Global warming 'undeniable,' scientis...

Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say

There are 36891 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.

PHD

Cibolo, TX

#23531 Jan 31, 2013
UNAused Stewed posting from the dead again while all live and learn from the dead poster commonly know as UNAmused Stewed.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#23532 Jan 31, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>Well know I was correct about you. Your the one that pokes fun at peoples MOTHERS. So being a BOZO fits you well. Gee, I am correct again. I know this will only confuse you more but scientist always make corrections to their errors because they are always in error.
Did you just bark?
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#23533 Jan 31, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you just bark?
Actually I just passed gas in your general direction because you enjoy that type of hot air.

Since: Feb 12

Location hidden

#23534 Jan 31, 2013
how is it that in the 1800s greenland was used for grazing land and was inhabited specifically for that purpose ..cattle/sheep etc..?.. today its snow ice tundra and used for... basically nothing.. just saying
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#23535 Jan 31, 2013
Well if you standby long enough the scientific science fiction wallop10 AKA walloped,"pinheadlitesout " will give you a cut and paste useless babble answer.
Amused Slew

Kent, WA

#23536 Jan 31, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>Actually I just passed gas in your general direction because you enjoy that type of hot air.
Gee, stupid, classless, AND a moron. Congratulations, on the trifecta. How did you lose this argument ? EASILY !!!
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#23537 Jan 31, 2013
Amused Slew wrote:
<quoted text>Gee, stupid, classless, AND a moron. Congratulations, on the trifecta. How did you lose this argument ? EASILY !!!
Gee that must make you a less--on. Did you receive that gas sent your way? I bet you really really enjoyed it didn't you?
Amused Slew

Kent, WA

#23538 Jan 31, 2013
YYes ?? Poor P-ppppenny...

Of course, I'm dead, just like your Global Warming credibility.

If you REALLY want a laugh, imagine Penny putting all those "judging marks" up after we copy/paste posts....

Hi, Mistake a minute P-P-Penny,

How are Sheldon and Leonard...

Ps- Almost a moron, stick with it.

People say that you are the perfect idiot. I say that you are not perfect, but you are doing alright.

Ordinarily people live and learn. You just live.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#23539 Jan 31, 2013
bifaith wrote:
how is it that in the 1800s greenland was used for grazing land and was inhabited specifically for that purpose ..cattle/sheep etc..?.. today its snow ice tundra and used for... basically nothing.. just saying
1800s??? You're making things up.

Actually, you're "only" off by more than 500 years. Yes, southern Greenland had vegetation between ~800 & ~1300 AD, during the MWP. But then came the LIA. The Norse held on for more than a century, but finally were gone by the late 1400s.

Temps are now higher than they were during the MWP, & sourthern Greenland will again have vegetation in a few more decades; it'll just take time. Things are changing so fast that some living things lag behind. Just sayin'...

MWP = Medieval Warm Period
LIA = Little Ice Age
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#23540 Jan 31, 2013
Amused Slew wrote:
YYes ?? Poor P-ppppenny...
Of course, I'm dead, just like your Global Warming credibility.
If you REALLY want a laugh, imagine Penny putting all those "judging marks" up after we copy/paste posts....
Hi, Mistake a minute P-P-Penny,
How are Sheldon and Leonard...
Ps- Almost a moron, stick with it.
People say that you are the perfect idiot. I say that you are not perfect, but you are doing alright.
Ordinarily people live and learn. You just live.
Gee that must make you a less--on. Did you receive that gas sent your way? I bet you really really enjoyed it didn't you?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#23541 Jan 31, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>Actually I just passed gas in your general direction because you enjoy that type of hot air.
What I thought. You are all hot air. Not only that but you stink.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#23542 Jan 31, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
What I thought. You are all hot air. Not only that but you stink.
Therefore, than you do agree you enjoyed it. Maybe the rest can indulge in satisfying your newfound craving.
Amused Slew

Kent, WA

#23543 Jan 31, 2013
YYes ?? Poor P-ppppenny...
Of course, I'm dead, just like your Global Warming credibility.
If you REALLY want a laugh, imagine Penny putting all those "judging marks" up after we copy/paste posts....
Hi, Mistake a minute P-P-Penny,
How are Sheldon and Leonard...
Ps- Almost a moron, stick with it.
People say that you are the perfect idiot. I say that you are not perfect, but you are doing alright.
Ordinarily people live and learn. You just live.

Since: Nov 11

Westerville, OH

#23545 Jan 31, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
Understand statistics?
Here is NASA on "How do we Know?"
• Extreme events
The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence
Where did you get your data, from the University of East Anglia? LOL!!!

See? Liberals are brain dead hypocrites easy to fool!!!

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdeling...

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be "the greatest in modern science". These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

...

One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:

"In an odd way this is cheering news."

But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph's MPs' expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.

Here are a few tasters.

Manipulation of evidence:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Suppression of evidence:

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:

Next
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.

Since: Nov 11

Westerville, OH

#23546 Jan 31, 2013
Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September – I wrote the story up here as "How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie" - CRU's researchers were exposed as having "cherry-picked" data in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millenium. CRU was also the organisation which – in contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international scientific community – spent years withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC.

Since: Nov 11

Westerville, OH

#23547 Jan 31, 2013
I asked in my title whether this will be the final nail in the coffin of Anthropenic Global Warming. This was wishful thinking, of course. In the run up to Copenhagen, we will see more and more hysterical (and grotesquely exaggerated) stories such as this in the Mainstream Media. And we will see ever-more-virulent campaigns conducted by eco-fascist activists, such as this risible new advertising campaign by Plane Stupid showing CGI polar bears falling from the sky and exploding because kind of, like, man, that's sort of what happens whenever you take another trip on an aeroplane.

The world is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore's Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called "sceptical" view – which is some of us have been expressing for quite some time: see, for example, the chapter entitled 'Barbecue the Polar Bears' in WELCOME TO OBAMALAND: I'VE SEEN YOUR FUTURE AND IT DOESN'T WORK – is now also, thank heaven, the majority view.

Unfortunately, we've a long, long way to go before the public mood (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight.

But to judge by the way – despite the best efforts of the MSM not to report on it – the CRU scandal is spreading like wildfire across the internet, this shabby story represents a blow to the AGW lobby's credibility from which it is never likely to recover.

Since: Nov 11

Westerville, OH

#23548 Jan 31, 2013
UPDATE: I write about this subject a lot and the threads below my posts often contain an impressive range of informed opinion from readers with solid scientific backgrounds (plus lots of cheap swipes from Libtards – but, hey, their discomfort and rage are my joy).

Here are a few links:

Interview in the Spectator with Australian geology Professor Ian Plimer re his book Heaven And Earth. Plimer makes the point that CO2 is not a pollutant – CO2 is plant food, and that climate change is an ongoing natural process.

An earlier scandal at the Climate Research Unit, this time involving "cherry-picked" data samples.

A contretemps with a Climate Bully who wonders whether I have a science degree.(No I don't. I just happen to be a believer in empiricism and not spending taxpayers' money on a problem that may well not exist)

59 per cent of UK population does not believe in AGW. The Times decides they are "village idiots"

Comparing "Climate Change" to the 9/11 and the Holocaust is despicable and dumb

Copenhagen: a step closer to one-world government?

UK Government blows Ł6 million on eco-propaganda ad which makes children cry

and a very funny piece by Damian Thompson comparing the liberal media's coverage of Watergate with its almost non-existent coverage of Climategate

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdeling...
Amused Slew

Kent, WA

#23549 Jan 31, 2013
martinezjosei wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did you get your data, from the University of East Anglia? LOL!!!
See? Liberals are brain dead hypocrites easy to fool!!!
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdeling...
When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be "the greatest in modern science". These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:
Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.
...
One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:
"In an odd way this is cheering news."
But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph's MPs' expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.
Here are a few tasters.
Manipulation of evidence:
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
Suppression of evidence:
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:
Next
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.
Yeah, but you're a nut-so....
Amused Slew

Kent, WA

#23550 Jan 31, 2013
Sure, a nutcase source, but a nut-so writer....

A "hacker" ??? Yeah, there's an honest "source" ?? LMAOROTFU~!

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#23551 Jan 31, 2013
martinezjosei wrote:
UPDATE: Here are a few links:
Interview in the Spectator with Australian geology Professor Ian Plimer re his book Heaven And Earth. Plimer makes the point that CO2 is not a pollutant – CO2 is plant food, and that climate change is an ongoing natural process.
Ian Plimer is the guy who thinks the sun is made out of iron (Heaven and Earth, pp. 110-120).

:
Wikipedia states that Plimer owns 3 mines.

The reporter Monbiot wrote some questions to Plimer which he did not respond to

1. The first graph in your book (Figure 1, page 11) shows global temperatures, as measured by the Hadley Centre (HadCRUT), falling by 0.3C between 2007 and 2008. In reality the fall recorded by the HadCRUT3 data series is 0.089C.

How do you explain the discrepancy between the HadCRUT3 figure and your claim?

2. Figure 3 (page 25) is a graph purporting to show that most of the warming in the 20th Century took place before 1945, and was followed by a period of sharp cooling. You cite no source for it, but it closely resembles the global temperature graph in the first edition of Martin Durkin's film The Great Global Warming Swindle. Durkin later changed the graph after it was shown to have been distorted by extending the timeline.

In your book it remains unchanged.
Tim Lambert has reproduced the graph here.
a. What is the source for the graph you used?
b. Where was it first published?
c. Whose figures does it use?
d. How do you explain the alteration of both the curves and the timeline?

3. You maintain that:
"the last two years of global cooling have erased nearly thirty years of temperature increase."
(page 25)
Again you do not provide a reference. As you can see here, the Met Office HadCRUT3 series shows that this claim is untrue.
a. Please give the source for your claim.
b. How do you reconcile it with the published data?

4. In your discussion of global temperature trends, you maintain that:
"NASA now states that [...] the warmest year was 1934." (p99)
a. Are you aware that this applies only to the United States?
b. Was this a mistake or did you deliberately confuse these two datasets?

5. Discussing climate trends in the Arctic, you state that:
"the sea ice has expanded" (p198).
Again, you give no reference.
a. Please give a source for this claim.
b. How do you explain the discrepancy between this claim and the published data?

6. You state that:
"If the current atmospheric CO2 content of 380 ppmv were doubled to 760 ppmv [...][a]n increase of
0.5C is likely" (p366).
Again you give no source. Please provide a reference for this claim.

7. You claim that:
"About 98% of the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere is due to water vapour." (p370).

Ian Enting says:
"In some cases the numbers given by Plimer are exaggerated to such an extent as to imply that without water vapour, Earth's temperature would be below absolute zero - a physical impossibility."
He explains this as follows.
You state:
"The Earth has an average surface temperature of about 15C [...] If the atmosphere had no CO2, far more heat would be lost from Earth and the average surface temperature would be -3C." (p366)
Enting says:

"The implication of attributing 18C of warming to CO2 while saying [...]'About 98% of the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere is due to water vapour' is to imply that in the absence of CO2 and H2O, the temperature would be 900C lower, i.e. well below the physical limit of absolute zero."
Again you give no source.
a. Please provide a reference for your claim about water vapour.
b. Please explain how your two statements (98% of the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapour and 18C can be attributed to CO2) can both be true.

continued

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.

Minneapolis Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Can't manage the gov & NOT honest or trustworthy (Nov '13) 5 hr Waikiki murders 586
Don't talk to commies 14 hr Waikiki murders 3
Get rough & get tough Mon Waikiki murders 2
News From reissues to reunions: What Prince fans can... Mon @Real Kelly 3
#Dump Betsy Hodges! Apr 21 All libertards got 10
Happy 420! Apr 20 TruDat 2
Fox news haha Apr 19 Davycrockett 1

Minneapolis Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Minneapolis Mortgages