Global warming 'undeniable,' scientis...

Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say

There are 35563 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.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#24601 Mar 23, 2013
Want proof climate change mitigation is a hoax?

Look at the experimental record.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#24602 Mar 23, 2013
Jarrod D wrote:
None of you know what youre talking about. its not "global warming"
anyone considered the bible?
God said in the world's end time you will see signs in the weather.
"For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and in various places there will be famines and earthquakes" Matthew 24:7
"And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet."
The book of Matthew 24 is very good at explaing whats going on and soon to come, signs right in front of our eys. notice how crazy the weather is and recently? how can that be global warming? maybe that could be what's fulfilling these prophecies, even how the government is spraying the sky so much. wake up and see
How many times has this been quoted in history? Are you ready to sell everything and move to the mountains?

What is going on is that mankind is burning fossil fuels and releasing CO2. This is a known fact. It is also scientifically factual that the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming.
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#24603 Mar 23, 2013
Jarrod D wrote:
None of you know what youre talking about. its not "global warming"
anyone considered the bible?..... notice how crazy the weather is and recently? how can that be global warming? maybe that could be what's fulfilling these prophecies, even how the government is spraying the sky so much. wake up and see
Yet more evidence that dogmatic thinking of all stripes correlates with all others. Wingnut Jarrod shows the correlation between religion, climate science denial, and conspiracism. Tell us, Jarrod, are you perchance a creationist as well?
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#24604 Mar 23, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>The commander clap trapper calling the kettle.You bush wacked your---self again.
No science, no argument, yet still posting meaningless BS. You're a waste of flesh.
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#24605 Mar 23, 2013
Who wrote:
<quoted text>
Does it really matter?
Even if all the "climate change scientists" in the world told you idiots straight to your face GW is a hoax, the gloom and doomer imbeciles, like yourself, would still argue GW exists, liberal idiots like you would just find somebody else to say what you want to hear.
Why the scare quotes? Is that your substitute for supporting your insane denier position that all science is wrong, yet Exxon, Koch brothers and you are right? Scare quotes.(Face->palm)

Such transference! All of the scientists ARE telling you idiots to your face WITH PEER REVIEWED EVIDENCE AND MATH that GW is happening and you imbeciles still argue (very poorly) that it's a hoax because you can always find someone (unqualified, financially interested, ignorant, and/or lying) who agrees with you.
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#24606 Mar 23, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>You answered it your---self. Bush whacked again and again. Now go to your corner and keep your clap trapper closed.
No science, no argument, yet still spamming us with thought-free evidence of the thought-free nature of their position.

Thanks. You support the scientific position very well ..... in your own unique fashion.
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#24607 Mar 23, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Want proof climate change mitigation is a hoax?
Look at the experimental record.
WTF are you talking about?! What experiments? I ask you again, moron - What experiments would you support? If you fail to answer either question, your "argument" will be revealed as fundamentally illogical or fundamentally dishonest.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#24608 Mar 23, 2013
What experiments have you got? Can you cite a compelling experiment for climate change mitigation?

Adapting to climate is well tested, you can sample umbrellas for protection from rain, nobody has mitigated climate change; there's the difference.

Architecture protects your home from climate; restricting greenhouse gas emissions does not. There is a difference between fact and fiction. Look at samples, tests, trial and experiments to tell which is which.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#24609 Mar 23, 2013
Kyle wrote:
<quoted text>
WTF are you talking about?! What experiments? I ask you again, moron - What experiments would you support? If you fail to answer either question, your "argument" will be revealed as fundamentally illogical or fundamentally dishonest.
Brian_G wrote:
And we've never tested the greenhouse effect of CO2, if we nuke an underground coal mine that's been enriched with oxygen, can we produce enough CO2 to make a measurable change in temperature? Might be worth a try.
Both.

He's posting fundamentally illogical arguments.

And Brian he's fundamentally dishonest: he not here for a rational debate, just to piss annoy people with illogical arguments.

A troll.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#24610 Mar 23, 2013
Correction: And he's fundamentally dishonest..

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#24611 Mar 23, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
Both. He's posting fundamentally illogical arguments.
I've proposed ill thought through experiments and admitted I'm no scientist. I don't design experimental tests for my living, don't depend on me as a source of original science. Be skeptical of experts who haven't demonstrated, tested or experimentally verified their policy proposals; that's all I say.

.
Fair Game wrote:
And Brian he's fundamentally dishonest: he not here for a rational debate, just to piss annoy people with illogical arguments.
I don't argue my political opponents by name, I argue their policy. Conservation, government funding alternate energy, taxing energy use and production are proven disasters. I don't call my political opponents dishonest, they fear climate and don't understand the experimental record; that's all.

.
Fair Game wrote:
A troll.
Ad hominem arguments are fallacious; I prefer logic and experimental evidence. This is where we differ.
Iowan

West Des Moines, IA

#24612 Mar 23, 2013
retuglicans hate the planet

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#24613 Mar 23, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I've proposed ill thought through experiments

...

I prefer logic and experimental evidence.
About as much use as a tone deaf music critic or a restaurant critic without taste buds then.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#24614 Mar 23, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I've proposed ill thought through experiments and admitted I'm no scientist. I don't design experimental tests for my living, don't depend on me as a source of original science. Be skeptical of experts who haven't demonstrated, tested or experimentally verified their policy proposals; that's all I say.
.
<quoted text>I don't argue my political opponents by name, I argue their policy. Conservation, government funding alternate energy, taxing energy use and production are proven disasters. I don't call my political opponents dishonest, they fear climate and don't understand the experimental record; that's all...
So you're "not a scientist" & you can't "design experimental tests" to see whether AGW/CC mitigation is a "hoax" (your words). That's profoundly anti-scientific & illogical. You admit NO possibility of proving the null hypothesis.

It's a bit like you saying "prove to me that Beethoven was a great composer" but then saying you refuse to listen to any of his music. It's the ultimate in closed-mindedness.

In point of fact, EVERYTHING you say about policy is exactly backward. The "proven disaster" would be NOT instituting a very stiff carbon tax, or NOT funding clean energy, or CONTINUING to fight oil wars in the Middle East. The LACK of government policies strongly encouraging conservation is an absolutely proven, profound disaster.

It's OK to be spectacularly wrong, & you sure are.

But just tell us how much they pay you. Be honest JUST THIS ONCE. It'd enhance your credibility.
litesong

Everett, WA

#24615 Mar 23, 2013
Kyle wrote:
....... thought-free evidence of the thought-free nature.......
Like dirtling,'earthling has no brain','fetid feces face flip flopper fiend' also has no brain for its thought-free evidence of its thought-free nature.
Who

Grand Rapids, MI

#24616 Mar 23, 2013
Bushwhacker wrote:
So, you have no proof, we do and you're pretending we don't ??? Pretty funny !!!
So where is this "proof". Bluffington Post? Some other liberal rag? Al Mediawhore? So called "scientists" that rely on government grant money and will say anything that guarantess more grant money? Idiots like litebong and any of the other idiots that believe EVERY single thing that liberal science says without question?

Yeah, those are all way more reliable sources?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#24617 Mar 24, 2013
Who wrote:
<quoted text>
So where is this "proof". Bluffington Post? Some other liberal rag? Al Mediawhore? So called "scientists" that rely on government grant money and will say anything that guarantess more grant money? Idiots like litebong and any of the other idiots that believe EVERY single thing that liberal science says without question?
Yeah, those are all way more reliable sources?
The proof is in scientific journals, where deliberate deception is virtually impossible. You should try to read them. They have very, VERY powerful evidence.

If scientists deliberately distort data to get grants, why didn't they do it for the cell phone brain cancer scare? Or the high tension power lines cancer scare?

Preliminary studies raised the question of whether EMR (electromagnetic radiation) caused cancer, but larger, well-designed studies failed to show significant correlations. By your arrantly absurd "logic," the scientists should have distorted their data to show EMR DID cause cancer, assuring a supply of grant money.

THEY DIDN'T. Scientists only publish their best understanding the of the truth as nature reveals itself.

You see, science must be repeatable. If one scientist publishes something, another scientist in another part of the world will try to verify & elaborate upon those findings. This happens VERY quickly in an active field like climate science.

If the 2nd scientist can't verify the 1st scientist's work, the 1st scientist "has some 'splainin' to do." Sometimes errors are just embarrassing (remember cold fusion?). Sometimes there are problems with methodologies, & they may mutually work them out.

Deliberate deception, however, is ALWAYS discovered, & if it happens, that scientist's academic career is typically over. AdiĆ³s muchacho.

That's why compared to other people, scientists NEVER lie in their scientific papers. They CAN'T.

If you don't know this, you don't understand the way science works.

There are many things that are still unclear: the exact timing, severity & location of the consequences of AGW/CC. But the basics of the theory are proven beyond ANY doubt at this point. We just don't know exactly how bad it'll get, or exactly when & where it'll happen.

Every important scientific organization realizes the theory is correct. It's support by all the mainstream science magazines: Scientific American, Discovery, etc.

Here's NASA on the evidence:
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

The only deniers left are mostly either ignorant, ideological, psychotic or paid off by oil money.

Scientific facts are true no matter how many times you rail against them.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#24618 Mar 24, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
About as much use as a tone deaf music critic or a restaurant critic without taste buds then.
You don't have to be an expert chef to know which foods taste good and be a critic. You don't have to design experiments to recognize which technologies (climate change mitigation for one) have no experimental evidence.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#24619 Mar 24, 2013
No, scientists discover new data to correct their errors to discover that their corrections are in error. If NASA was so great why did they make the USA space hitchhikers?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#24620 Mar 24, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
So you're "not a scientist" & you can't "design experimental tests" to see whether AGW/CC mitigation is a "hoax" (your words). That's profoundly anti-scientific & illogical.
I'm being honest, you don't have to be a scientist to search for an experimental record of climate change mitigation. Don't blame me for the fact their are no experiments, demonstrations, trials or test that show we can mitigate or change global climate.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
You admit NO possibility of proving the null hypothesis.
Show me a compelling experiment for man made climate change or climate change mitigation and I'll change my views. I have an objective standard. Let me ask you: What would it take for you to change your views of climate change mitigation? If you can't answer, I'd suggest that's because your beliefs aren't based on science.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
It's a bit like you saying "prove to me that Beethoven was a great composer" but then saying you refuse to listen to any of his music. It's the ultimate in closed-mindedness.
The existence of nonexistence of an experimental test of climate change mitigation isn't a matter of opinions, it's a matter of fact. You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
In point of fact, EVERYTHING you say about policy is exactly backward. The "proven disaster" would be NOT instituting a very stiff carbon tax, or NOT funding clean energy, or CONTINUING to fight oil wars in the Middle East. The LACK of government policies strongly encouraging conservation is an absolutely proven, profound disaster.
A very stiff carbon tax would harm our economy, just as its been shown to harm the economies where it's been tried. There's no evidence it will help the climate. Adding a tax to oil won't stop oil use, it will just make oil more expensive and give more profit to OPEC. That's why Al Jazeera supports your climate tax, it adds costs and increases the perception of value and rarity to oil prices.

We fight wars in the Middle East because the Taliban government of Afghanistan sheltered Al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein in Iraq was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction and Iraq invaded Kuwait back in 1990. After we'd won, we didn't take their oil.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
It's OK to be spectacularly wrong, & you sure are. But just tell us how much they pay you. Be honest JUST THIS ONCE. It'd enhance your credibility.
Who is 'they' and why should they pay me for posting here? Do they pay you for posting opposite views?

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) 29 min LIbEralS 520
BERNIE sells out! 3 hr LIbEralS 11
Liberal top 10 list Wed LIbEralS 2
News Fridley Man Charged With Attempted Murder After... Tue Zom Associate 20
Obama's America Jul 24 TAAM 85
Nice was isis Jul 20 haha 2
Crooked hillary bribes officials Jul 20 Phineas 17

Minneapolis Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Minneapolis Mortgages