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

#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/

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#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

Overton, 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

Houston, TX

#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.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#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..
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#24700 Mar 26, 2013
Poor Brain Gone, no actual argument, just the irrational greedy rethuglican't marching orders.....

Get a job!!!! With the time you use here, YOUR carbon tax would be paid....

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#24701 Mar 26, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
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.
Legitimate taxes fund government; we have to pay for a necessary evil with a necessary evil. We fund our military because we be slaughtered if we don't.

We fund government because we have to that or lose our rights and freedoms. I disagree with all HSL's examples above, progressive taxation is easier and better because it skims from the top. The estate tax doesn't affect the majority, but it takes a bite from the rich who don't build trusts.

I favor progressive taxes to maximize income without discouraging economic activity. I like very low taxes. Our carbon tax rate should be zero.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
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).
Extreme weather has always happened and it makes a great newscast. They seem more frequent because of the replays and we have more cameras now. Don't panic bout a 16-35%, next season will get better ratings.

We're talking about trends, they are defined by the start and end point of time. Take the long view, climate changes. Try to get a grip, please.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
I'm sorry the facts contradict your convenient political beliefs.
That's OK, we'll disagree. I love freedom, individual rights and our Constitution. I'll be happy to listen to your concern but taxing carbon is overreach. I'm against climate taxes.

.
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.
I don't believe paid shills; I find them insincere. I want to see an experimental test of climate change mitigation before I go along and I'm not willing to be in the treatment group. In the name of freedom to consent, I'm part of the control group.

Do your prototype climate change mitigation on your own dime; carbon taxes are a bad idea and climate demagoguery is far worse. I don't like politicians and self proclaimed scientist pitching new taxes and energy schemes. I want to see real science, not con hoaxes promising to stop "more frequent extreme precipitation events" and sea level rise. Get real.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#24703 Mar 26, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
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.[URL deleted]
Mathematical models are defined by their input, they say what you program them to say. There's never been a model tested by increasing or decreasing man made greenhouse gas and generating any measurable change in the global climate; as if our carbon output is too insignificant to measure in terms of temperature. No real world models that mitigate climate change, no physical models that tell the same story.

Models use forcing that program a specific output, i.e. more CO2 in the atmosphere more global warming. Mathematical models are like a tautology. I mean that metaphorically.

Experimental tests, trials, field demonstrations and physical models with real world value add to science; computer models of anthropogenic climate change are more like video games.
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#24704 Mar 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't believe paid shills; I find them insincere. I
You want something for noting and you'll refuse to listen, if it's not what you want to hear... Be honest Brain Gone, you're simply a greedy child.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#24705 Mar 26, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
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.[URL deleted] 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.[URL deleted]
I don't have to defame my policy opponents or make them watch hours of multimedia; the fact remains. There's a dissenting view of climate change mitigation, many disagreements on most effective tax or subsidy schemes. It's like sharks smelling blood in the water. They all want a cut.

I'm not buying in, many scientists don't believe we're doomed to catastrophic man made climate change, mass extinctions from climate change or in climate change mitigation through carbon taxes. A significant number of economists don't join the consensus either.

Lomborg says its cheaper to save lives without climate change mitigation, adapting to climate change is less expensive in the long run. Lindzen says factors other than man made carbon dioxide drives climate change. I agree with them.

The Oregon Petition lists thousands of scientists willing to petition the government against Kyoto protocol climate policy; I'm with them.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#24706 Mar 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Legitimate taxes fund government; we have to pay for a necessary evil with a necessary evil. We fund our military because we be slaughtered if we don't.
We fund government because we have to that or lose our rights and freedoms. I disagree with all HSL's examples above, progressive taxation is easier and better because it skims from the top. The estate tax doesn't affect the majority, but it takes a bite from the rich who don't build trusts.
I favor progressive taxes to maximize income without discouraging economic activity. I like very low taxes. Our carbon tax rate should be zero.
.
<quoted text>Extreme weather has always happened and it makes a great newscast. They seem more frequent because of the replays and we have more cameras now. Don't panic bout a 16-35%, next season will get better ratings.
We're talking about trends, they are defined by the start and end point of time. Take the long view, climate changes. Try to get a grip, please.
.
<quoted text>That's OK, we'll disagree. I love freedom, individual rights and our Constitution. I'll be happy to listen to your concern but taxing carbon is overreach. I'm against climate taxes.
.
<quoted text>I don't believe paid shills; I find them insincere. I want to see an experimental test of climate change mitigation before I go along and I'm not willing to be in the treatment group. In the name of freedom to consent, I'm part of the control group.
Do your prototype climate change mitigation on your own dime; carbon taxes are a bad idea and climate demagoguery is far worse. I don't like politicians and self proclaimed scientist pitching new taxes and energy schemes. I want to see real science, not con hoaxes promising to stop "more frequent extreme precipitation events" and sea level rise. Get real.
Still having trouble with the economics, eh? If you think reducing carbon emissions will be expensive, you have NO CLUE. Just wait till you see the costs of not reducing them.

A revenue neutral carbon tax means NO money is taken from the people. It costs the people as a whole NOTHING; its overall rate is indeed ZERO. When will you get that thru your thick skull?

You also don't get who is impeding on whose freedoms. YOU & your bosses are the ones who are changing the atmosphere & want to change it even more. You are impinging on the freedoms of the rest of us. Sorry, but your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose.

You don't GET to change the atmosphere of the earth for your putrid, selfish, venal reasons. You & your psychopathic bosses don't care about the rest of us, though.

Why don't YOU prove that rising CO2 WON'T hurt us? That is the only rational experiment. YOU'RE the ones who want to change things, foist your toxic waste on the rest of us, so YOU need to prove it won't harm us.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#24707 Mar 26, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
...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.
Hansen accepted half a million in prize money from the Heinz Trust administered by Secretary of State Kerry's wife, back when Kerry was running for President. Then Hansen endorsed Kerry. And all that time, Hansen was pocketing a salary from the taxpayers for impartial science. He's a crony of Al Gore's climate mitigation schemes, a hoaxer of the highest order. He warned of flooding Manhattan highways from sea level rise back in '81, it hasn't come to pass.

I'd take Lindzen over Hansen any day!
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#24708 Mar 26, 2013
You want something for nothing and you'll refuse to listen, if it's not what you want to hear... Be honest Brain Gone, you're simply a greedy child.
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#24709 Mar 26, 2013
You agree, with people who say what you'd like to hear. Too bad, it's a minority of wing nutter frauds....

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#24710 Mar 26, 2013
There's billions to be made in climate change mitigation, the subsidies, endowments, grants, taxes and incentives are corrupting our government and our scientists.

Be a free people, live with your climate or move. Don't let climate demagogs sell you a bill of goods, demand to see experimental results up front. Don't let them tax your carbon, our children are carbon, so are our wives and pets.

Not until you've seen a trial, test, demonstration or compelling experiment for climate change mitigation; the science and technology aren't up to the hype.

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
Sex 1 hr Oldman5658 5
Walker Wins Unions Lose (May '12) 7 hr LIbEralS 29
Veteran Freed From MSP VA Dental Dept Phone Abu... 9 hr American_Sons 13
Review: State Wide Protective Agency (Jul '11) 9 hr Martin Scott treptow 84
8 dead in aussie stabbing 12 hr Space ace 1
Mall of America Protest 12 hr Sunshine 13
MNsure losing money already (Jan '14) 15 hr LIbEralS 17
Minneapolis Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

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 ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 11:45 am PST

NBC Sports11:45AM
Just like old (sad) times: Buccaneers double-digit home underdogs vs. Packers
Bleacher Report12:03 PM
Kyle Rudolph Injury: Updates on Vikings TE's Ankle, Knee and Return
NBC Sports12:13 PM
Bryan Bulaga questionable due to concussion
Bleacher Report 1:14 PM
Eddie Lacy Says He's 'Very Blind' but Doesn't Want to Wear Prescription Goggles
Bleacher Report 2:50 PM
Complete Week 15 Preview for Green Bay