Global warming 'undeniable,' scientis...

Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say

There are 34398 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.

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

Overton, 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.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

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.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

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 ~3 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.
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#24743 Mar 27, 2013
I wouldn't be surprised, to see you're a brain gone spammer.....
Kyle

Kendallville, IN

#24744 Mar 27, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Wrong. Assuming that you don't know that you're wrong, your ignorance is not an argument that sways rational people. Thousands of PHD's studying the matter and my own deep dive agree that you are wrong. And you admittedly don't know science from Shinola.

I've explained why you're wrong. You ignored it. That makes you a denier. You lose.
Kyle

Kendallville, IN

#24745 Mar 27, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Science says nothing about climate change mitigation, it's never been tried or tested.
(Face->palm)
Kyle

Kendallville, IN

#24746 Mar 27, 2013
Six and a half BELOW Avr wrote:
<quoted text>
IF man's activity were heating the globe the entire globe would be warmer NOT cooler.
Everywhere? Every day? Would it cool off at night? How about in the Fall?

Support that infantile, bare assertion, STUPID. Failure to do so is a concession. An apology is also owed to me, but deniers aren't capable of that.

Since: Aug 08

Everett, WA

#24747 Mar 27, 2013
brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver wrote:
I wouldn't be surprised if a backlash against climate change mitigation demagogy sees them strung up on lamp poles.
"brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver" uncovers its ol' self-righteousness & exercises its slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pigisms & 4 alleged & now 4 proud threats.

All the reasonable pandering 'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver' puts out, goes up in fire & brimstone, as the real 'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver' reveals its nasty self.
Kyle

Kendallville, IN

#24748 Mar 27, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Yes, you most certainly do, dillrod. Thousands of PHD's from all over the world have studied the matter for decades. The conclusion has been in for many years and all subsequent science has supported and refined it. The recent climate responses almost all have come in near the high end of previous predictions. Secondary effects are obvious as hell. Not fractions of a %; double digits.

As previously stated, the nature of the warming (diurnal, seasonal, by latitude, by altitude) is SLAM DUNK evidence. Your response? Crickets.

As for "proving" (snicker) that mitigation is possible and affordable? Again, your ignorance is not an argument. Many, many studies have been published (peer-reviewed science) on both subjects. Just because you're too busy adamantly denying to educate yourself, I suppose we should accept your conclusion instead of those of people who know white, eh?
Kyle

United States

#24749 Mar 27, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Science says nothing about climate change mitigation, it's never been tried or tested.
Wrong. Science has studied mitigation for many years. The only way one could say that science says nothing about it is to employ your sophomoric definition of science as only being actively controlled single factor experiments - whether out of ignorance or out of dishonest. The former excuse has been removed.

Every step that has ever been taken to reduce CO2 emissions or sequester more CO2 has been, by definition, mitigation. So it is another error to say it hasn't been tried. However, SCIENCE knows the sensitivity, the interactions, the lag times, the signal / noise ratio, etc. SCIENCE knows that a large change and long time would be required for your RETARDED experiment. That's why I responded to your experimental method as I did. If you agree to such an experiment, YOU'RE AGREEING TO TRY WHAT YOU'VE BEEN ADAMANTLY OPPOSING IN EVERY POST!

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#24750 Mar 27, 2013
Kyle wrote:
Wrong. Assuming that you don't know that you're wrong, your ignorance is not an argument that sways rational people. Thousands of PHD's studying the matter and my own deep dive agree that you are wrong. And you admittedly don't know science from Shinola. I've explained why you're wrong. You ignored it. That makes you a denier. You lose.
You haven't explained how fossil carbon differs from the vast amounts of carbon released by geological activity. When carbon burns in a volcano or in a car, how can you tell the difference?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#24751 Mar 27, 2013
Kyle wrote:
Yes, you most certainly do, dillrod. Thousands of PHD's from all over the world have studied the matter for decades. The conclusion has been in for many years and all subsequent science has supported and refined it. The recent climate responses almost all have come in near the high end of previous predictions. Secondary effects are obvious as hell. Not fractions of a %; double digits.
As previously stated, the nature of the warming (diurnal, seasonal, by latitude, by altitude) is SLAM DUNK evidence. Your response? Crickets.
As for "proving" (snicker) that mitigation is possible and affordable? Again, your ignorance is not an argument. Many, many studies have been published (peer-reviewed science) on both subjects. Just because you're too busy adamantly denying to educate yourself, I suppose we should accept your conclusion instead of those of people who know white, eh?
I'm not warning of an impending catastrophe, I've got no need to explain. I'm not advocating climate change mitigation, I don't have to prove it can work, it won't cost more than the benefits or it won't cause harm. I don't need a climate theory because I can adapt to climate change.

If you want to warn or mitigate climate change, then you must make your case. Until then, life goes on.
Six and a half BELOW Avr

Minneapolis, MN

#24752 Mar 27, 2013
IF man's activity were heating the globe the entire globe would be warmer NOT cooler.

A year ago you GW supporters were clammering to claim the warm spring was proof of GW.

NOW the spring is cool and it just adds up to view this as GCing.

Doesn't it?

YOU said it in 2012..
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#24753 Mar 27, 2013
Six and a half BELOW Avr wrote:
IF man's activity were heating the globe the entire globe would be warmer NOT cooler.
A year ago you GW supporters were clammering to claim the warm spring was proof of GW.
NOW the spring is cool and it just adds up to view this as GCing.
..
Are you for real? Here, learn a little if you can:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#24754 Mar 27, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>You haven't explained how fossil carbon differs from the vast amounts of carbon released by geological activity. When carbon burns in a volcano or in a car, how can you tell the difference?
Science explains all that.

There's no point to teach you because you don't understand science.

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
Third Term for Obama ? 57 min space ace 18
Drop one word....add one word game (Apr '14) 1 hr Whiny1 307
Review: State Wide Protective Agency (Jul '11) 2 hr fkstatewide 189
Dr. Walter James Palmer 3 hr Tellitlikeitis 9
Don Trump is a rapist 3 hr Tellitlikeitis 5
john kerry sucks 4 hr Tellitlikeitis 2
News GM recalls 207,000 Buick Regal and Pontiac Gran... (Mar '08) 6 hr Blackgangsta 184
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Minneapolis Mortgages