Global warming 'undeniable,' scientis...

Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say

There are 36895 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.

Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

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

Ligonier, 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

Ligonier, 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

Ligonier, 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

Ligonier, 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!

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

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?

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

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

United States

#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

United States

#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.
SpaceBlues

United States

#24755 Mar 27, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>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.
How can you adapt to climate change?
litesong

Everett, WA

#24756 Mar 27, 2013
six and a bunch BELOW Avr IQ wrote:
NOW the spring is cool and it just adds up to view this as GCing.
No. Energy enhanced AGW warm fronts push hard into the Arctic(causing some of the AGW excess Arctic warming). Simultaneously, the warm fronts push Arctic cold to the south, even as far as Mexico & Central America or China & India.
litesong

Everett, WA

#24757 Mar 27, 2013
brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver wrote:
I've got no need to explain.......
Since "brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver" has no science or mathematics background, even in its poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa, it can't explain its anti-science position.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#24758 Mar 27, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>.
<quoted text>I don't need to use ad hominem arguments because I have evidence; the complete lack of experimental tests for climate change mitigation.
.
<quoted text>Notice the extreme invective; without reason name-calling is the only argument.
.
<quoted text>HSL has yet to respond to my proposal of a 0% carbon tax. A zero tax actually costs nothing.
.
<quoted text>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.
.
<quoted text>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.
.
<quoted text>Without CO2, human life would be impossible.
.
<quoted text>I don't need to prove emitting CO2 is safe...
.
<quoted text>I wouldn't be surprised if a backlash against climate change mitigation demagogy sees them strung up on lamp poles.
Guess again, Brain_Gone.

BTW, your ONE argument, that you repeat ENDLESSLY, makes you sound like a demented, perseverating automaton. As others have reminded you, single-variable controlled experiments aren't possible in AGW/CC, unless we find another earth to play with. It's a multi-variate system.

Empirical data, however, CAN verify scientific theories, & that's how the basics of AGW/CC have been absolutely proven true. The precise locations, timing & severity of its effects remain in question, but not its basic truth.

Once AGAIN: you have the ethics backward. YOU are the one who wants to force the rest of us to live with ever-higher atmospheric CO2; the only ethical position is that it is incumbent on YOU to prove that it's NOT harmful. It's NOT incumbent on us to prove that it's not safe, or that something can be done to prevent it. That's an inappropriate question. The burden is entirely on you.

OBVIOUSLY life is dependent on CO2, including us. But we need it in the Goldilocks zone, just right. Our just right is very, very different from what the dinosaurs' just right was.

Our civilization developed with Holocene climate & sea level. When droughts devastate agriculture, people will die of war, starvation &/or disease. Sea level will rise, inundating trillions of dollars of infrastructure.

These things will cost MONEY, a lot of it, & are absolutely inevitable if we don't change our ways (though the timing remains unclear). We're already spending hundreds of billions of dollars annually because of AGW/CC. It's rising. How much will it cost in the future?

A revenue neutral carbon tax costs the people nothing as a whole. You simply have no rational objection to it, except that you don't want heavy carbon emitters to have to pay for the damage they're doing. You want OTHER PEOPLE to pay for your mess.

The only people strung up on lamp-poles will be the hold-out deniers.
Kyle

Ligonier, IN

#24759 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?
YES, I MOST CERTAINLY DID - MULTIPLE TIMES!

One more time for the hard of thinking:

The anthropogenic CO2 emissions are ~100X that of geological activity.

Do you understand the difference between $1 and $100? Between dropping a 1# rock on your foot and a 100# one?

I want a substantive response, jackass. No more of your evasions and dishonest games.
Kyle

Ligonier, IN

#24760 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?
Nice try evading, but I'm not letting up. You apparently deny any or all aspects of the science, including that we know that GW is being caused by GHG's. I just listed a string of bulletproof signs that IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR IT NOT TO GHG'S. Please respond with a rational reason to reject that science or stipulate it. Failure to do either is also a concession, only of the slimeball variety.
Kyle

Ligonier, IN

#24761 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?
Also, don't think for a moment that you'll he allowed to evade the rest of my post. You're claiming scientific ignorance to avoid having to defend your denial of science that you admit being ignorant of. And you're being an arrogant, thick-headed, dishonest troll while doing so even as you ignore or (intentionally?) fail to grasp every iota of science - or even the simple logic above.

Justify making the absurd demands, inverting the burden of evidence, and trashing the science that you admit not understanding. Acknowledge the science that's been presented to you. Grow a brain or stfu.
Kyle

Ligonier, IN

#24762 Mar 27, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>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.
No, jackass, you are denying impending catastrophe that science supports. You absolutely need to explain it. So far, your explanation is that you're too ignorant to understand climate science - or even scientific methodologies, as if your ignorance of the science is a valid argument against it.

As for mitigation, once again you're ignoring what I posted. It's been studied to death; the cost benefit ratio is TINY. YOUR IGNORANCE IS NOT AN ARGUMENT!

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
Democrats call for impeachment 5 hr Space ace 71
Davy crockett fake news Sat Phineus 16
Dems lose montana special election Fri Davycrockett 9
Aaron- Mortalenama May 26 Eat BBQ 1
Drop one word....add one word game (Apr '14) May 25 WildLifeLover 700
Does anyone remember the Rendezvous in Minneapo... May 25 Curious 1
Slimeball Trump May 23 Space ace 21

Minneapolis Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Minneapolis Mortgages