Global warming 'undeniable,' scientis...

Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say

There are 35599 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.

PHD2

Minneapolis, MN

#24674 Mar 25, 2013
"Faith" posted this on March 20th 2012:

"Global warming is the greatest thing ever! It's like 80 here in Michigan and it's still winter! Longer growing seasons, lower energy bills....It's a win-win."

So what does the 2013 COLD SPRING mean, global cooling?

Climate changes every year, Al Gore is worth more tha Mitt ROmney, thanks t
Who

Grand Rapids, MI

#24675 Mar 25, 2013
PHD2 wrote:
"Faith" posted this on March 20th 2012:
"Global warming is the greatest thing ever! It's like 80 here in Michigan and it's still winter! Longer growing seasons, lower energy bills....It's a win-win."
So what does the 2013 COLD SPRING mean, global cooling?
Climate changes every year, Al Gore is worth more tha Mitt ROmney, thanks to fools.
If GW has been getting worse since, as the econuts put it, "since the beginning of recorded history", how does that explain why it still snows at all?

Why is this year COOLER than last year? Why was 2011 cooler than 2012? Did GW take a year off?

Why are the average temperatures in the upper northern hemisphere globally not on par with the tropical zones if GW has been getting worse for hundreds of years?

How can the severity of GW be based on the amount of money they want to spend to "fix it"?

How can these so-called scientists "predict" what the weather will be 5 years from now, when meteorologists can barely predict the weather a few days from now? Are we to believe we should just throw billions at something they think MIGHT happen? Wouldn't it be cheaper to just ask a two-bit psychic?

I gaurantee though that if we start throwing billions at GW "science", the so-called scientist will make sure GW never ends. It'll be too lucrative of an enterprise. Look at what they already blame GW for.

GW is COMPLETE BULLSHIT. Period.

It's what liberals do best - create a crisis so they can sell you the solution.
SpaceBlues

United States

#24677 Mar 25, 2013
Scientists use mathematical models.. all models are first tested in a process called Hindcasting. The models used to predict future global warming can accurately map past climate changes. If they get the past right, there is no reason to think their predictions would be wrong. Testing models against the existing instrumental record suggested CO2 must cause global warming, because the models could not simulate what had already happened unless the extra CO2 was added to the model. All other known forcings are adequate in explaining temperature variations prior to the rise in temperature over the last thirty years, while none of them are capable of explaining the rise in the past thirty years. CO2 does explain that rise, and explains it completely without any need for additional, as yet unknown forcings.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-model...
PHD2

Minneapolis, MN

#24679 Mar 25, 2013
Hey man it's COOLING!!!!
SpaceBlues

United States

#24680 Mar 25, 2013
PHD2 wrote:
"Faith" posted this on March 20th 2012:
"Global warming is the greatest thing ever! It's like 80 here in Michigan and it's still winter! Longer growing seasons, lower energy bills....It's a win-win."
So what does the 2013 COLD SPRING mean, global cooling?
Climate changes every year, Al Gore is worth more tha Mitt ROmney, thanks t
ROmney who??

Your post needs a rewrite. Thanks.

P.S. Gore's money is not yours. Are you jealous?
PHD2

Minneapolis, MN

#24682 Mar 25, 2013
52% of the USA is covered in SNOW!!

ALL TIME RECORDS are being set for COLD!!

In 2012 record warmth was said to be proof of global warming.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#24686 Mar 25, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>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.
.
<quoted text>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.
.
<quoted text>Storms, floods, drought and other extreme weather events have happened throughout the past. Global warming alarmists don't understand history or science.
.
<quoted text>If you think I'm a paid shill, you're delusional. Nobody would pay me to write this simple common sense criticism.
Ideally, experiments are done carefully, with conscious thought toward learning as much as possible. The poisoning of our atmosphere may be an inadvertent experiment, but it's an experiment nonetheless. And people of your ilk are forcing me to accept worsening poisoning every day.

I understand perfectly well how to run experiments, & have done plenty of them myself in the lab. Actually, climatologists are the most important scientists who SHOULD have say over policy. If nothing is done about AGW/CC, there won't BE any other sciences.

You're having trouble with the whole revenue-neutral thing, eh? A revenue neutral tax "deprives the people" of ZERO wealth, removes ZERO money from the people & adds ZERO to the cost of government.

You no doubt suffer from the psychotic, delusional hallucination that it is "free" to emit carbon into the atmosphere. It most assuredly is NOT free. It will cost our progeny staggering, almost incalculable amounts of money, probably in the quadrillions of dollars counting the loss of life. A stiff carbon tax is the only way to get the true costs of burning fossil fuels into their prices.

BTW, our government has been redistributing wealth for decades. What, you've never heard of the estate tax? The progressive income tax? Without ongoing (partial) redistribution, capitalism will collapse – always. Redistribution keeps it vital, keeps new entrepreneurs entering the system, keeps growth alive.

Extreme weather events are becoming much more common with warming. PERIOD. AGW/CC will mean more frequent extreme precipitation events. What we've already seen is a 16% increase in "heavy rain events," a 25% increase in "very heavy rain events" and a 36% increase in "extreme" precipitation events (or deluges). I'm sorry the facts contradict your convenient political beliefs.

On second thought, you're right – there's no WAY you're smart enough to be a paid shill. That'd be Fun Facts.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#24687 Mar 25, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
On second thought, you're right – there's no WAY you're smart enough to be a paid shill. That'd be Fun Facts.
fun farts would love to be paid to post , but isn't. Brian won't deny being paid.

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...

Being smart is actually not in the job description- see this advert:
Writers Needed to post right-wing Comments to social me and news outlets

We are a social media company, working for a political organization hired to help balance the left-wing bias of the major media outlets by supplying a team of writers who will post to newspaper conments. media foruns, etc.

You writing must be strong right-wing and use supplied talking points without boggng down in too much detail. You are creating an online persona with a consistent tone. Ideally you can find or make up facts and statistics to stir controversy. Where suited humour sarcasm and personal insults are welcome.

You are a news junky, who is able to log on to news forums, facebook pages several times a day. You are able to write comments tailored to new topics while always repeating key talking points.

Compensation. TBD hourly rate and volume of online activity. Bonuses for controverstial postings that heat up a topic or forum thread.

How to apply. We are more interested in your writing than Your resume. To apply submit a 100 word post... Show us that you can write from a right wing character voice, score points, stir outrage and use humour.

Sorry, only candidates who submit the best test posts will be contacted for an interview.
...talking points... make up facts and statistics to stir controversy... sarcasm and personal insults.

brian_g almost exactly, just substitute trolling for sarcasm.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#24688 Mar 25, 2013
OK, scrub "almost": brian_g exactly: "score points, stir outrage". I.e., troll.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#24689 Mar 26, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
LOL. There's an insurmountable gap between scientists and you. You don't agree with scientists because their work does not encourage you to burn uncontrolled and limitless quantities of fossil fuel. The future of humanity is threatened by your position of uncontrolled and limitless use of fossil fuel. You misrepresent people like me by using the word "believe." My science understanding is not something you could ever enjoy. Who to listen to for science? The scientists. Definitely, not to you or what you believe.
There's no difference between my views and Doctor Richard Lindzen's or Professor Bjørn Lomborg's views of climate change mitigation. Many scientists oppose climate change mitigation.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#24690 Mar 26, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
Ideally, experiments are done carefully, with conscious thought toward learning as much as possible. The poisoning of our atmosphere may be an inadvertent experiment, but it's an experiment nonetheless.
There's no such thing as an "inadvertent experiment". Experiments are done with the goal of testing theories.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
And people of your ilk are forcing me to accept worsening poisoning every day.
CO2 at atmospheric levels isn't poisonous; carbon dioxide is vital to life. People drink carbonated beverages with CO2 levels far higher than ever existed in the air; that's not poisonous either.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
I understand perfectly well how to run experiments, & have done plenty of them myself in the lab...
For someone who claims to be a scientist, HSL sure doesn't understand the meaning of 'poisoning' or 'experiment'. I'm willing to bet, if he has a degree, it's in the social sciences, not physical science.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#24691 Mar 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>There's no difference between my views and Doctor Richard Lindzen's or Professor Bjørn Lomborg's views of climate change mitigation. Many scientists oppose climate change mitigation.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
Lindzen's work hasn't stood up to the test of time- the evidence is against him. Which is why is is one of a handful of climate scientists who don't believe AGW is a threat.

Lomborg is discredited and not even a scientist.

http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#24692 Mar 26, 2013
Doctor Richard Lindzen is an atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Professorial Bjørn Lomborg is a Danish author, academic, and environmental writer. He is an adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Centre and a former director of the Environmental Assessment Institute in Copenhagen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lombo...

Over 31,000 American scientists have signed this petition:

"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
http://www.oism.org/pproject/

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#24693 Mar 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Doctor Richard Lindzen is an atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Professorial Bjørn Lomborg is a Danish author, academic, and environmental writer. He is an adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Centre and a former director of the Environmental Assessment Institute in Copenhagen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lombo...
Over 31,000 American scientists have signed this petition:
"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
Lindzen has given up any attempt to convince the scientific community and pitches straight to blogs now. Lomborg has always been a demagogue and the 30000 scientists petition is a fraud.

PHD

Cibolo, TX

#24694 Mar 26, 2013
PHD2 wrote:
Hey man it's COOLING!!!!
You’re trying to respond to an empty chair. You can't reason with scientific science fiction believers. They have nothing to offer but predictions, opinion, could be, should be, forecast and a host of descriptive non committal words. Ask them to toss out their cut and paste useless babble and print their peer reviewed published work. They only response you will receive is bad judgments and name calling. Stand by I predict it to happen again soon real soon.
SpaceBlues

United States

#24695 Mar 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>There's no difference between my views and Doctor Richard Lindzen's or Professor Bjørn Lomborg's views of climate change mitigation. Many scientists oppose climate change mitigation.
...
haha I agree with Fair Game:

Lindzen's work hasn't stood up to the test of time- the evidence is against him. Which is why is is one of a handful of climate scientists who don't believe AGW is a threat.

Lomborg is discredited and not even a scientist.

http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/

Also:

Lindzen has given up any attempt to convince the scientific community and pitches straight to blogs now. Lomborg has always been a demagogue and the 30000 scientists petition is a fraud.

http://www.youtube.com/watch ...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#24696 Mar 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>There's no difference between my views and Doctor Richard Lindzen's or Professor Bjørn Lomborg's views of climate change mitigation. Many scientists oppose climate change mitigation.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
Let's look at Lindzen's predictions (blue dashed line) vs the IPCC & others:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/IPCCvsCo...

Lindzen, of course, was incorrect, though perhaps not as bad as others. Contrast that with how remarkably accurate Hansen et al were back in 1981:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives...

Actually, temperatures turned out to be somewhat higher than Hansen predicted in 1981 (more than THIRTY YEARS ago), but they're reasonably close.

Lindzen isn't even in the same universe. Only an ideologically blind &/or psychotic fool would trust him over Hansen.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#24697 Mar 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Doctor Richard Lindzen is an atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Professorial Bjørn Lomborg is a Danish author, academic, and environmental writer. He is an adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Centre and a former director of the Environmental Assessment Institute in Copenhagen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lombo...
Over 31,000 American scientists have signed this petition:
"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
Interesting that you cite the signatories of the TOTALLY discredited Oregon Petition as "scientists" but doubt my biochemical work. OK, whatever "Brain(NOT)_G."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

You see, we need earth to be in the Goldilocks zone. We need CO2 to be "just right."

The point isn't that humans couldn't live on a planet with higher CO2 levels, because we could. The point is that our civilization developed with Holocene CO2 levels & climate.

Our agriculture is dependent on Holocene climate. We have trillions of dollars of infrastructure within a few meters of sea level.

The dinosaurs did fine with CO2 5 times its current levels. But they didn't have cities within a few meters of sea level. They didn't depend on agriculture to eat. Even the poles were tropical, & there was no ice on the earth. Sea level was ~70 meters higher.

Scientific facts are true no matter how many times your bosses tell you to say they're not. You can rant & rave all you want. You're still wrong.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#24698 Mar 26, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
... If nothing is done about AGW/CC, there won't BE any other sciences.
No panic here. I'll grant, HSL knows about man made climate change, but not that he understands or appreciates economics.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
You're having trouble with the whole revenue-neutral thing, eh? A revenue neutral tax "deprives the people" of ZERO wealth, removes ZERO money from the people & adds ZERO to the cost of government.
Then let's go with a zero tax rate, that's the same thing as revenue neutral,'it "deprives the people" of ZERO wealth, removes ZERO money from the people & adds ZERO to the cost of government.' A zero tax rate is the only truly revenue neutral tax, all other taxes must be calculated, there's room for corruption, tax lobbies want loopholes and hand out campaign contributions. Any non zero tax rate can't be called revenue neutral because it deprives the taxed of revenue, enriches tax professionals, takes time to prepare and reconcile, among many costs.

I favor a zero tax on the production and use of energy and fuel, just to get our economy running again.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
You no doubt suffer from the psychotic, delusional hallucination that it is "free" to emit carbon into the atmosphere.
A zero tax is free. We are a free people entitled to emit carbon into the atmosphere. It's as free to exhale or burn CO2 as it is to plant a seed and turn it back into food, but it takes less effort to breathe. I'm under the delusion air is free. We are entitled to use or emit as much carbon dioxide as we please; I oppose any carbon tax.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
It most assuredly is NOT free. It will cost our progeny staggering, almost incalculable amounts of money, probably in the quadrillions of dollars counting the loss of life.
I agree with the incalculable amounts part, that's what I've been saying. There's no due diligence, no tests, trials, demonstrations; all the evidence is theory and models. Not even real world physical models that can interact with the global climate, computer models that are defined by digital input. Incalculable because there is no experimental data.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
A stiff carbon tax is the only way to get the true costs of burning fossil fuels into their prices.
I agree, they want to stiff us with a carbon tax when we burn fossil fuel to warm our homes, cook our food, generate electricity and use that to communicate and light our way. They want to stiff us with a carbon tax when we drive to work or fly on vacation. They want to make energy and fuel more expensive, rare, valuable and dear. To do so, they add regulations and taxes.

They want to stiff us and I don't want to be stiffed.
PHD2

Minneapolis, MN

#24699 Mar 26, 2013
A year ago all you Al Gore huggers were claiming the warm spring was caused by Global Warming.

Now we have a cold spring and it's also caused by Global Warming.

WHICH IS IT??????

Stupid can't be fixed..

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
Obama & BLM mourn monstor Fidel Castro 1 hr Drumpf 48
Drop one word....add one word game (Apr '14) 14 hr WildLifeLover 623
Child sex ring>Pizzagate>Clinton's>Obama's>FBI ... Thu Georgia 1
News Cops To Drunk Drivers: We'll Make You Listen To... Wed Ferrerman 20
BLM urge rioting over OSU SHOOTING Wed Drumpf 14
Trump Won The Popular Vote Nov 29 Obamas comments 3
News State Fair: Corn Dog Vs. Pronto Pup! (Aug '07) Nov 26 Curious 61

Minneapolis Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Minneapolis Mortgages