Global warming 'undeniable,' scientis...

Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say

There are 35579 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.

Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#24629 Mar 24, 2013
PHD wrote:
Have you noticed when you pin them against the wall ....
ROTFL! There are no limits to this nutters delusions!
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#24630 Mar 24, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
What experiments have you got? Can you cite a compelling experiment for climate change mitigation?
You may actually think you're making sense and not be a troll or paid disruptor. Either way. answer these effin' questions or go tf away:

1) What experiments have deniers like you allowed to take place?

2) You admit to not being a scientist, but I still have to ask - What would such an experiment look like in your mind? My guess is that you can only conceive of simplistic "Change only one variable and measure the difference in response" experiments, right?

3) Where is the alternate Earth that we should use as the control for such an experiment? That's rhetorical, of course. My real question is - Are you using this lack of understanding of science to claim that it's impossible to predict the effects of any mitigation measures?

4) What experiments would deniers like you allow to take place?

5) If you don't accept that GW is happening, you're simply a denier, too ignorant of science to know better, and/or a conspiracy theorist. If you accept that GW is happening, you have de facto accepted the scientific methods and data that have brought us to that conclusion.

This was done without an alternate Earth to use as a control. It was done by testing the many subcomponents of the climate against the basic physics that has been lab tested. Thus, we have showed that no other forcing function could possibly account for the climate's response. Thus, we showed that the details of the response have a signature that can only be the result of GHG's (upper atmospheric cooling, more warming at night, in winter, and near the poles). Thus we showed that the rate of warming is consistent with the basic physics applied to detailed models of the system; models that recreate past climates on the macro scale.

If you accept the science of global warming, you should - TO BE LOGICALLY CONSISTENT - accept the science of global warming mitigation. If not, then my final question is - WHY THE EFF NOT, YOU SIMPERING MORON?!
Brian_G wrote:
Adapting to climate is well tested,...
Respond to my previous response, jackass. Point by point. Else stfu:

1) The rate of climate change will be orders of magnitude more rapid than ever before in our species' history because the forcing function is increasing orders of magnitude faster.

2) Science tells us that much slower climate change nearly caused our extinction.

3) Our population is many orders of magnitude higher than during any of the far less rapid and severe changes.

4) Our population is now utterly dependent on agriculture, which is dependent on rather narrow climate windows, instead of upon hunting and gathering whatever naturally survives in each ecosystem (Which might be quite limited. Roasted cockroach, anyone?)
Brian_G wrote:
.... you can sample umbrellas for protection from rain,....
Thanks for providing the evidence that I was correct about your simplistic, uneducated, misunderstanding of science. Your concession is accepted.
Brian_G wrote:
.... nobody has mitigated climate change; there's the difference.
Respond, a-hole - What mitigation efforts have you deniers allowed to take place that is of sufficient magnitude and in place long enough to yield statistically significant responses? Rhetorical. There haven't been any. I suspect you know it. Catch 22 much, denier scum?
Brian_G wrote:
Architecture protects your home from climate; restricting greenhouse gas emissions does not.
Explain your logic, as this is clearly only a bare assertion. In fact, if you accept the science of climate change, you effectively admit that both protect your home.
Brian_G wrote:
There is a difference between fact and fiction. Look at samples, tests, trial and experiments to tell which is which.
There's a difference between a rational argument and hand-waving nonsense, too.
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#24631 Mar 24, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I prefer logic and experimental evidence.
Really, now?! Certainly had me fooled.
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#24632 Mar 24, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>You don't have to design experiments to recognize which technologies (climate change mitigation for one) have no experimental evidence.
You don't have to be a psychologist to recognize which deniers (you for one) has only one shredded argument.

All you have to do is watch as you repeat it endlessly while failing to respond to the aforementioned shredding.

Of course, ignoring that arguments have been refuted while repeating them endlessly is the signature characteristic of all science deniers and conspiracy theorists. Are you a creationist, too, perchance?
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#24633 Mar 24, 2013
PHD wrote:
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?
The quality of your arguments is as good as ever.
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#24634 Mar 24, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I'm being honest,...
If so, you're honest but ignorant and duped beyond belief. I'm beginning to reach the conclusion that you're far from honest.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>... 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........ Show me a compelling experiment for man made climate change or climate change mitigation and I'll change my views........ The existence of nonexistence of an experimental test of climate change mitigation isn't a matter of opinions,...
Just keeping repeating your one shredded non-argument, nutter. Whatever you do, don't address the rebuttals; don't answer any questions. Just repeat it endlessly and hope that none of the other nutters possess the critical thinking skills to appreciate your implosion.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>A very stiff carbon tax would harm our economy, just as its been shown to harm the economies where it's been tried.
Aha! You reveal your real issue with the science - and lie about the evidence for it. Back up your assertion.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>There's no evidence it will help the climate.
Could you repeat that BS one more time? Or a thousand?
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Adding a tax to oil won't stop oil use,...
How retarded are you? No one's talking about stopping oil use entirely, black and white "thinker". And it's not limited to oil.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>... it will just make oil more expensive and give more profit to OPEC.
"Just"? Bare assertion, again. Also a rejection of fundamental economic principles. Rejecting market forces now, nutter? As for adding to OPEC's profits?! RETARDED!!! The tax won't go to the producers! The higher after-tax price will reduce demand and LOWER the before-tax price, you MORON!
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>That's why Al Jazeera supports your climate tax, it adds costs and increases the perception of value and rarity to oil prices.
(face->palm) So, are you as ignorant of economics as you are of science or just simultaneously lying and employing an ad hominem argument (i.e., if Al Jazeera supports it, it must be wrong)?

You've utterly imploded. Of course, as a denier, you will not acknowledge having been wrong on even one trivial point and will continue to bang your drum sans any meaningful responses.
And thanks for that. You illustrate the intellectual bankruptcy of denial far better than scientists can when the audience is misinformed non-scientists.
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#24635 Mar 24, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:

"The proof is in scientific journals, where deliberate deception is virtually impossible..."
We accept your concession. How else would a rational person interpret your latest evasive, steaming heap of nonsense?
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Science hoaxes:

No. 1- Piltdown Man
No. 2- Archaeoraptor
No. 3 - El Chupacabra
No. 4 - Rabbit Mother
No. 5 - The Fiji Mermaid
No. 6 - The Turk
No. 7 - Alien Autopsy
No. 8 - Say No to Cake
No. 9 - Disappearing Blonde Gene
No. 10 - The Nacirema Tribe
No. 1 - Thanks for providing the evidence that, besides being ancient, it was self-correcting, peer-reviewed SCIENCE that corrected this - "40 years later scientists proved that the Piltdown man was a deliberate attempt at paleontological fraud." - NOT admittedly scientifically illiterate wingnuts such as yourself.

No. 2 - Ditto #1 - "Turns out this "fossil" found in China was actually a forgery constructed from rearranged pieces of real fossils from different species."

Nos. 3-9 - Not science at all! Just urban legends and other crap from mass media, you simpleton!

No. 10 - Well, at least this one was actually published science, but again - WHO DO YOU THINK CORRECTED IT, KNOW-NOTHINGS LIKE YOU?

If these are your arguments for science denial, I accept your concession. Because that's exactly what it is whether or not you admit it.

Your penchant for repeating tired, failed, anti-science arguments reeks of the work of a denier that knows they're wrong and is denying with deceptive intent, rather than as a result of being deceived.
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#24636 Mar 24, 2013
d pantz wrote:
I wonder if these "scientists" also agree that un agenda 21 is the solution to the "problem" created by corporate industry. Punish the poor for the fault of the super rich! http://azstarnet.com/news/local/govt-and-poli...
I wonder if the run-of-the-mill deniers realize that the difference between them and the Reynolds' Wrap fedora crowd that d pantz represents is a difference in degree, not a difference in kind.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#24637 Mar 24, 2013
Kyle wrote:
<quoted text>
I wonder if the run-of-the-mill deniers realize that the difference between them and the Reynolds' Wrap fedora crowd that d pantz represents is a difference in degree, not a difference in kind.
Kyle

EXCELLENT series of posts. So if these are the categories of deniers, which is brain(NOT)_g in?

1. Ignorant
2. Ideological
3. Psychotic
4. Paid shill of oil (& other FFs) industry
5. Simple troll

These categories are not mutually exclusive, of course. It seems that brain(NOT)_g is most likely in category #4, but others certainly remain possible.

We are indeed releasing CO2 into the atmosphere at ~20,000 times the natural rate. One hopes that doesn't mean we melt the Greenland & Antarctic icepacks ~20,000 faster that natural forcings do.

“I'm Hillary's Deplorable”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#24638 Mar 24, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
A very stiff carbon tax is the ONLY way to save civilization & billions of lives.
If your politicians say a tax is the only way to save civilization and save billions of lives, then you can be sure there's no real problem. Greed is universal but climate change mitigation has never been tested.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
It most assuredly has NOT harmed the economies of the many countries where it's been instituted.
Taxes divert resources from private enterprise to the government. High taxes stunt private economies and expand government power.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
The consequences of AGW/CC, however, have already harmed economies, to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars for the US, & ~1.6% of the worldwide GDP. Yet you want us to pay more & more of these things because you want to save a few pennies at the pump. You are penny wise & dollar foolish.
Climate is expensive, storms, floods and droughts have always happened. There's no way to tell how much climate change is man made and how much is natural without experimental tests.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
"They" are people who represent the oil (& other fossil fuel) companies & related entities. If you're not being paid by them, then you're either ideological, ignorant or psychotic.
I use fossil fuel; doesn't that make me represent oil companies? The customer is as much the market as the producer.

Do dividends count?

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
No, I'm not being paid to post here. I post because I'm concerned about the future of the only planet we have.
Nobody is paid to post here; wake up!

“I'm Hillary's Deplorable”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#24639 Mar 24, 2013
Kyle wrote:
You may actually think you're making sense and not be a troll or paid disruptor.
Experimental tests define good theories. Don't blame me, there are no tests of climate change mitigation.

.
Kyle wrote:
Either way. answer these effin' questions or go tf away:
^^^Cyberbullying isn't a compelling argument.

.
Kyle wrote:
1) What experiments have deniers like you allowed to take place?
Don't scientists do experiments?

.
Kyle wrote:
2) You admit to not being a scientist, but I still have to ask - What would such an experiment look like in your mind? My guess is that you can only conceive of simplistic "Change only one variable and measure the difference in response" experiments, right?
I'd imagine a test of climate change mitigation would be emitting then sequestering a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, then reversing the process randomly over time, while looking for a temperature signal.

.
Kyle wrote:
3) Where is the alternate Earth that we should use as the control for such an experiment? That's rhetorical, of course. My real question is - Are you using this lack of understanding of science to claim that it's impossible to predict the effects of any mitigation measures?
We wouldn't need another Earth, just time and treatment reversals while measuring temperature to detect a signal. Look up single subject experimental design.

.
Kyle wrote:
4) What experiments would deniers like you allow to take place?
Again, critics don't do experiments; that's the scientist's job.

.
Kyle wrote:
5) If you don't accept that GW is happening, you're simply a denier, too ignorant of science to know better, and/or a conspiracy theorist. If you accept that GW is happening, you have de facto accepted the scientific methods and data that have brought us to that conclusion.
Climate always changes; don't panic.

.
Kyle wrote:
This was done without an alternate Earth to use as a control. It was done by testing the many subcomponents of the climate against the basic physics that has been lab tested. Thus, we have showed that no other forcing function could possibly account for the climate's response. Thus, we showed that the details of the response have a signature that can only be the result of GHG's (upper atmospheric cooling, more warming at night, in winter, and near the poles). Thus we showed that the rate of warming is consistent with the basic physics applied to detailed models of the system; models that recreate past climates on the macro scale.
How much is natural and how much is man made? Only experimental data would allow us to know.

.
Kyle wrote:
If you accept the science of global warming, you should - TO BE LOGICALLY CONSISTENT - accept the science of global warming mitigation. If not, then my final question is - WHY THE EFF NOT, YOU SIMPERING MORON?!
As you emit CO2, each molecule has less warming effect than the previous molecule. There's no reason to get upset, please try to calm down, get a grip.

.
Kyle wrote:
Respond to my previous response, jackass. Point by point. Else stfu:
1) The rate of climate change will be orders of magnitude more rapid than ever before in our species' history because the forcing function is increasing orders of magnitude faster.
2) Science tells us that much slower climate change nearly caused our extinction.
3) Our population is many orders of magnitude higher than during any of the far less rapid and severe changes.
4) Our population is now utterly dependent on agriculture, which is dependent on rather narrow climate windows, instead of upon hunting and gathering whatever naturally survives in each ecosystem (Which might be quite limited. Roasted cockroach, anyone?)
What did you have for lunch?

“I'm Hillary's Deplorable”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#24640 Mar 24, 2013
.
Kyle wrote:
Thanks for providing the evidence that I was correct about your simplistic, uneducated, misunderstanding of science. Your concession is accepted.
Please cite the most compelling experiment you've found for climate change mitigation.

.
Kyle wrote:
Respond, a-hole - What mitigation efforts have you deniers allowed to take place that is of sufficient magnitude and in place long enough to yield statistically significant responses? Rhetorical. There haven't been any. I suspect you know it. Catch 22 much, denier scum?
I don't want to be part of your prototype climate change mitigation experiment; consent is part of ethical science. I want to be in the control group that emits CO2 ad lib.

.
Kyle wrote:
Explain your logic, as this is clearly only a bare assertion. In fact, if you accept the science of climate change, you effectively admit that both protect your home.
The issue is simple, adapting to climate works and no species or technology has ever demonstrated climate change mitigation.

.
Kyle wrote:
There's a difference between a rational argument and hand-waving nonsense, too.
When you can tell me what standard would make you change your mind; then you've got a rational argument. I've already said, show me a compelling experiment that shows either man made climate change or climate change mitigation, then I'll change my views.

“I'm Hillary's Deplorable”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#24641 Mar 24, 2013
I make my arguments without insults because I'm discussing issues, not engaging in ad hominem falsehood. If you have to insult your political opponents, maybe you should take a second look at your position.
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#24642 Mar 24, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Experimental tests define good theories. Don't blame me, there are no tests of climate change mitigation.
.
<quoted text>^^^Cyberbullying isn't a compelling argument.
.
<quoted text>Don't scientists do experiments?
.
<quoted text>I'd imagine a test of climate change mitigation would be emitting then sequestering a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, then reversing the process randomly over time, while looking for a temperature signal.
.
<quoted text>We wouldn't need another Earth, just time and treatment reversals while measuring temperature to detect a signal. Look up single subject experimental design.
.
<quoted text>Again, critics don't do experiments; that's the scientist's job.
.
<quoted text>Climate always changes; don't panic.
.
<quoted text>How much is natural and how much is man made? Only experimental data would allow us to know.
.
<quoted text>As you emit CO2, each molecule has less warming effect than the previous molecule. There's no reason to get upset, please try to calm down, get a grip.
.
<quoted text>What did you have for lunch?
Just because there are no tests, doesn't mean you cannot observe it happening. Funny, you wanted testing.... like the idiot, you are.....
Dont drink the koolaid

Eden Prairie, MN

#24643 Mar 24, 2013
Brian G...
Reasoning with such individuals is a lot like dueling with unarmed men.

Have you come across any sites that present a rational defense for CAGW?

“I'm Hillary's Deplorable”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#24644 Mar 25, 2013
Bushwhacker wrote:
Just because there are no tests, doesn't mean you cannot observe it happening.
The issue isn't observation, you want to remake our economy to restrict greenhouse gas emission. If you promote a plan to mitigate climate change, shouldn't you test the theory first?

.
Bushwhacker wrote:
Funny, you wanted testing.... like the idiot, you are.....
I don't find insults funny, they are ad hominem fallacies that shows a lack of rational argument. If your arguments have value, you don't need name-calling.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#24646 Mar 25, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
I make my arguments without insults because I'm discussing issues, not engaging in ad hominem falsehood. If you have to insult your political opponents, maybe you should take a second look at your position.
Logical fallacy: you get insulted because you deserve it.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#24648 Mar 25, 2013
Kyle wrote:
<quoted text>
The quality of your arguments is as good as ever.
You have no quality or argument. Good to see they allow you out for the weekend. Do tell your care givers that the meds your own need to be increased. You’re somewhat agitated this weekend posting useless babble.
devvev

Pittsburgh, PA

#24649 Mar 25, 2013
youtube.com/watch... ……… Incredibale Error on the Calender?
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#24650 Mar 25, 2013
Incredible scientific science fiction.

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
Statewide protective agency (Oct '15) Mon Troy 34
News Fmr. Prior Lake Youth Pastor Charged With Havin... Sep 26 Paris Hilton 24
Sick hillary Sep 25 LIbEralS 11
News Ramsey County / Meth dealer's motives in sting ... (Aug '08) Sep 24 Lynnhollenbeck 13
Hillary will lose! "EmailGate" NOT WORTHY TO BE... Sep 24 cantmakeitup 5
Don't vote for Hillary! Sep 24 cantmakeitup 7
Can't manage the gov & NOT honest or trustworthy (Nov '13) Sep 23 LIbEralS 548

Minneapolis Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Minneapolis Mortgages