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

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#24711 Mar 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Sure, Brain_Gone. Let sea level rise. It won't cost ANYTHING to move Boston, New York, Washington & all the other coastal cities 50 miles (or whatever) inland. Of course we won't know where to put them because sea level rise will be dynamic. It could average 5-10 meters per century for several centuries.

The NYC metro area alone is worth what -$20 trillion? Nah, that's nothing, easy to pay for.

Again, you & your ilk are forcing this on the rest of us, forcing us to accept ever-higher CO2 levels. You're obligated to PROVE it'll be harmless BEFORE you do it.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#24712 Mar 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>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!
You are truly a psychotic, politically blind fool. I already proved to you that Hansen was accurate 30 years ago, but Lindzen has been WAY off. But don't let the facts get in the way of your preconceived notions.

Of course, like ALL LYING DENIERS, you refer to Hansen's statement that the West Side Highway would be awash while conveniently omitting his caveat: ASSUMING CO2 LEVELS HAD DOUBLED (i.e. to 560 PPM). When CO2 levels have doubled, there is no question that Manhattan will be under water. Lower Manhattan flooded during Sandy even with current sea level.

You, your bosses, Lindzen & your lying cadre of deniers are the true hoaxters. James Hansen is an honest, foresightful scientist who has done absolutely fantastic work.

Once AGAIN: YOU are the ones who want to impinge on the freedoms of the rest of us by raising atmospheric CO2. You are indeed obligated to prove it won't be harmful before you do it.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#24713 Mar 26, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
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.
Exactly, we have "NO CLUE" because there is NO EXPERIMENTAL DATA. If we had a sample, trial, test, demonstration or compelling experiment for climate change mitigation, then we'd have an idea of the costs and benefits; until then there is only hysteria and irrationality.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
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?
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.

A zero tax rate, no tax at all, is the best form of neutral revenue tax for the individual.

Every higher tax rate takes freedom, assets and time away from the individual. I hate all taxes that aren't designed to fund vital government necessities like defense and the interest payments on our debt.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
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.
Everyone who exhales is changing the atmosphere, emitting greenhouse gases. Anyone who turns on a light switch, uses the bathroom and prepares breakfast is as culpable as the energy executive who helped provide that fossil fuel to light the way, warm our homes, heat our water, cook and store our food. We all take vacations spreading CO2. We all exercise and work hard emitting as much as we can to increase productivity.

We are all culpable, we are all responsible. Emitting carbon dioxide is healthy and fun. It's as if I planned this economy, we need fossil fuel for its energy and utility. I invest in carbon because it brings a good return. Government may try to kill it but it will never die. This has all gone before. They fear fire, technology and growth; I love those things. We just have different goals, we disagree.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
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.
Speaking of venal, did you know we emit more carbon when we orgasm than when we're aroused? Did you know that's more than when we rest? Emitting CO2 isn't evil; please come to your senses.

Have you ever ridden a Jet Ski, flown in a passenger plane, kept your home warm throughout the dead of winter or driven a car? The bosses, customers, suppliers, shippers, employees and passengers depend on fossil fuel, it works.

Alternate energy, green energy, solar, wind and biofuel don't work, at lest not when forced by government. They're expensive, ethanol starves the poor, solar shades the Earth and wind chops our flying friends. 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.

.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#24714 Mar 26, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
Why don't YOU prove that rising CO2 WON'T hurt us? That is the only rational experiment.
OK, animals evolved from vegetables ergo emitting CO2 is as vital as our plant brethren absorbing CO2. Do you know there are more people eating carbohydrates and sequestering carbon dioxide now than ever before in history? More books, magazines, plastics, lumber, livestock and pets keeping our carbon emissions safe and secure? If they die or burn, carbon escapes back to the atmosphere; until then we just keep on living.

Emitting CO2 has never hurt us, unless you've got a bag over your head. Don't do that! Be proud to add to the atmosphere, CO2 is plum goodness.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
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.
CO2 isn't toxic, else beer and sparkling wine would lose their premium, carbon dioxide is the bubbles in your drink. Share the love, don't be a hater.

I don't understand HSL, that's why we disagree on climate change mitigation. I disagree with his arguments, I hope you'll understand why.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#24715 Mar 26, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
Sure, Brain_Gone. Let sea level rise. It won't cost ANYTHING to move Boston, New York, Washington & all the other coastal cities 50 miles (or whatever) inland.
Let sea levels rise? You think I have a say in that? That's brainless.

Its also brainless if you think I'm going to pay for you to move from your seaside condo, apartment, or beachhouse; it's not as if you paid me to shovel snow off my walkways and drive. What are you, nuts?

It will cost me nothing; I live inland. Nobody forced you to buy a house so you can listen to the surf instead of the traffic. You live in a coastal city, that's you're look out. I hope you can swim or learn to float.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
Of course we won't know where to put them because sea level rise will be dynamic. It could average 5-10 meters per century for several centuries.
Or centimeters, that's the long term trend, who knows? Flash flood, tsunami, tidal wave, life's a beach. I feel your fear.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
The NYC metro area alone is worth what -$20 trillion? Nah, that's nothing, easy to pay for.
Again, you & your ilk are forcing this on the rest of us, forcing us to accept ever-higher CO2 levels. You're obligated to PROVE it'll be harmless BEFORE you do it.
The more people, the more CO2, we are carbon. I like CO2 rise from human activity, I think that's good. HSL would rather natural causes, an extinction event, geological activity or ocean air circulation take the prize.

This is where we differ.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#24716 Mar 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Exactly, we have "NO CLUE" because there is NO EXPERIMENTAL DATA.
We have o.b.s.e.r.v.a.t.i.o.n.a.l data.

Lorius 1990 examined Vostok ice core data and calculates a range of 3 to 4°C.
Hoffert 1992 reconstructs two paleoclimate records (one colder, one warmer) to yield a range 1.4 to 3.2°C.
Hansen 1993 looks at the last 20,000 years when the last ice age ended and empirically calculates a climate sensitivity of 3 ± 1°C.
Gregory 2002 used observations of ocean heat uptake to calculate a minimum climate sensitivity of 1.5.
Chylek 2007 examines the period from the Last Glacial Maximum to Holocene transition. They calculate a climate sensitivy range of 1.3°C and 2.3°C.
Tung 2007 performs statistical analysis on 20th century temperature response to the solar cycle to calculate a range 2.3 to 4.1°C.
Bender 2010 looks at the climate response to the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption to constrain climate sensitivity to 1.7 to 4.1°C.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensi...

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#24717 Mar 26, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
...Once AGAIN: YOU are the ones who want to impinge on the freedoms of the rest of us by raising atmospheric CO2. You are indeed obligated to prove it won't be harmful before you do it.
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 all have the right to emit CO2, fly our gets spreading carbon dioxide, set a fire in the fireplace or turn up the heat. I don't have to justify myself.

If you have ten kids, bless you. If you have ten cats, seek help. Let's get real. Your comic book collection is sequestered CO2, that diploma holds carbon locked away from the air. Be careful what you burn, I recommend fossil fuels.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#24718 Mar 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
This is where we differ.
No, where you differ is (s)he is a rational human being; you are a sociopathic troll.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#24719 Mar 26, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
...You, your bosses, Lindzen & your lying cadre of deniers are the true hoaxters. James Hansen is an honest, foresightful scientist who has done absolutely fantastic work...
"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.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#24721 Mar 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I don't have to defame my policy opponents or make them watch hours of multimedia; ..
Really, liar. On this page .. you did it again.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>"A Summary of James E. Hansen’s NASA Ethics File

By Christopher Horner.
LIAR.

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

Wyoming, 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

Knox, 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

Knox, 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

Knox, 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

Knox, 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?

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
N. Korea calls Obama a 'monkey' 14 hr All Fours 6
Veteran Freed From MSP VA Dental Dept Phone Abu... 22 hr American_Sons 21
CNN at the Dead Cops Funeral Fri Icantbreathe 5
America: It's Black against White Fri Kim Jong Obama 1
Thanks Obama for low gas pricex Fri Sunshine 12
Can't manage the gov & NOT honest or trustworthy (Nov '13) Fri LIbEralS 292
Mall of America Protest Dec 25 Go Blue Forever 34
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 9:09 am PST

Bleacher Report 9:09AM
Expect Packers to Continue Lambeau Dominance vs. Lions
NBC Sports11:06 AM
Mike McCarthy: No concerns about Aaron Rodgers
NBC Sports12:05 PM
Packers' Rodgers listed as probable for Lions game - NBC Sports
NBC Sports 9:07 PM
Vikings stadium builders work on career highlight - NBC Sports
ESPN 7:39 PM
On the house: Bar offers free tab if Lions win