Global warming 'undeniable,' scientis...

Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say

There are 35847 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.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#24505 Mar 19, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Remember, Jose, a revenue-neutral carbon tax removes ZERO money from the economy & adds ZERO money to government. The chances that "liberals can play more golf" is ZERO.
A carbon tax simply distributes money from high to low carbon emitters. It's the best way to begin to save human lives & civilization - assuming it's stiff enough.
BTW, NOBODY spent more time on the golf course than Ike. Yet he was a great president.
Correction: "liberals" COULD play more golf if they were low carbon emitters. However, golf courses are environmentally destructive, so they might be more expensive.
SpaceBlues

United States

#24506 Mar 19, 2013
Hi folks, this goes on 24/7. Deniers come here to post the same. Here's todays's crop on this page:

Denier1 posted: "So if my point and yours are both proven wrong by different scientists, you will only pick the ones that refutes mine as the final authority!

That is how we know GW is a HOAX!

Denier2 posted: "There's no experimental record of any man made climate change, that's why its a hoax."

As you can see, they are not science-based. When we ask questions, they repeat the same or ask another question. Because they are without basis.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#24507 Mar 19, 2013
Bushwhacker wrote:
If you meant angel, we understand...Either way, you're really dumb. Just dumb and bumbler in a single toilet bowl...
And you want more. Better to be dumb than to be a DUMB ASSumption OF YOUR----SELF. As mentioned before there is not a toilet bowl large enough known to mankind that could be utilized to flush you down. The superfund couldn't cover the expense of your disposal.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#24508 Mar 19, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Hi folks, this goes on 24/7. Deniers come here to post the same. Here's todays's crop on this page:
Denier1 posted: "So if my point and yours are both proven wrong by different scientists, you will only pick the ones that refutes mine as the final authority!
That is how we know GW is a HOAX!
Denier2 posted: "There's no experimental record of any man made climate change, that's why its a hoax."
As you can see, they are not science-based. When we ask questions, they repeat the same or ask another question. Because they are without basis.
Yes, 24/7. Some threads here are relatively old, going back to 2010, or even 2008. Way back then, the deniers were saying the same things - even some of the SAME PEOPLE as today. Realists & deniers are not likely to agree any time soon. The deniers know just enough science to convince themselves they're right, no matter how many scientific facts we give them.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n10...

As the effects of AGW/CC become more & more obvious, some deniers may come around, but the oil monied interests will fight tooth & nail. So far they've been remarkably successful in confusing the public. No doubt some of their paid agents are here.
SpaceBlues

United States

#24509 Mar 19, 2013
Contrary to the propaganda, people nowhere decide on public policy whether in the West nor in the East. Look at the Iraqi war about which now the US majority says it was a mistake. Obviously, the public's decision was suppressed regarding this war.

Nature:[Our] result suggests that public divisions over climate change stem not from the public’s incomprehension of science but from a distinctive conflict of interest: between the personal interest individuals have in forming beliefs in line with those held by others with whom they share close ties and the collective one they all share in making use of the best available science to promote common welfare.

Thanks for your comment, HSL.
PHD2 Reality

Minneapolis, MN

#24510 Mar 19, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Splained plenty of times.
The Arctic has had 24 hours of darkness for nearly 6 months. Been really cold up there. But man-made excess energy in the atmosphere has occasionally but more vigorously pushed warmth into the Arctic. Simultaneously, cold Arctic fronts are pushed to the south. Often while the Arctic is excessively warm, southern climes are excessively cold.
South Pole Conditions at Mar 19, 2013 - 01:50 PM EDTMar 19, 2013 - 12:50 PM CDTMar 19, 2013 - 11:50 AM MDTMar 19, 2013 - 10:50 AM PDTMar 19, 2013 - 09:50 AM ADTMar 19, 2013 - 07:50 AM HST
2013.03.19 1750 UTC
Wind from the SSE (150 degrees) at 14 MPH (12 KT)
Visibility 2 mile(s)
Sky conditions overcast
Weather Ice crystals
Mist
Temperature -58 F (-50 C)
Windchill -92 F (-69 C)

==========

North Pole Weather Today

Mar 19

Mostly sunny and very cold 6° Lo -16°

Wed

Mar 20

Mostly cloudy and very cold 5° Lo -20°

Thu

Mar 21

Partly sunny and very cold 7° Lo -11°

Fri

Mar 22

Cloudy and very cold1 5° Lo 4°

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#24511 Mar 19, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
That's not a response to my question, where's your science? I understand this is important to you; but where's your science?
My science is in the experimental record; there' no demonstration of any climate change mitigation working and no experiments showing man made climate change. The science isn't behind climate change mitigation technology, the science is with the skeptics. If you could show it works, wouldn't that be an easier sell?
SpaceBlues

United States

#24512 Mar 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>My science is in the experimental record; there' no demonstration of any climate change mitigation working and no experiments showing man made climate change. The science isn't behind climate change mitigation technology, the science is with the skeptics. If you could show it works, wouldn't that be an easier sell?
LIAR.

Science is not telling you.

Give it up.

P.S. You are no more skeptic than a piece of rock. Look it up in an English dictionary. Like you looked up "hype."

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#24513 Mar 19, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
LIAR.
I assume my opponents are mistaken, I don't accuse them of dishonesty. This is where we differ.

SpaceBlues hasn't provided that citation for a compelling experimental test, maybe it slipped his mind.

Think I'll send a reminder when I get around to it.

.
SpaceBlues wrote:
Science is not telling you.
???

.
SpaceBlues wrote:
Give it up.
Notice, when rational argument fails, global warming alarmists like to bully and tell you what to do?

.
SpaceBlues wrote:
P.S. You are no more skeptic than a piece of rock. Look it up in an English dictionary. Like you looked up "hype."
OK:

Definition of SKEPTICISM

1: an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object

2
a : the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain
b : the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics

3: doubt concerning basic religious principles (as immortality, providence, and revelation)
SpaceBlues

United States

#24514 Mar 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I assume my opponents are mistaken, I don't accuse them of dishonesty. This is where we differ.
SpaceBlues hasn't provided that citation for a compelling experimental test, maybe it slipped his mind.
Think I'll send a reminder when I get around to it.
.
<quoted text>???
.
<quoted text>Notice, when rational argument fails, global warming alarmists like to bully and tell you what to do?
.
<quoted text>OK:
Definition of SKEPTICISM
1: an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object
2
a : the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain
b : the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics
3: doubt concerning basic religious principles (as immortality, providence, and revelation)
English is not understood by you.

First, you don't meet the definition of a skeptic. Yet you often call yourself such.

Second, I pointed out to you earlier that you did not understand the words in your demand from science. You then gave me as a reply a definition for "hype."

Third, in the post I responded last you claimed "My science is in the experimental record."

That's why I call you a LIAR for those reasons and more. Look up "liar."
Iowan

West Des Moines, IA

#24515 Mar 19, 2013
We need to get big cars of the roads except for buses
litesong

Everett, WA

#24516 Mar 19, 2013
brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver wrote:
I don't accuse them of dishonesty.
But I accuse 'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver' of being a slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AND alleged & proud threatener, as well as NOT having science & mathematics in its poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa AND making errors of 1 million TIMES, 1000 TIMES, 3000 TIMES & 73 million TIMES.

All math errors by 'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver' were accomplished with very few attempts. In the last year or more,'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver' has NOT even attempted math calculations.
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#24517 Mar 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>How do you observe all geological sources of CO2 when more than 2/3rd of the Earth is under the oceans?
Global warming is faith based, not science based.
Geothermal ocean vents, etc. have been surveyed and studied at length. Your ignorance is a pitiful argument, science denier.
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#24518 Mar 19, 2013
Well, Brian, I think it likely that you're pretty satisfied with your response. It seems that you may well be a genuine denier; that is; that you don't secretly know you're wrong and are just irrationally in denial. That said, I'm going to show you exactly how your thinking is confused and point out the gaping errors in your arguments.

Don't let us down, though. All deniers initially refuse to learn anything or even acknowledge that they've lost on any point at all. I predict you'll be utterly incapable of conceding that I'm right on a single point.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>My point is simple, if you are going to buy a hair growth product you should try a sample or a product that's been experimentally tested. Why wouldn't you use the same standard for climate change mitigation?
I agree. Just as you would only undertake a hair growth experiment that is thoroughly researched, the same should be done with climate mitigation. Climate change has been studied in such detail for so long that this threshold was met many years ago. We know the carbon flows throughout the biosphere with rather narrow error bars and have for a long time.

So, can I count you as a supporter of immediate experimentation with mitigation schemes?
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I accept the science of climate change; climate always changes.
You're lying via semantics. You know exactly what I was referring to and you deny the science. And you've just done so with yet another repetition of retarded denier argument #1. Analogy - You shouldn't have any problems with jumping out a 100th story window. After all, you've fallen down many times before.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>There's no experimental evidence we can do anything to mitigate climate change. I call that 'practical' grounds but if you want to call it 'scientific' grounds; go for it.
Only because deniers have succeeded in largely preventing meaningful amounts of mitigation. How convenient. Failure to state the mitigation measures you would back in your next response will be taken as a concession that you know you're posing a Catch 22.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>We've tens of thousands of years learning to adapt to climate change.
You missed just a couple of salient points:

1) For 99% of that time, our population was orders of magnitude smaller and lived as hunter-gatherers. Relevance to billions and the required agriculture to feed them = damn near ZERO.

2) Climate changed very gradually the vast majority of this time, with rare exceptions. One was ~73,000 yrs ago, at which time the human population was reduced to perhaps 1,000 to 10,000 individuals; we nearly went extinct. One is right now, as the lagging effects of human action are just starting to accelerate. The human CO2 contribution is ~100X that of volcanism and the atmospheric CO2 concentration is rising ~100X faster than at any time in the 800,000 year historical record. That's 4 times the age of our species.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Human climate adaptation science is so strong we can now live almost anywhere on Earth.
We can, but how? Not long ago we did it by hunting and gathering in tiny numbers (but even then we wiped out entire classes of fauna). Now billions do it by trading on a global scale; trading the resources of the inhospitable regions for the food grown on most of the currently arable land.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>No living species has evolved the ability to mitigate climate change; life adapts.
This is just indecipherable. Pure nonsense as far as I can tell. Clearly, we would mitigate the problem through technology, just as technology created it, not by evolving CO2 absorbent skin or something, you flippin' nitwit.

Now, don't let me down. Be a good denier and refuse to acknowledge any of your errors or the validity of any point that I made. Repeat some bumper-sticker idiocy and call me names.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#24519 Mar 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>My science is in the experimental record; there' no demonstration of any climate change mitigation working and no experiments showing man made climate change. The science isn't behind climate change mitigation technology, the science is with the skeptics. If you could show it works, wouldn't that be an easier sell?
Your (ONE) idea is just silly, Brian. I put this analogy on other threads, but it's worth repeating.

It's like you're staying in an unfamiliar house & the furnace is staying on, causing uncomfortably warm temperatures. Rather than looking for a thermostat, though, you just "adapt" to the warmer temps.

Then you come here & say "the thermostat is a hoax, there's NO way to lower the furnace."

True, perhaps the thermostat is broken or the furnace is stuck on, or perhaps it's someplace in the house where you don't have access. But YOU DIDN'T EVEN LOOK FOR IT, let alone try to turn it on. How can you possibly know the thermostat is a hoax?

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#24520 Mar 20, 2013
Climate doesn't have a thermostat.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#24521 Mar 20, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Climate doesn't have a thermostat.
You should try scientific science fiction that would be the only info they can process.
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#24522 Mar 20, 2013



Phd="If you most lie...."

You make it EZ, to disregard your claptrap.

The next time you address the topic, will be the first. Please seek help
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#24523 Mar 20, 2013
Bushwhacker wrote:
Phd="If you most lie...."
You make it EZ, to disregard your claptrap.
The next time you address the topic, will be the first. Please seek help
The bush whacked got its clap trapper whacked again and again. You need to revisit 2nd grade English class again you fall short in the discipline. Now if you must prevaricate address the spacedoutblues and the "pinheadlitesout" they can carry a dialogue with you that you may understand.
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#24524 Mar 20, 2013
Phd="If you most lie...."

You make it EZ, to disregard your claptrap.

The next time you address the topic, will be the first. Please seek help

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
Drop one word....add one word game (Apr '14) 1 hr Mutant-cucumber 690
CNN = Fake News 2 hr Davycrockett 20
Liberals caught planning violence for inauguration 5 hr Space ace 23
Wikileaks: dossier "bogus" 5 hr Space ace 19
Flaming Liberal on ACA healthcare 14 hr Merry Moosmas 1
John Lewis is NOT a civil rights hero! He's a c... 14 hr Zephyrus 3
South Carolina ALS Association Thanks To: Rev. ... 14 hr R Kieth 4

Minneapolis Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Minneapolis Mortgages