Can't remember if you saw our exchange.
She actually came back with 4 citations to Roy Spencers new paper...
If she had an ounce of honesty she would have been horrified when I proved that paper was rebutted by actual NASA climatologists and Roy Spencer's editor {to a Satellite publication by RSS} resigned in shame.
She ignored it and blithely continued as if she had found me a NASA citation.
She is not only a liar, but a liar of the highest degree.
Yes, I remember the sequence and it was similar to her previous posts before you joined the forum. She repeats the same with new embelishments like "it was 2008 when AGW was disproven" contradicting previous claim of 2007 or 2009.

Her neurons must be twisted with so many lies.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#31435 Feb 4, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
I'm a global warming supervillain, I produce new and stronger greenhouse gases for entertainment, emit greenhouse gas as a fact of life and enjoy using and producing energy and fuel.
Life is good, don't fear drought; CO2 is the answer. The more CO2 in the air, the less water plants need. Life is beautiful.
"I produce new and stronger greenhouse gases for entertainment"-sitting around putting a fart show isn't entertainment to most people.

"don't fear drought"-you must not have any or you've never gardened or farmed.

"The more CO2 in the air, the less water plants need."-dis-proven a number of times.

"Life is beautiful." Yes, it is, but how would you know? You're too busy polluting.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#31436 Feb 5, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well that's a proven lie.
The greenhouse effect in the atmosphere does not work like a real greenhouse.
And in the atmosphere, warmer temperatures will evaporate the moisture in the ground and MORE water is needed.
In a green house, the moisture is self contained, so won't go anywhere.
So where does the water go when it evaporates? Most if not all of your post is proven scientific science fiction. Well look at that you are one and the same as you call others out there expressing their opinion. Are you sure you’re not posting from that third world dictatorship country?

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#31437 Feb 5, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
RealScience in particular is well known as the #1 climatology website. They have the top climatolotists participating there, plus I have seen top skeptic interacting too.
Per Wikipedia:
Skeptical Science has become a well-known resource for people seeking to understand or debate climate change, and has been praised for its straightforwardness.[11] Marine biologist Ove Hoegh-Guldberg has described it as "the most prominent knowledge-based website dealing with climate change in the world",[12] and The Washington Post has praised it as the "most prominent and detailed" website to counter arguments by global warming skeptics.[13] In September 2011, the site won the 2011 Eureka Prize from the Australian Museum in the category of Advancement of Climate Change Knowledge.[14]
So no surprises the Queen of lying right wing sites would have none of this.
<quoted text>
If that were true, NASA wouldn't have been on record officially as supporting global warming under the Bush administration.
Caught you lying again, didn't I.
<quoted text>
No. All the websites that have NASA on them and show their official logo on the topic of global warming are strongly in favor of global warming.
Which means you told a BIG lie when you claimed recently:
TINA ANNE: The fact that you still believe in AGW after all this time really is a peek into your mind. After all, AGW stopped being a theory in 2008.
<quoted text>
You took that out of context. The running off, meant you didn't honestly respond to that.
Yes, you have now responded -- but you did it with MORE lies about it.
I challenged you to find me a site with an official NASA logo that took your position.
and all you can do is try and smoke up the room with your lies.
Realscience and Skepticalscience are well known for being loaded with propaganda and not science. And as far as awards, many works of fiction win awards. The real judge is what they produce and what they have produced is propaganda, pure and simple. The reason you find yourself defending them and the NASA web sites is that the limited amount of source material available to you means that you cannot find other sources to rely on. That you have to resort to claiming I am lying instead of finding additional proof to back up your claims.

OF course you have little choice. That so many of the places you once could rely on have now changed thier stance and are now disagree with man being the primary motivator on climate change or have been discredited.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#31438 Feb 5, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, honey, you try so hard, but your spelling alone makes you seem like an ignoramus that no one should pay attention to.
Then there's your lack of logic and your endless lies; but that's for another post.
So you are trying to say that I am like you. That like you that I have nothing but lies and lack logic.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#31439 Feb 5, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
tina's game is to fool people into thinking that even NASA is confused about climate change. The same with "fake facts" except with solar scientists or geologists are having fights with each other. Etcetera.
As once tina said they have their posts "specialized" in deliverance. ph'd is wild card at large hoping to be paid even if it involves being nice to tina, she figures.
Actually it is to just point out how many actual researcher disagree with the party line, that some of what is posted is nothing more than spin.

But I will hold on to the links to those sites. After all, in a couple of decades from now when NASA is claiming that man is the cause of a global ice age I will haul them out to beat someone just like you with as proof. Just as I love to haul out the fact that NAS once supported the claim that man was going to cause an ice age back in the seventies.

I find history is full of tools for handling people like you.
Seriously

Albuquerque, NM

#31440 Feb 5, 2013
2 manygoats wrote:
<quoted text>
Ignorance is bliss..........
http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators#co2
Seriously
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#31441 Feb 5, 2013
There you have again the wallop10 get walloped again and again.
Seriously

Albuquerque, NM

#31442 Feb 5, 2013
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#31443 Feb 5, 2013
Do tell all.

“I'm Hillary's Deplorable”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#31444 Feb 5, 2013
2 manygoats wrote:
Ignorance is bliss..........
[URL deleted]
Is CO2 increasing because of global warming or is global warming because of CO2? Only experimental tests would tell how much. Why, not one single compelling experiment of climate change mitigation?

“I'm Hillary's Deplorable”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#31445 Feb 5, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
Well that's a proven lie. The greenhouse effect in the atmosphere does not work like a real greenhouse. And in the atmosphere, warmer temperatures will evaporate the moisture in the ground and MORE water is needed. In a green house, the moisture is self contained, so won't go anywhere.
As atmospheric CO2 increases, plants have an easier time dealing with the atmosphere, therefor they lose less water. I've never claimed te greenhouse gas effect works like a real greenhouse; you can experimentally test greenhouse efficiency but you can't test the effects of man made greenhouse gas on climate in the atmosphere.

As water vapor rises it reaches cooler temperatures so water falls out of solution with the air. Life is beautiful, I support global warming.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#31446 Feb 5, 2013
You can't mitigate scientific science fiction.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#31447 Feb 5, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Realscience and Skepticalscience are well known for being loaded with propaganda and not science. And as far as awards, many works of fiction win awards. The real judge is what they produce and what they have produced is propaganda, pure and simple. The reason you find yourself defending them and the NASA web sites is that the limited amount of source material available to you means that you cannot find other sources to rely on. That you have to resort to claiming I am lying instead of finding additional proof to back up your claims.
OF course you have little choice. That so many of the places you once could rely on have now changed thier stance and are now disagree with man being the primary motivator on climate change or have been discredited.
We have propaganda....Teener has de troof!

Funny thing is, Teener equates scientific and communication awards to science fiction awards, making her an honorary PHuD.

Actually.

Funny thing is, Teener demands more proof than she provides.

I'd like to see some of these sites that have reversed their positions, too. After all.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#31448 Feb 5, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>As atmospheric CO2 increases, plants have an easier time dealing with the atmosphere, therefor they lose less water. I've never claimed te greenhouse gas effect works like a real greenhouse; you can experimentally test greenhouse efficiency but you can't test the effects of man made greenhouse gas on climate in the atmosphere.
As water vapor rises it reaches cooler temperatures so water falls out of solution with the air. Life is beautiful, I support global warming.
We all support global warming.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#31449 Feb 5, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>As atmospheric CO2 increases, plants have an easier time dealing with the atmosphere, therefor they lose less water. I've never claimed te greenhouse gas effect works like a real greenhouse; you can experimentally test greenhouse efficiency but you can't test the effects of man made greenhouse gas on climate in the atmosphere.
As water vapor rises it reaches cooler temperatures so water falls out of solution with the air. Life is beautiful, I support global warming.
Let me help you out on the first point.

#1 Warming associated with CO2 is logarithmic, that means each doubling of CO2 leads to smaller increases in temperature.

What you ignore is:

#2 It is the INDIRECT effects of CO2 warming (ie the FEEDBACKS) that worry scientists -- including 97% of climatologists and virtually ALL of the world respected science organizations.

--warming from CO2 means the atmosphere can hold more water vapor (another global warming gas); Because there are more clouds, this creates more powerful weather systems -- including in some areas more rain AND more snow (clouds shut out sunlight)

-- the ice caps are melting-- NASA and NOAA satellites confirm it. The ice acts reflects sunlight back into space, therefore more heat will be absorbed by the Earth, when the ice has fully melted.

--underneath the ice are LARGE deposits of methane. Methane is a more powerful global warming gas, than CO2.

-- the oceans are currently absorbing around 80% of the additional CO2 from human causes. This is creating problems with the corals and algae in higher latitudes now and studies indicate will creep into lower attitudes. In addition, there is concern that the oceans will saturate and start releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere.

Then of course the additional CO2 is creating acidification of the ocean waters, and many coral species and other plankton life will die from this, affecting the food chain. And it is happening so rapidly, scientists worry if new species will have enough time to develop or not.

So yeah, if you can just go with her on IGNORING the FEEDBACKS, then what's the problem???

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#31450 Feb 5, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Realscience and Skepticalscience are well known for being loaded with propaganda and not science. And as far as awards, many works of fiction win awards. The real judge is what they produce and what they have produced is propaganda, pure and simple.
They're looked upon as science.

You post purely from right wing ideology sites.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
The reason you find yourself defending them and the NASA web sites is that the limited amount of source material available to you means that you cannot find other sources to rely on.
You admitted you don't think NASA's official climatology is a science site.

Is that also an admission you were lying when you said you could find me an official NASA website that was opposed to global warming?

NAH, you aren't that honest.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>

That you have to resort to claiming I am lying instead of finding additional proof to back up your claims.
Let's see: You insisted all the scientists were saying global warming was a hoax.

I showed all the world renown, top science agencies (not based on petroleum) had statements strongly in support of global warming; same as all the mainstream science media and world renown journals.

I gave you an official NASA citation. What else do you call it when you insisted there were "other" official NASA websites that were calling global warming a hoax. Except, OOPS you couldn;t produce them. Nor will you admit it, even now.

A higher truth -- you know "above" the real truth. HA HA HA
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
OF course you have little choice. That so many of the places you once could rely on have now changed thier stance and are now disagree with man being the primary motivator on climate change or have been discredited.
I've switched to voting you a peanut, down from clueless.

“I'm Hillary's Deplorable”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#31451 Feb 5, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
Let me help you out on the first point.
#1 Warming associated with CO2 is logarithmic, that means each doubling of CO2 leads to smaller increases in temperature.
^^^That's no hope, its wrong. Each doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere produces the same increase in temperature. That means each molecule of CO2 you admit has less greenhouse effect than the previous molecule.

.
Wallop10 wrote:
What you ignore is:#2 It is the INDIRECT effects of CO2 warming (ie the FEEDBACKS) that worry scientists -- including 97% of climatologists and virtually ALL of the world respected science organizations.
--warming from CO2 means the atmosphere can hold more water vapor (another global warming gas); Because there are more clouds, this creates more powerful weather systems -- including in some areas more rain AND more snow (clouds shut out sunlight)
-- the ice caps are melting-- NASA and NOAA satellites confirm it. The ice acts reflects sunlight back into space, therefore more heat will be absorbed by the Earth, when the ice has fully melted.
--underneath the ice are LARGE deposits of methane. Methane is a more powerful global warming gas, than CO2.
-- the oceans are currently absorbing around 80% of the additional CO2 from human causes. This is creating problems with the corals and algae in higher latitudes now and studies indicate will creep into lower attitudes. In addition, there is concern that the oceans will saturate and start releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere.
Then of course the additional CO2 is creating acidification of the ocean waters, and many coral species and other plankton life will die from this, affecting the food chain. And it is happening so rapidly, scientists worry if new species will have enough time to develop or not.
So yeah, if you can just go with her on IGNORING the FEEDBACKS, then what's the problem???
There are no experimental tests of climate change mitigation; no experimental data on climate feedback. That's why climate change mitigation is a hoax and global warming alarmism is pseudoscience.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#31452 Feb 6, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me help you out on the first point.
#1 Warming associated with CO2 is logarithmic, that means each doubling of CO2 leads to smaller increases in temperature.
What you ignore is:
#2 It is the INDIRECT effects of CO2 warming (ie the FEEDBACKS) that worry scientists -- including 97% of climatologists and virtually ALL of the world respected science organizations.
--warming from CO2 means the atmosphere can hold more water vapor (another global warming gas); Because there are more clouds, this creates more powerful weather systems -- including in some areas more rain AND more snow (clouds shut out sunlight)
-- the ice caps are melting-- NASA and NOAA satellites confirm it. The ice acts reflects sunlight back into space, therefore more heat will be absorbed by the Earth, when the ice has fully melted.
--underneath the ice are LARGE deposits of methane. Methane is a more powerful global warming gas, than CO2.
-- the oceans are currently absorbing around 80% of the additional CO2 from human causes. This is creating problems with the corals and algae in higher latitudes now and studies indicate will creep into lower attitudes. In addition, there is concern that the oceans will saturate and start releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere.
Then of course the additional CO2 is creating acidification of the ocean waters, and many coral species and other plankton life will die from this, affecting the food chain. And it is happening so rapidly, scientists worry if new species will have enough time to develop or not.
So yeah, if you can just go with her on IGNORING the FEEDBACKS, then what's the problem???
See you just can't go out there and quote scientific science fiction and IGNORING REAL SCIENCE. For that you get the clueless walloped award again and again.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#31453 Feb 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^That's no hope, its wrong. Each doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere produces the same increase in temperature. That means each molecule of CO2 you admit has less greenhouse effect than the previous molecule.
.
<quoted text>There are no experimental tests of climate change mitigation; no experimental data on climate feedback. That's why climate change mitigation is a hoax and global warming alarmism is pseudoscience.
Actually, experiments began in the 1850s, done by John Tyndall. Nobel Prize winner Svante Arrhenius first proposed the theory in 1896, suggesting an increase in temps of ~5.5º C with doubled CO2 in the atmosphere. This isn't that far off from the ~4.5º C suggested by the most accurate current information.

So AGW/CC theory is older than relatively or quantum mechanics. It has made ~17-20 correct predictions, depending on how you count them. As information has continued to pile up, the theory has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. You deniers are deluding yourselves.

We can start with a nice explanation of John Tyndall's work, along with brief explanations of the work of others, including Arrhenius & Callendar in the 1930s. Wiki has a write-up on Arrhenius. I also included a link to documentation of the correct predictions.

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/ClimateChangi...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius

http://bartonpaullevenson.com/ModelsReliable....

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.

Farmington Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Farmington bar loses liquor license (Nov '08) 5 hr neil cobb 98
Jim Bourke RC Groups Slander Bullying (Dec '08) 11 hr RC Group Sucks 44
News Suspects sought in robbery at Dollar General 15 hr gotadollar 1
News Woman pleads to murder for role in drunken fight (May '09) Tue RezWarrior 52
News Martinez prefers to stick to issues (Jun '10) Sep 25 Marc 6,935
Barack Obama COUNTDOWN Clock 1000 days left & c... (Apr '14) Sep 24 117 Days Remaining 635
Farmington Racism-Part One (Dec '11) Sep 20 Blah ha NAILED IT 150

Farmington Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Farmington Mortgages