Global warming 'undeniable,' scientis...

Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say

There are 35605 comments on the TwinCities.com story from Jul 29, 2010, titled Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say. In it, TwinCities.com reports that:

Scientists from around the world are providing even more evidence of global warming, one day after President Barack Obama renewed his call for climate legislation.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at TwinCities.com.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#24763 Mar 28, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
How can you adapt to climate change?
People adapt to rising sea levels by moving inland. Architecture helps keep your home comfortable in extreme climate conditions. Clothing protects you from climate. These are all well known and tested climate change adaptations.

Why no examples of climate change mitigation from technology or nature? No living creature has evolved the ability to mitigate climate change and no experimental test shows climate change mitigation is possible.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#24764 Mar 28, 2013
Kyle wrote:
No, jackass,
I don't insult my opponents, this is where we differ. I rely on reason, not ad hominem arguments.

.
Kyle wrote:
you are denying impending catastrophe that science supports.
I don't deny climate change, I embrace it. Climate always changes.

.
Kyle wrote:
You absolutely need to explain it. So far, your explanation is that you're too ignorant to understand climate science - or even scientific methodologies, as if your ignorance of the science is a valid argument against it.
The lack of any experimental test of man made greenhouse gas in the atmosphere changing climate shows me either our CO2 emissions are insignificant or the science hasn't reached the point where it can help mitigate climate change.

.
Kyle wrote:
As for mitigation, once again you're ignoring what I posted. It's been studied to death; the cost benefit ratio is TINY. YOUR IGNORANCE IS NOT AN ARGUMENT!
We can't know the cost/benefit ratio for climate change mitigation because climate change mitigation has never been demonstrated in the atmosphere.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#24765 Mar 28, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
...A revenue neutral carbon tax costs the people nothing as a whole. You simply have no rational objection to it, except that you don't want heavy carbon emitters to have to pay for the damage they're doing. You want OTHER PEOPLE to pay for your mess. The only people strung up on lamp-poles will be the hold-out deniers.
I want a revenue neutral carbon tax of zero new taxes. I favor a 0% carbon tax; that's revenue neutral.

Any nonzero tax would divert resources from government and the economy, to pay and administer that tax. Zero is the only truly neutral tax.

I've stated this four times now, and HSL has yet to respond to the proposal. He'd rather threaten and name-call, than take up the issue.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#24766 Mar 28, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I don't insult my opponents, this is where we differ. I rely on reason, not ad hominem arguments.
You rely on the endless repetition of long debunked irrational, illogical and idiotic arguments just to annoy people, therefore you get called a troll, which is what you are.
Amused Slew

Minneapolis, MN

#24767 Mar 28, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I want a revenue neutral carbon tax of zero new taxes. I favor a 0% carbon tax; that's revenue neutral.
Any nonzero tax would divert resources from government and the economy, to pay and administer that tax. Zero is the only truly neutral tax.
I've stated this four times now, and HSL has yet to respond to the proposal. He'd rather threaten and name-call, than take up the issue.
Wow a voice of reason on global warming.
/salute

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#24768 Mar 28, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
You rely on the endless repetition of long debunked irrational, illogical and idiotic arguments just to annoy people, therefore you get called a troll, which is what you are.
Show me a compelling experiment for climate change mitigation and I'll change my views and stop posting.

I'm waiting...

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#24769 Mar 28, 2013
Amused Slew wrote:
Wow a voice of reason on global warming.
/salute
Thank you.

HSL is as wrong about economics as he is about science. I'm looking forward to his reply about a 0% revenue neutral carbon tax. He's already said he wants to stiff us.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#24770 Mar 28, 2013
Justification for my statement above:
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
...
Actually, the LACK of a stiff carbon tax is a HORRENDOUS DISTORTION of the energy market. Our energy market has NEVER been free because it allows people to emit all the carbon they want, making people in the future pay for it. It's a lot like the national debt, but WAY more money....
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#24771 Mar 28, 2013
Tank wrote:
<quoted text>
You sound more than a little confused.
Showing peer reviewed scientific work would have to be cut and paste.
P.S.- Don't sail straight east, you'll fall off the edge of the earth. You're welcome.
You sound like you have fallen off the edge. It would have to be their peer reviewed cut and paste published work. To date Mr. fallen of the edge they only cut and paste scientific science fiction useless babble. You’re Welcome.
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#24772 Mar 28, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Show me a compelling experiment for climate change mitigation and I'll change my views and stop posting.
I'm waiting...
Been answered spammer. Pretty sad, you're playing dumb, but you're a natural, right ?
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#24773 Mar 28, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Thank you.
HSL is as wrong about economics as he is about science. I'm looking forward to his reply about a 0% revenue neutral carbon tax. He's already said he wants to stiff us.
Guy using another poster's moniker says you're correct and you embrace the dishonest POS... Of course, nothing wrong there, right ?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#24774 Mar 28, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I want a revenue neutral carbon tax of zero new taxes. I favor a 0% carbon tax; that's revenue neutral.
Any nonzero tax would divert resources from government and the economy, to pay and administer that tax. Zero is the only truly neutral tax.
No matter how many times you lie like this, it just isn't true. A revenue neutral carbon tax diverts ZERO resources from the economy & adds ZERO resources to government. It does NOT hurt the economy like you claim. It's a pigouvian tax that takes money from heavy carbon emitters & gives it to low carbon emitters.

It would discourage you people from poisoning our atmosphere.

Your opinion may not reflect reality, but others' opinios do.

Yes, when sea levels rise, we move inland. The last time it happened, perhap ~11 Kya, it was relatively easy, & we got the Noah story out of it.

Today, we'd have to abandon places like New York. There goes $20 T down the drain - all because you don't want to pay a few pennies for a carbon tax that will be given to more responsible, less selfish citizens.

Nice one, BG. I hope they're paying you enough to justify it.
PHD2

Minneapolis, MN

#24775 Mar 28, 2013
So spring 2012 was warmer than average AND the experts said it was evidence of Global Warming.

Spring of 2013 is colder than average and the experts claim it's more evidence of Global Warming.

WHICH IS IT?

You can't have it both ways!!
SpaceBlues

United States

#24776 Mar 28, 2013
PHD2 wrote:
So spring 2012 was warmer than average AND the experts said it was evidence of Global Warming.
Spring of 2013 is colder than average and the experts claim it's more evidence of Global Warming.
WHICH IS IT?
You can't have it both ways!!
Do us a favor and learn a little. If it's nuts to you, it's nuts to us.

There's no shortcut to learning science. However, your fallback is to believe the scientists as a group, right?

Good luck.

Remember: Ultimately, from the perspective of policy makers and the general public, the impacts of climate change and the required mitigation and adaptation efforts are largely the same in a world of 2 or 4 C per doubling of CO2 concentrations where carbon dioxide emissions are rising quickly.
PHD2

Minneapolis, MN

#24777 Mar 28, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Do us a favor and learn a little. If it's nuts to you, it's nuts to us.
There's no shortcut to learning science. However, your fallback is to believe the scientists as a group, right?
Good luck.
Remember: Ultimately, from the perspective of policy makers and the general public, the impacts of climate change and the required mitigation and adaptation efforts are largely the same in a world of 2 or 4 C per doubling of CO2 concentrations where carbon dioxide emissions are rising quickly.
So spring 2012 was warmer than average AND the experts said it was evidence of Global Warming.

Spring of 2013 is colder than average and the experts claim it's more evidence of Global Warming.

WHICH IS IT?

You can't have it both ways!!

Please explain flaws in my logic.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#24778 Mar 28, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
No matter how many times you lie like this, it just isn't true. A revenue neutral carbon tax diverts ZERO resources from the economy & adds ZERO resources to government.
If the tax rate is zero, that's true. If the tax rate is greater than zero, it costs the taxpayer and the government, just to calculate, produce and collect the tax. I'm waiting for HSL's reply to my question, why not a 0% carbon tax like we have now? A zero percent tax is revenue neutral, takes no effort to prosecute the tax cheat and gives no incentives to the taxman. I'm for a revenue neutral carbon tax of 0%. Can we compromise on zero?

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
It does NOT hurt the economy like you claim. It's a pigouvian tax that takes money from heavy carbon emitters & gives it to low carbon emitters.
This is interesting:
The Measurement Problem:

"Arthur Pigou said in "It must be confessed, however, that we seldom know enough to decide in what fields and to what extent the State, on account of [the gaps between private and public costs] could interfere with individual choice." In other words, the economist's blackboard "model" assumes knowledge we don't possess — it's a model with assumed "givens" which are in fact not given to anyone. Friedrich Hayek would argue that this is knowledge which could not be provided as a "given" by any "method" yet discovered, due to insuperable cognitive limits."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
It would discourage you people from poisoning our atmosphere.
^^^This is proof of Pigou's wisdom, farmers need atmospheric CO2 to fertilize their plants and we need to emit CO2 or we die. CO2 isn't poison, carbon dioxide is vital to life.

We have no peer reviewed experimental test on man made greenhouse gas that shows any climate change. There's no way to calculate the externalities without experimental data.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
Your opinion may not reflect reality, but others' opinios do.
^^^Here I assume, HSL believes his opinions reflect reality, that CO2 is poisonous at atmospheric levels and a nonzero carbon tax won't cost "the economy" anything, even though the economy is full of people who would be forced to pay more for energy and fuel.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
Yes, when sea levels rise, we move inland. The last time it happened, perhap ~11 Kya, it was relatively easy, & we got the Noah story out of it.
Climate always changes, floods, droughts and extreme weather events define our climate. Don't panic.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
Today, we'd have to abandon places like New York. There goes $20 T down the drain - all because you don't want to pay a few pennies for a carbon tax that will be given to more responsible, less selfish citizens. Nice one, BG. I hope they're paying you enough to justify it.
If you think I'll pay one penny to abandon New York, you're sadly mistaken. If some New Yorker decides to move inland, that's his lookout, not mine. Nobody forced him to move to New York or stay there, I won't pay for his moving expenses, housing expenses or his food.

I have to earn my own living and he's free to earn his. I hope New Yorkers can raise that $20,000,000,000,000 or they'll have to learn to swim.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#24779 Mar 28, 2013
Like New York is abandoning waterfront properties:

Brooklyn Heights waterfront real estate market heating up
If smart investors are a guide, prices are rising, and will continue to increase

Comments (2)
BY JASON SHEFTELL / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

THURSDAY, MARCH 28, 2013, 5:01 PM

savvy real estate investors are any indication of hot or soon to be hot markets, then we should all be looking on the Brooklyn Heights waterfront.
A Brooklyn source told the Daily News that New York-based real estate investor Andrew Borrok looked at and was close to contract on a unit at One Brooklyn Bridge Park.
Listed at $4.25 million, the three-bedroom four-bath apartment has a wrap-around terrace with Manhattan skyline views.

...

If sold, the combined unit would likely go to contract in the $9 million range, a record for a Brooklyn condominium.
Developed by RAL Companies, One Brooklyn Bridge is a former Jehovah’s Witness printing plant converted to 449 condo units. The homes are loft-like. The amenity package includes golf simulators, full fitness center, public terraces, yoga studio, music room, children’s playroom, game room, screening room, bike storage, and on-site parking, and powerful lobby with columns and high ceilings.
The building, at 360 Furman St., is located within Brooklyn Bridge Park across from Pier 6. Designed by Brooklyn Heights-based Michael Van Valkenburgh, Brooklyn Bridge Park will have playing fields, a kayak launch, and highlands that block the noise from the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/real-es...
SpaceBlues

United States

#24780 Mar 28, 2013
PHD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
So spring 2012 was warmer than average AND the experts said it was evidence of Global Warming.
Spring of 2013 is colder than average and the experts claim it's more evidence of Global Warming.
WHICH IS IT?
You can't have it both ways!!
Please explain flaws in my logic.
You live in a country where there's no free lunch. Yet you show up here demanding explanation for your claims.

You came up with your claims; you do your own research. You must remember what you say is not science unless you reference science.

Good luck.

Here are 174 questions people like you repeat for answers. Go for yours.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#24781 Mar 28, 2013
PHD2 wrote:
So spring 2012 was warmer than average AND the experts said it was evidence of Global Warming. Spring of 2013 is colder than average and the experts claim it's more evidence of Global Warming. WHICH IS IT? You can't have it both ways!! Please explain flaws in my logic.
I think I can answer your question, and you won't like the answer:

Man made catastrophic climate change means more extreme weather of all kinds. Think about it, that means more extreme beautiful weather too, more extremely beautiful days and nights... Put that way, global warming's not really all bad.

Global warming; I can barely wait!
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#24782 Mar 28, 2013
Been answered spammer. Pretty sad, you're playing dumb, but you're a natural, right ?




Guy using another poster's moniker says you're correct and you embrace the dishonest POS... Of course, nothing wrong there, right ?

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.

Grand Portage Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Drop one word....add one word game (Apr '14) 55 min WildLifeLover 626
Obama & BLM mourn monstor Fidel Castro 5 hr Drumpf 48
Child sex ring>Pizzagate>Clinton's>Obama's>FBI ... Thu Georgia 1
News Cops To Drunk Drivers: We'll Make You Listen To... Nov 30 Ferrerman 20
BLM urge rioting over OSU SHOOTING Nov 30 Drumpf 14
Trump Won The Popular Vote Nov 29 Obamas comments 3
News What it's like a to get beaver fever Jul '16 muzak 1

Grand Portage Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Grand Portage Mortgages