Global warming 'undeniable,' scientis...

Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say

There are 35569 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.

litesong

Everett, WA

#24002 Feb 21, 2013
tiny-minded anne wrote:
Actually, insults are the sign that someone is morally bankrupt .....
...... except when the insults are true. One is posting accurate statements, then.'tiny-minded anne' is a slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig, is an accurate statement.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#24003 Feb 21, 2013
marlowe44 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd rather chew broken glass than read an Al Gore book. Al Gore is the de facto high priest of AGW in this country and when he refuses to debate anyone, I'm very suspicious.
If you want to claim the science is settled, I disagree, way too many scientists don't agree.
It's my understanding the earth has been warming since the last ice age.
Wrong again. Tough to believe you're wrong so many times in a short post.

Al Gore is NOT the "high priest of AGW" in this country. He's just an ex-politician who has written a few books & made a movie. The "high priests" (your words, NOT mine) of AGW/CC are scientists, not politicians. Look at Kevin Trenberth, James Hansen or Michael Mann.

But just because they don't want to debate (I don't take your word on Al Gore's refusal, BTW), doesn't mean they aren't right. I know James Hansen would not be a good debater, he's too much of a quiet, nerdy scientist.

But he predicted in the 80s what would happen with temperatures, & he was remarkably accurate. Of course, I'm sure you believe LIARS like Michael Crichton & other deniers, but they're full of malarkey.

Hansen gave 3 scenarios, low, mid-range & high, for temps in 2000 & later. Crichton just threw out the low & middle projections & used only the high one. When it turned out to be untrue, he said Hansen was "wrong" in his "prediction." It turned out measured temps were very close to Hansen's mid-range projections, of course, but Crichton & all other deniers like to LIE about that.

Just like they LIE about Hansen saying that the West Side Highway in Manhattan would be awash in 40 years. They ALWAYS leave out the other thing Hansen said: ASSUMING CO2 LEVELS HAD DOUBLED.

When CO2 levels have doubled, it's a VERY good bet that the WSH will be awash, at least in storms. A big chunk of Manhattan flooded during Sandy, with current sea level.

The bottom line: DENIERS ALWAYS LIE. They have to. They have virtually no science to back them up.

The BASIC science is settled. We know the earth is warming, we know it's due to human activity, we know it will severely disrupt civilization in the near future. It's already costing us hundreds of billions of dollars annually now.

We know there will be central continental droughts, we just don't know exactly when, where or how severe. We know there will be sea level rise, we just don't know when, how much or whether the rise will be linear over time (probably not). We know temps will be 2-8º C higher, but we don't know exactly where in that range.

We know weather will be more "intense," including heat waves, cold snaps, storms, flooding & drought (as noted above); we just don't know details about where & when.

There are lots of details yet to be settled, but the basic outline is known.

Lastly, temps have NOT been rising since the last glaciation. The peak of our interglacial was ~7,500 years ago, & temps were generally falling until the 1800s, when CO2 from the Industrial Revolution started driving them up.

Based on Milankovitch cycles alone, we "should" be slowly sliding into another glaciation, the first stade of which will be ~23 K years in the future. The LIA should never have ended, but for human emissions of carbon. We've just overshot - by a LOT - & are warming excessively.

If you think there is peer-reviewed science that contradicts this, by all means, POST THE LINKS.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#24004 Feb 21, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
...... except when the insults are true. One is posting accurate statements, then.'tiny-minded anne' is a slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig, is an accurate statement.
Is it, if you were to touch me would you find my skin slimy? Somehow I think not. If a doctor was to examine me would he find dirty skin and hair, no. Many of my friends and coworkers would find it hard to believe I was a racist.

Which would mean that if the experts were to exam me they would conclude that your comments were highly inaccurate and most likely an opinion. It would also be considered slander.

It looks like you have just transferred your fixation on an old englishman who lived in Spain to me.
Bushwhacker

Kent, WA

#24005 Feb 21, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it, if you were to touch me would you find my skin slimy? Somehow I think not. If a doctor was to examine me would he find dirty skin and hair, no. Many of my friends and coworkers would find it hard to believe I was a racist.
Which would mean that if the experts were to exam me they would conclude that your comments were highly inaccurate and most likely an opinion. It would also be considered slander.
It looks like you have just transferred your fixation on an old englishman who lived in Spain to me.
"Libel" involves the publishing of a falsehood that harms someone. Slander is the same doctrine applied to the spoken word.
Poor tiny, you're only right when you vote stupidly.
litesong

Everett, WA

#24006 Feb 21, 2013
tina anne wrote:
....... if you were to touch me would you find my skin slimy? Somehow I think not. If a doctor was to examine me would he find dirty skin and hair, no. Many of my friends and coworkers would find it hard to believe I was a racist.
Slimy---Disgustingly immoral, dishonest, or obsequious.......'tiny-minded anne', true to a T.

Since you have defended racists & did NOT defend my Native Tribal heritage, when toxic topix AGW deniers assaulted my ancestors & attacked not only me, but my wife, you, indeed are:

a slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig.

ALSO, since you have defended racists & did NOT defend my Native Tribal heritage, when toxic topix AGW deniers assaulted my ancestors & attacked, not only me, but my wife with alleged AND proud threats of reprehensible murky horror, then you are ALSO a:

a slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AND an alleged & proud threatener AND a sexist slug.

'tiny-minded anne'..... You didn't even defend my wife from the livid horror-filled visions of bob burns..... what a PIG you are.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#24007 Feb 21, 2013
It seems the deniers must bolster their arguments by labeling those who support the science as liberals. If that fails they must degenerate Al Gore or some other individual, neglecting that ALL the great scientific academies and respected scientific institutions throughout the entire WORLD support the science.

“obamabot livs”

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#24008 Feb 21, 2013
Bushwhacker wrote:
<quoted text>Like calling folks trolls and posting no actual facts ?? Yep, you are...
It's a fact you're a troll.

“obamabot livs”

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#24009 Feb 21, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
It seems the deniers must bolster their arguments by labeling those who support the science as liberals. If that fails they must degenerate Al Gore or some other individual, neglecting that ALL the great scientific academies and respected scientific institutions throughout the entire WORLD support the science.
Skeptics, get your phraseology correct

“obamabot livs”

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#24010 Feb 21, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong again. Tough to believe you're wrong so many times in a short post.
Al Gore is NOT the "high priest of AGW" in this country. He's just an ex-politician who has written a few books & made a movie. The "high priests" (your words, NOT mine) of AGW/CC are scientists, not politicians. Look at Kevin Trenberth, James Hansen or Michael Mann.
But just because they don't want to debate (I don't take your word on Al Gore's refusal, BTW), doesn't mean they aren't right. I know James Hansen would not be a good debater, he's too much of a quiet, nerdy scientist.
But he predicted in the 80s what would happen with temperatures, & he was remarkably accurate. Of course, I'm sure you believe LIARS like Michael Crichton & other deniers, but they're full of malarkey.
Hansen gave 3 scenarios, low, mid-range & high, for temps in 2000 & later. Crichton just threw out the low & middle projections & used only the high one. When it turned out to be untrue, he said Hansen was "wrong" in his "prediction." It turned out measured temps were very close to Hansen's mid-range projections, of course, but Crichton & all other deniers like to LIE about that.
Just like they LIE about Hansen saying that the West Side Highway in Manhattan would be awash in 40 years. They ALWAYS leave out the other thing Hansen said: ASSUMING CO2 LEVELS HAD DOUBLED.
When CO2 levels have doubled, it's a VERY good bet that the WSH will be awash, at least in storms. A big chunk of Manhattan flooded during Sandy, with current sea level.
The bottom line: DENIERS ALWAYS LIE. They have to. They have virtually no science to back them up.
The BASIC science is settled. We know the earth is warming, we know it's due to human activity, we know it will severely disrupt civilization in the near future. It's already costing us hundreds of billions of dollars annually now.
We know there will be central continental droughts, we just don't know exactly when, where or how severe. We know there will be sea level rise, we just don't know when, how much or whether the rise will be linear over time (probably not). We know temps will be 2-8º C higher, but we don't know exactly where in that range.
We know weather will be more "intense," including heat waves, cold snaps, storms, flooding & drought (as noted above); we just don't know details about where & when.
There are lots of details yet to be settled, but the basic outline is known.
Lastly, temps have NOT been rising since the last glaciation. The peak of our interglacial was ~7,500 years ago, & temps were generally falling until the 1800s, when CO2 from the Industrial Revolution started driving them up.
Based on Milankovitch cycles alone, we "should" be slowly sliding into another glaciation, the first stade of which will be ~23 K years in the future. The LIA should never have ended, but for human emissions of carbon. We've just overshot - by a LOT - & are warming excessively.
If you think there is peer-reviewed science that contradicts this, by all means, POST THE LINKS.
If Al Snore isn't the high priest, who is? Ur mistaken, the earth has indeed been warming since the last ice age.

Have you parked/sold your IC automobile yet? You'll have much more credibility when you do.

“obamabot livs”

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#24011 Feb 21, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong again. Tough to believe you're wrong so many times in a short post.
&
Just like they LIE about Hansen saying that the West Side Highway in Manhattan would be awash in 40 years. They ALWAYS leave out the other thing Hansen said: ASSUMING CO2 LEVELS HAD DOUBLED.
When CO2 levels have doubled, it's a VERY good bet that the WSH wl Revolution started driving them up.
Based on Milankovitch cycles alone, we "should" be slowly sliding into another glaciation, the first stade of which will be ~23 K years in the future. The LIA should never have ended, but for human emissions of carbon. We've just overshot - by a LOT - & are warming excessively.
If you think there is peer-reviewed science that contradicts this, by all means, POST THE LINKS.
If Al Snore isn't the high priest, who is? Ur mistaken, the earth has indeed been warming since the last ice age.

Have you parked/sold your IC automobile yet? You'll have much more credibility when you do.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#24012 Feb 21, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
It seems the deniers must bolster their arguments by labeling those who support the science as liberals. If that fails they must degenerate Al Gore or some other individual, neglecting that ALL the great scientific academies and respected scientific institutions throughout the entire WORLD support the science.
Scientists: Human activities are warming the earth, & this represents a major danger to civilization in the immediate future.

Deniers: Al Gore is fat!
DENG

Nanjing, China

#24013 Feb 21, 2013
THE CLIMATE IS GETTING COLDER, NOT WARMER.
litesong

Everett, WA

#24014 Feb 21, 2013
dang deng wrote:
THE CLIMATE IS GETTING COLDER, NOT WARMER.
chinese communists are getting colder, not the Earth!
chinese communists are getting colder because they have no hearts!

“obamabot livs”

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#24016 Feb 22, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Scientists: Human activities are warming the earth, & this represents a major danger to civilization in the immediate future.
Deniers: Al Gore is fat!
A major danger? How?

“obamabot livs”

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#24017 Feb 22, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Scientists: Human activities are warming the earth, & this represents a major danger to civilization in the immediate future.
Deniers: Al Gore is fat!
So you refuse to sell ur IC automobile, why should we listen to anything you say? You don't give a crap, neither does Al Snore. Or Soros. Or Obama. The Obamas are not going to sacrifice one single thing to reduce their carbon footprint.
Bushwhacker

Kent, WA

#24018 Feb 22, 2013
If you don't know, why are you attempting to post opinions ? Oh, right.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#24019 Feb 22, 2013
marlowe44 wrote:
<quoted text>
A major danger? How?
Thank you for confirming the joke. Yes, Al Gore is fat.

IF this was a serious question, DUH. How could it threaten civilization? Gee, what do YOU think?

1. It is certain that there will be more intra-continental droughts, we just don't know exactly where, when or how severe. Droughts are increasing now world-wide. There is serious scientific work that suggests we will have droughts world-wide severe enough to cause agricultural collapse by mid-century. This would mean famine, disease & war, with the deaths of billions of humans.

2. Seas are definitely rising, & with higher temps (which are ALREADY occurring, & will worsen in the future) this will worsen & almost certainly accelerate. If New York City is inundated, how much will that "cost"?$10 T?$20 T? more? Some cities, like Houston & Boston, are already trying to figure out how to protect themselves now & in the future.

3. As you (should) know, Sandy was an extratropical cyclone, comparable to the Perfect Storm in 1991 & an unnamed storm in Nov 1950. It was larger & more powerful than both. It was not comparable to the Long Island Hurricane of 1938, so comparisons there are irrelevant. We will have more powerful storms of various types in the future, & of course this is synergistically bad with rising sea levels.

4. Besides droughts, we will have more intense, more prolonged weather events of all kinds. This means more heat waves, cold snaps (YES), floods, storms, etc. Yes, less precipitation away from the coasts overall, but when it comes, it'll be much heavier & more concentrated. These things cost MONEY.

5. The Arctic is warming, causing smaller temperature gradients between middle & high latitudes. These cause a slower, "wavier" jet stream, resulting in Rossby waves (google them if you want). They're the phenomena that cause more severe, more prolonged weather of whatever type we're having at the moment.

6. The Amazon rainforest has been called "the lungs of the world," responsible for generating 15-20% of the O2 on the earth (& removing that percentage of CO2). However, there is drought there, & too much human-caused burning of forest. The rainforest could seriously be transformed in a savannah, with MUCH less capacity to remove CO2 & generate O2.

7. The oceans are already dying, with bleached/dead coral, algal blooms, dead zones, overfished/dead areas like the Grand Banks (once the more productive fishery in the world), etc, etc. If you were a scuba diver you would know this. We are forcing the oceans to absorb too much CO2, making it too acidic, along with warming it excessively.

8. We are in the middle of the ~6th great mass extinction on the earth, this one caused by us. This would have happened with or without AGW/CC, but it is worse because of climate change. It is a tremendous loss of genetic diversity, & this represents not just a moral, but a profound financial, loss.

9. The most dangerous thing of all, by far, is the methane in the Arctic. Methane is 72 times stronger than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas for the 1st 20 years it's in the atmosphere.(It's oxidized to CO2 over time, of course.) There is as much carbon in the Arctic, mostly methane, frozen in the permafrost on land & trapped in clathrates underwater on the Siberian continental shelf (largest in the world), as in the rest of the atmophere combined. If a significant fraction is released, it will cause an inexorable positive feedback of warming & release of ALL the methane, resulting in temps ~10-15º C higher & an ice free earth. Sea level will be ~75 meters higher. This means that if it gets to ~5-6º C higher (we don't know exactly how much), it'll go all the way to the top,~10-15º higher.

10. If you think reducing carbon emissions will be expensive, wait till you see the costs of NOT reducing them. If you think the national debt is large, wait till you see the costs of AGW/CC.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#24020 Feb 22, 2013
marlowe44 wrote:
<quoted text>
So you refuse to sell ur IC automobile, why should we listen to anything you say? You don't give a crap, neither does Al Snore. Or Soros. Or Obama. The Obamas are not going to sacrifice one single thing to reduce their carbon footprint.
Firstly, how EXACTLY do you know whether I drive a car? Remote viewing? This must be an incredible ability of yours.

Secondly, it's 100.00000000000000000000000000 000000000000% IRRELEVANT to the science what Al Gore, George Soros or even Obama do. You could prove all 3 of them are the most hypocritical, manipulative, venal, greedy, evil people in the history of the world, & you know what it would mean to the science?

NOTHING!

Scientific facts are true regardless of who does or doesn't believe them. The outlines of AGW/CC have been proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

Secondly, individual actions WRT their personal carbon footprints will NEVER be enough. Most carbon release is industrial, so we all need to reduce it together.

If you, e.g., took all liberals, which are ~20% of the US population, & had them reduce their personal carbon footprints to zero, total emissions wouldn't go down more than ~5% because so many emissions are industrial & out of individuals' personal control. We need EVERYONE to reduce emissions as part of broad, society-wide policies.

That's just the way it is. So you can say AGW/CC is false as much as you want, & accuse me or anyone else of not giving a cr*p, & it'll mean NOTHING to the science. Scientific facts are true no matter how much you & the oil companies want them to be false.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#24021 Feb 22, 2013
marlowe44 wrote:
<quoted text>
If Al Snore isn't the high priest, who is? Ur mistaken, the earth has indeed been warming since the last ice age.
I don't accept your language, but the people in AGW/CC theory who matter the most are scientists: James Hansen, Kevin Trenberth, the late Stephen Schneider, Phil Jones, Michael Mann, etc, etc. Al Gore has NOTHING to do with it.
As a matter of fact, Gore was smart enough to get onto the boards of Apple & Google, with stock options, at just the right time. He made a LOT of money. This means that regardless of his views on AGW/CC, YOU should read his new book, The Future.
Lastly, you are WRONG. The earth has NOT been warming since the last glaciation. The peak of our interglacial was ~7500-8000 years ago, & temperaturs have been generally falling ever since - until the recent hockey stick, of course.
http://www.google.com/imgres...
Kyle

Knox, IN

#24025 Feb 22, 2013
DENG wrote:
THE CLIMATE IS GETTING COLDER, NOT WARMER.
Nothing loses quite like posting counter-factual BS in all caps sans any support whatsoever.

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
Review: MXT Associates (Aug '11) 1 hr Sarah 10
Trump for President, He will win. watch 5 hr Daniel Boone 1
the NON affordable care act (Oct '13) Tue Obama the best 279
Can't manage the gov & NOT honest or trustworthy (Nov '13) Aug 20 Phineas 523
Welcome To Minnesota Mr. Trump Aug 20 LIbEralS 3
News Prison sentence for notable defense attorney Sa... (May '11) Aug 19 Post them 19
Obama paid Ransom for Hostages to Iran Aug 19 achtung RAPHAN 8

Minneapolis Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Minneapolis Mortgages