Global warming 'undeniable,' scientis...

Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say

There are 36786 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.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#24722 Mar 26, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>
Really, liar. On this page .. you did it again.
<quoted text>LIAR.
Good catch.

What a hypocritical toerag.
Who

Grand Rapids, MI

#24723 Mar 26, 2013
Where's that loud mouthed bastard litbong?

Funny, everytime I ask to see the degrees he's claims to have, he bails.

Typical liberal - full of shit about everything.
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#24724 Mar 26, 2013
"...he's claims..." ???

He considers the source, see stupidity, and decides against "playing".
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#24725 Mar 26, 2013
Eff the Censor wrote:
Their bad faith can be demonstrated by silencing research which conflicts with their political agenda or might threaten their government funding.
Name some. If you even bother, someone will easily debunk the claim.

And then you will refuse to acknowledge your defeat and repeat the false claim forever, as is the denier way.
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#24726 Mar 26, 2013
Who wrote:
Where's that loud mouthed bastard litbong?
Red herring fallacy -> Argumentum ad hominem (specifically, the abusive fallacy); Attacking the person has no bearing on the facts.
Who wrote:
Funny, everytime I ask to see the degrees he's claims to have, he bails./QUOTE]

Red herring fallacy -> Argument from authority; whether he's the reincarnation of Einstein or a ditch digger, the facts stand on their own merit.

[QUOTE who="Who"]Typical liberal - full of shit about everything.
Fallacy -> Red Herring (specifically, a Bulverism, a psychogenetic fallacy); One cannot assume that an argument is invalid because one infers a psychological reason for the argument being used; the biases of an argument's proponent do not constitute evidence that the argument is false.

Besides, I'M A CONSERVATIVE AND I DON'T REJECT SCIENCE.
Six and a half BELOW Avr

Minneapolis, MN

#24727 Mar 26, 2013
Minnesota winter of '12/13 was 6.5 degrees BELOW AVERAGE!!

Global COOLING is occuring.

Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#24728 Mar 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>No. I'm not advocating climate change mitigation. I don't think we should act on fear of man made catastrophic global climate change. I have nothing to prove or to teach. I'm obliged to do or say nothing. I'm innocent until proven guilty.
We would not be acting on fear; we would be acting on science that you reject.

You have a hell of a lot to prove, nitwit. All of the science says one thing and you deny it. You may not have anything to teach, but you've got boatloads to prove. Prove that the 98% of climate researchers that are totally in agreement (and most of the 2% are in near total agreement as well) and every national science academy on the planet is some combo of incompetent and part of a hilariously improbable, senseless conspiracy.

You're obliged to explain why anyone should listen to your ignorant trap while ignoring thousands of PHD's from all over the world studying the science for decades. Your guilty as fukc of inverting the burden of evidence. Support your denial with something substantive or concede.
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#24729 Mar 26, 2013
Six and a half BELOW Avr wrote:
Minnesota winter of '12/13 was 6.5 degrees BELOW AVERAGE!!
Global COOLING is occuring.
You must be new here, else you would surely know how grossly fallacious the "it's cold somewhere today, so decades of science should be ignored" argument is.

Or maybe you do, but you use it anyway like many a denier; knowing your target audience isn't too bright.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#24730 Mar 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Exactly, we have "NO CLUE" because there is NO EXPERIMENTAL DATA.
.
<quoted text>A zero tax rate costs the people as a whole [and as individuals], "NOTHING".
Having no carbon tax is like a 0% carbon tax only it saves on paper filing away the figures. It saves on tax professionals and tax assessors.
.
<quoted text>
We are all culpable, we are all responsible. Emitting carbon dioxide is healthy and fun.
.
<quoted text> Emitting CO2 isn't evil; please come to your senses.
Excessive spending, borrowing, taxing and regulation are bad, get it?
Emit as much CO2 as you please, I love it. The other fossil fuel byproducts must be controlled, but CO2 is good for Mother Nature and our well being.
.
Oh, WE have a clue. As Fair Game proved to you, we have LOTS of data to support a climate sensitivity of ~3º C.

YOU are the one with NO clue. You & oil-money-encrusted bosses, plus the other ignorant, psychotic deniers.

YOU are forcing us into the experiment. I don't want it, yet you selfishly force other people to clean up your mess. You're stealing our atmosphere & robbing people who haven't been born yet. I bet you just love being a mass murderer like that.

Having a revenue neutral carbon tax costs virtually nothing. We already have excise taxes on things like gasoline, & the government certainly has computers to disburse funds. No paperwork necessary. It's that selfish, greedy, venal "humans" like you would no longer be foisting the costs of their profligacy onto people of the future.

Imagine that! You might have to pay your own way for ONCE in your life! Instead, you'd rather cling to your psychotic, delusional fantasy that it's "free" to emit all the CO2 you want into the atmosphere.

It's NOT free. It will cost people in the future almost incalculable amounts of money, in the quadrillions of dollars in today's money counting the deaths. But you're enough of a sociopathic murderer that you don't care.

Actually, the LACK of a stiff carbon tax is a HORRENDOUS DISTORTION of the energy market. Our energy market has NEVER been free because it allows people to emit all the carbon they want, making people in the future pay for it. It's a lot like the national debt, but WAY more money.

You're SO full of lies & nonsense you don't know what you're talking about. The CO2 we all exhale is a tiny fraction of that emitted by industry.

And I do NOT accept it when you emit CO2. You're fouling our only home & have NO proof it's safe. Of course you don't care, you're happy to be the filthiest person on the earth.

It wouldn't be a surprise if in the future, you're forced at the barrel of a gun into doing the right thing. If you live long enough & don't change your views, I GUARANTEE it'll happen.
Six and a half BELOW Avr

Minneapolis, MN

#24731 Mar 26, 2013
Kyle wrote:
<quoted text>
You must be new here, else you would surely know how grossly fallacious the "it's cold somewhere today, so decades of science should be ignored" argument is.
Or maybe you do, but you use it anyway like many a denier; knowing your target audience isn't too bright.
You stupid!!

IF man's activity were heating the globe the entire globe would be warmer NOT cooler.

PLUS add in the claims a year ago that the warm spring was evidence of "Global Warming".

Well using same logic then this spring IS proof of "Global Cooling"!

You still stupid?
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#24732 Mar 26, 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?
Ignoring the rebuttal of your retarded, simplistic experimental science assertion is not an argument. I suppose you deny evolution because we haven't run a 4 billion yr planetary scale experiment.

Ignoring refutations isn't a compelling argument.

You can't claim to be too ignorant of science to have to posit what your demanded experiment might look like and then be (or pretend to be) too ignorant to process the rebuttal explaining why the demand is retarded. Well, you can, because you did, but arguments from ignorance can be dismissed out of hand.

"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."

WTF! Are you effin' insane? Or do you not understand the terms you're throwing around? If you really mean this, your concession is accepted. And no further debate on the matter is warranted; you're simply a fool.

"We wouldn't need another Earth, just time and treatment reversals while measuring temperature to detect a signal. Look up single subject experimental design."

So you're suggesting that we do something like this, then:

Reduce CO2 emissions by 80% in just 10 yrs, hold at that level for a few decades until the signal is statistically separable from the noise.

Glad you're on board, but I think that's too aggressive.

"Again, critics don't do experiments; that's the scientist's job."

Eff you, denier scum. Your snide evasions are transparent as hell.

"Climate always changes; don't panic."

Idiotic denier argument #2 - "Climate changed before, so the science can be ignored."

Could you be any dumber?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#24733 Mar 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>"A Summary of James E. Hansen’s NASA Ethics File
By Christopher Horner
NASA records released to resolve litigation filed by the American Tradition Institute reveal that Dr. James E. Hansen, an astronomer, received approximately $1.6 million in outside, direct cash income in the past five years for work related to — and, according to his benefactors, often expressly for — his public service as a global warming activist within NASA.
This does not include six-figure income over that period in travel expenses to fly around the world to receive money from outside interests. As specifically detailed below, Hansen failed to report tens of thousands of dollars in global travel provided to him by outside parties — including to London, Paris, Rome, Oslo, Tokyo, the Austrian Alps, Bilbao, California, Australia and elsewhere, often business or first-class and also often paying for his wife as well — to receive honoraria to speak about the topic of his taxpayer-funded employment, or get cash awards for his activism and even for his past testimony and other work for NASA."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/18/dr-jame...
There are billions to be made supporting climate change mitigation.
What arrant CR*P. Dr Hansen is not required to report anything if it's not a part of his government job. What he does on his own time is his own business.

You think if a government employee writes a book about some of the things involving his/her job in government, the government gets his/her royalties? Sure, Brain_Gone, sure.

The money available to a scientist who denies AGW/CC is orders of magnitude greater than that available to one who supports scientific fact.

Of course, that wouldn't stop a LYING DENIER like you from slandering him. Hansen's a great scientist, & what's more, wrote the most impressive prediction WRT climate of our time: the 1981 Science paper. You owe him an enormous apology.

And you STILL can't name even ONE denier who's been as accurate as Hansen was THIRTY YEARS AGO.
Six and a half BELOW Avr

Minneapolis, MN

#24734 Mar 26, 2013
You stupid!!

IF man's activity were heating the globe the entire globe would be warmer NOT cooler.

PLUS add in the claims a year ago that the warm spring was evidence of "Global Warming".

Well using same logic then this spring IS proof of "Global Cooling"!

You still stupid?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#24735 Mar 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
Alternate energy, green energy, solar, wind and biofuel don't work, at lest not when forced by government.
Of course, this is utter nonsense. However, if we stopped subsidizing Big Oil to tune of billions annually, stopped fighting trillion dollar oil wars in the Middle East & instituted a carbon tax that would FINALLY get the costs of burning FFs into their prices, we would have to worry about subsidies for clean energy. No need to pick a successful Solyndra. The market will decide, as it should be.

EXCEPT - we probably will need new nuclear plants, either fast neutron uranium or liquid salt thorium reactors, & that will require significant government funding. We should just give the same amount of money to green energy.

We already pay hundreds of billions of dollars annually for the consequences of AGW/CC, & that will rise catastrophically in the future. Of course Brain_Gone couldn't care less, as long as he gets a paycheck now & doesn't have to pay the true cost of fossil fuels.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#24736 Mar 26, 2013
Kyle wrote:
<quoted text>
"Climate always changes; don't panic."
Idiotic denier argument #2 - "Climate changed before, so the science can be ignored."
Could you be any dumber?
Deniers always claim the climate has changed naturally in the past, as if that's a reason that it can't, or won't, change under human influences now. That's as "logical" as saying that people have died of natural causes for thousands of years, "therefore" there can't be any such thing as homicide. Sure, Brain_Gone, sure.

Yes, CO2 levels were much higher in the past, as were temperatures. But our civilization developed with HOLOCENE climate & HOLOCENE sea level. What's in the Goldilocks zone ("just right") is very, very different for us than it was for the dinosaurs.

Yes, the dinosaurs tolerated CO2 levels of 2000 PPM (~5 times our current level), maybe higher. But the poles had tropical climate & sea level was ~70 meters higher. They didn't depend on agriculture to eat & didn't have trillions of dollars of infrastructure a few meters from sea level.

It's likely that in a few decades, droughts will cause major agricultural collapse in multiple areas of the world. There will be wars, disease & famine. Billions will die.

But the deniers aren't interested in the truth.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#24738 Mar 27, 2013
Who wrote:
Where's that loud mouthed bastard litbong?
Funny, everytime I ask to see the degrees he's claims to have, he bails.
Typical liberal - full of shit about everything.
Well the "pinheadlitesout" can only offer more diarrheas. Ask the rest of those scientific science fiction posters to show their peer reviewed published work and all you get from them is more cut and paste useless babble. See real science scares them so they insist on posting scientific science fiction B.S. Now stand by the bashing and name calling is headed this way soon real soon. That's all they have.
Tank

Saint Paul, MN

#24739 Mar 27, 2013
Six and a half BELOW Avr wrote:
Minnesota winter of '12/13 was 6.5 degrees BELOW AVERAGE!!
Global COOLING is occuring.
Source?

None 'cause it's straight BS.
Tank

Saint Paul, MN

#24740 Mar 27, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>Well the "pinheadlitesout" can only offer more diarrheas. Ask the rest of those scientific science fiction posters to show their peer reviewed published work and all you get from them is more cut and paste useless babble. See real science scares them so they insist on posting scientific science fiction B.S. Now stand by the bashing and name calling is headed this way soon real soon. That's all they have.
You sound more than a little confused.

Showing peer reviewed scientific work would have to be cut and paste.

P.S.- Don't sail straight east, you'll fall off the edge of the earth. You're welcome.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#24741 Mar 27, 2013
Kyle wrote:
We would not be acting on fear; we would be acting on science that you reject. You have a hell of a lot to prove, nitwit. All of the science says one thing and you deny it. You may not have anything to teach, but you've got boatloads to prove. Prove that the 98% of climate researchers that are totally in agreement (and most of the 2% are in near total agreement as well) and every national science academy on the planet is some combo of incompetent and part of a hilariously improbable, senseless conspiracy.
You're obliged to explain why anyone should listen to your ignorant trap while ignoring thousands of PHD's from all over the world studying the science for decades. Your guilty as fukc of inverting the burden of evidence. Support your denial with something substantive or concede.
Science says nothing about climate change mitigation, it's never been tried or tested.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#24742 Mar 27, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
Oh, WE have a clue. As Fair Game proved to you, we have LOTS of data to support a climate sensitivity of ~3º C.
Maybe so, but that says nothing about how much is due to man made CO2 emissions. There are no experimental tests, all we have are untested theories and unreliable models.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
YOU are the one with NO clue. You & oil-money-encrusted bosses, plus the other ignorant, psychotic deniers.
I don't need to use ad hominem arguments because I have evidence; the complete lack of experimental tests for climate change mitigation. I understand HSL's frustration, if you have no rational argument, irrationality is all you have left.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
YOU are forcing us into the experiment. I don't want it, yet you selfishly force other people to clean up your mess. You're stealing our atmosphere & robbing people who haven't been born yet.
HSL doesn't understand what's an experiment and what's not; that explains his statement above.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
I bet you just love being a mass murderer like that.
Notice the extreme invective; without reason name-calling is the only argument.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
Having a revenue neutral carbon tax costs virtually nothing. We already have excise taxes on things like gasoline, & the government certainly has computers to disburse funds. No paperwork necessary.
HSL has yet to respond to my proposal of a 0% carbon tax. A zero tax actually costs nothing.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
It's that selfish, greedy, venal "humans" like you would no longer be foisting the costs of their profligacy onto people of the future. Imagine that! You might have to pay your own way for ONCE in your life!
They want to make us pay to breathe; this is why I oppose climate change mitigation and believe fears of man made catastrophic climate change are overblown.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
Instead, you'd rather cling to your psychotic, delusional fantasy that it's "free" to emit all the CO2 you want into the atmosphere. It's NOT free. It will cost people in the future almost incalculable amounts of money, in the quadrillions of dollars in today's money counting the deaths. But you're enough of a sociopathic murderer that you don't care.
We've gone over this; it "will cost people in the future almost incalculable amounts of money" because there's no experimental data to calculate the costs.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
Actually, the LACK of a stiff carbon tax is a HORRENDOUS DISTORTION of the energy market. Our energy market has NEVER been free because it allows people to emit all the carbon they want, making people in the future pay for it. It's a lot like the national debt, but WAY more money. You're SO full of lies & nonsense you don't know what you're talking about. The CO2 we all exhale is a tiny fraction of that emitted by industry.
We've benefited from past CO2 emissions, just as our children will benefit from our CO2 emissions. Without CO2, human life would be impossible.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
And I do NOT accept it when you emit CO2. You're fouling our only home & have NO proof it's safe. Of course you don't care, you're happy to be the filthiest person on the earth.
I don't need to prove emitting CO2 is safe, I'm not proposing a climate tax. If you want to mitigate climate change, then you must prove it's possible and affordable.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
It wouldn't be a surprise if in the future, you're forced at the barrel of a gun into doing the right thing. If you live long enough & don't change your views, I GUARANTEE it'll happen.
I wouldn't be surprised if a backlash against climate change mitigation demagogy sees them strung up on lamp poles.

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
Devin nunes revelation 2 hr Space ace 6
The Quit Cash Challenge - Quit Smoking and Win ... (Sep '11) Wed Donna rhoda 32
Ellison Topix's Favorite Loser! Tue Davycrockett 2
Depressed space ace finds comfort in fact he is... Tue cowboy chris 2
Trump's ICE Declined Detainer Report Tue cowboy chris 2
Minneapolis warming winters by 5 degrees in 20 ... Tue cowboy chris 3
The tragic story of Minneapolis Mar 20 Phineous 9

Minneapolis Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Minneapolis Mortgages