Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say

Full story: TwinCities.com

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.

Comments (Page 1,174)

Showing posts 23,461 - 23,480 of31,768
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24753
Mar 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24754
Mar 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24755
Mar 27, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

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

Lake Stevens, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Lake Stevens, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24759
Mar 27, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24760
Mar 27, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24761
Mar 27, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24762
Mar 27, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

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!

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24763
Mar 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

SpaceBlues wrote:
How can you adapt to climate change?
People adapt to rising sea levels by moving inland. Architecture helps keep your home comfortable in extreme climate conditions. Clothing protects you from climate. These are all well known and tested climate change adaptations.

Why no examples of climate change mitigation from technology or nature? No living creature has evolved the ability to mitigate climate change and no experimental test shows climate change mitigation is possible.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24764
Mar 28, 2013
 
Kyle wrote:
No, jackass,
I don't insult my opponents, this is where we differ. I rely on reason, not ad hominem arguments.

.
Kyle wrote:
you are denying impending catastrophe that science supports.
I don't deny climate change, I embrace it. Climate always changes.

.
Kyle wrote:
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.
The lack of any experimental test of man made greenhouse gas in the atmosphere changing climate shows me either our CO2 emissions are insignificant or the science hasn't reached the point where it can help mitigate climate change.

.
Kyle wrote:
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!
We can't know the cost/benefit ratio for climate change mitigation because climate change mitigation has never been demonstrated in the atmosphere.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24765
Mar 28, 2013
 
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
...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.
I want a revenue neutral carbon tax of zero new taxes. I favor a 0% carbon tax; that's revenue neutral.

Any nonzero tax would divert resources from government and the economy, to pay and administer that tax. Zero is the only truly neutral tax.

I've stated this four times now, and HSL has yet to respond to the proposal. He'd rather threaten and name-call, than take up the issue.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24766
Mar 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I don't insult my opponents, this is where we differ. I rely on reason, not ad hominem arguments.
You rely on the endless repetition of long debunked irrational, illogical and idiotic arguments just to annoy people, therefore you get called a troll, which is what you are.
Amused Slew

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24767
Mar 28, 2013
 
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I want a revenue neutral carbon tax of zero new taxes. I favor a 0% carbon tax; that's revenue neutral.
Any nonzero tax would divert resources from government and the economy, to pay and administer that tax. Zero is the only truly neutral tax.
I've stated this four times now, and HSL has yet to respond to the proposal. He'd rather threaten and name-call, than take up the issue.
Wow a voice of reason on global warming.
/salute

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24768
Mar 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Fair Game wrote:
You rely on the endless repetition of long debunked irrational, illogical and idiotic arguments just to annoy people, therefore you get called a troll, which is what you are.
Show me a compelling experiment for climate change mitigation and I'll change my views and stop posting.

I'm waiting...

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24769
Mar 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Amused Slew wrote:
Wow a voice of reason on global warming.
/salute
Thank you.

HSL is as wrong about economics as he is about science. I'm looking forward to his reply about a 0% revenue neutral carbon tax. He's already said he wants to stiff us.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24770
Mar 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Justification for my statement above:
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....
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24771
Mar 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Tank wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
You sound like you have fallen off the edge. It would have to be their peer reviewed cut and paste published work. To date Mr. fallen of the edge they only cut and paste scientific science fiction useless babble. You’re Welcome.
Bushwhacker

Kent, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24772
Mar 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Show me a compelling experiment for climate change mitigation and I'll change my views and stop posting.
I'm waiting...
Been answered spammer. Pretty sad, you're playing dumb, but you're a natural, right ?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 23,461 - 23,480 of31,768
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

20 Users are viewing the Minneapolis Forum right now

Search the Minneapolis Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
OBAMA: I'm Not Interested in Photo-Ops 2 min redeemer 29
Black Power advocates emerge 7 min John gotti 6
Obama sips beer, shoots pool during night out 41 min Black Power 2
3 women shot in north Minneapolis back yard; on... 1 hr John gotti 6
Woman's head stepped on by Rand Paul supporters (Oct '10) 2 hr IND 26,163
Get away from the cities and all the crime 2 hr Bellweather 1
Own a GM Vehicle 4 hr Bellweather 1
•••
•••
•••
Minneapolis Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Minneapolis Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

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 ]
•••