Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say

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. Full Story

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#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 Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#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 Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#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

Minneapolis, 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 Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#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

Overton, 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

Overton, TX

#24650 Mar 25, 2013
Incredible scientific science fiction.
Justsaying

Russellville, KY

#24651 Mar 25, 2013
On this snowy March 25 morning I only ask one thing. Can we get some Global Warming up in here? I just got off the phone with TVA about turning up the CO2. Let's get some of that coal smoking.
And to all tree huggers. Don't be hypocrites. Go outside now and pull that satanic power meter off your houses.
PHD

Overton, TX

#24652 Mar 25, 2013
Justsaying wrote:
On this snowy March 25 morning I only ask one thing. Can we get some Global Warming up in here? I just got off the phone with TVA about turning up the CO2. Let's get some of that coal smoking.
And to all tree huggers. Don't be hypocrites. Go outside now and pull that satanic power meter off your houses.
Good one maybe you can get kyle to engineer that for you. It was able to engineer the Auto Ind. into bankruptcy.
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#24653 Mar 25, 2013
A single individual engineered the auto industry, not managers selling gas hog Hummers and overpaying themselves, right tiny ??? If you were any stupider, you'd be single celled.
litesong

Everett, WA

#24654 Mar 25, 2013
[QUOTE who="dont....."].... ... like dueling with unarmed men.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, at least 8 toxic topix AGW deniers have no hi skule DEE-plooomaa or no upper class science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc for their poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaas.

However, one woman has a bit of college, which still means the men are mentally unarmed, unbrained & searching for their first science or mathematics class.
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#24655 Mar 25, 2013
Tiny has no college, that's the BIGGEST JOKE.....
litesong

Everett, WA

#24656 Mar 25, 2013
brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver wrote:
I don't find insults funny.....
"brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver" finds slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pigisms AND 4 alleged & 3 proud threats to be more effective.
litesong

Everett, WA

#24657 Mar 25, 2013
litesong wrote:
..... searching for their first science or mathematics class.
Correction:
toxic topix AGW deniers without hi skule DEE-ploomaas never search for science or mathematics classes.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#24658 Mar 25, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>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.
.
<quoted text>Taxes divert resources from private enterprise to the government. High taxes stunt private economies and expand government power.
.
<quoted text>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.
.
<quoted text>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?
.
<quoted text>Nobody is paid to post here; wake up!
Of course, everything you say is wrong once again.

The LACK of AGW/CC mitigation is being tested right now. People like you recommend emitting carbon into the atmosphere without restraint. Your selfishness is making us all part of the experiment, however.

A revenue-neutral carbon tax removes ZERO money from the economy & adds ZERO to the cost of overnment. It's a pigouvian tax that takes from high carbon emitters & gives to low carbon emitters.

Consider a rising, stiff tax at the sale or production of fossil fuels. This might not be the best way to disburse it, but it'd certainly be possible to distribute ALL of it equally to every legal US resident, with half shares to up to 2 children.

The governet already has tax collectors & computers to disburse money (by check or electronic deposit), so additional costs would be negligible. Most people actually receive more money that they pay out.

No need for subsidies for clean energy or need to pick out a successful Solyndra. Customers, & the market, would decide.

If you're a heavy carbon emitter, you pay thru the nose. If you're a light carbon emitter, you get free money.

The POINT is not that storms, floods, droughts & other extreme weather events have never happened in the past. The POINT is that they're becoming more & more common with AGW/CC. We've already seen increases, & they'll continue to worsen this century.

There more certainly ARE paid shills all over the internet. This article has appeared in multiple places, with multiple hosts:

http://consciouslifenews.com/paid-internet-sh...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#24659 Mar 25, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
.
<quoted text>Please cite the most compelling experiment you've found for climate change mitigation.
.
<quoted text>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.
.
<quoted text>The issue is simple, adapting to climate works and no species or technology has ever demonstrated climate change mitigation.
.
<quoted text>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.
Actually, I don't want to be a part of YOUR climate change experiment. You're recommending we add carbon to the atmosphere without restraint.

The fact that we're already seeing changes predicted by theory is verification that the theory is correct. I don't want to be a part of the experiment you're forcing on me.

After all, humans are releasing CO2 ~20,000 times faster than natural processes release it. We are completely overwhelming natural processes. Hopefully that doesn't mean the ice sheets will break up 20,000 times faster.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#24661 Mar 25, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
Of course, everything you say is wrong once again. The LACK of AGW/CC mitigation is being tested right now. People like you recommend emitting carbon into the atmosphere without restraint. Your selfishness is making us all part of the experiment, however.
We're also not doing an experiment to restrict Rock music, to see if that would effect global climate temperature. Experiments are pre-planned and controlled, that's why our fossil fuel use can't be called an experiment.

"An experiment is a orderly procedure carried out with the goal of verifying, falsifying, or establishing the validity of a hypothesis. Experiments provide insight into cause-and-effect by demonstrating what outcome occurs when a particular factor is manipulated. Experiments vary greatly in their goal and scale, but always rely on repeatable procedure and logical analysis of the results."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiment

Most global warming alarmists don't understand what experiments are and how they are used in science to verify theories; that's why they shouldn't decide science policy.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
A revenue-neutral carbon tax removes ZERO money from the economy & adds ZERO to the cost of overnment. It's a pigouvian tax that takes from high carbon emitters & gives to low carbon emitters. Consider a rising, stiff tax at the sale or production of fossil fuels. This might not be the best way to disburse it, but it'd certainly be possible to distribute ALL of it equally to every legal US resident, with half shares to up to 2 children. The governet already has tax collectors & computers to disburse money (by check or electronic deposit), so additional costs would be negligible. Most people actually receive more money that they pay out. No need for subsidies for clean energy or need to pick out a successful Solyndra. Customers, & the market, would decide. If you're a heavy carbon emitter, you pay thru the nose. If you're a light carbon emitter, you get free money.
Taxes harm the people by depriving them of wealth; that's why they should only be used to fund vital government interests. A "revenue-neutral" tax doesn't fund anything, it just redistributes wealth. The poster quoted above seems to want socialism and climate is the excuse.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
The POINT is not that storms, floods, droughts & other extreme weather events have never happened in the past. The POINT is that they're becoming more & more common with AGW/CC. We've already seen increases, & they'll continue to worsen this century.
Storms, floods, drought and other extreme weather events have happened throughout the past. Global warming alarmists don't understand history or science.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
There more certainly ARE paid shills all over the internet. This article has appeared in multiple places, with multiple hosts:[URL deleted]
If you think I'm a paid shill, you're delusional. Nobody would pay me to write this simple common sense criticism.

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
Liberal New York City Deserves Ebola 7 hr Ebola Van Jones 1
ebola in nyc!!!!!!!!!! 9 hr Space ace 3
New York physician tests positive for Ebola 11 hr Ebola Van Jones O... 3
Autopsy reports on Ferguson Shooting 11 hr Tang Wong Chew 5
Obama Owns Ebola 14 hr cantmakeitup 48
He fled, fired -- and died (Feb '07) 15 hr Tang Wong Chew 161
Racist Seahawks don't think Russell Wilson is b... 15 hr Tang Wong Chew 2
Minneapolis Dating
Find my Match

Minneapolis Jobs

Minneapolis People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Minneapolis News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Minneapolis

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]