Global warming 'undeniable,' scientis...

Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say

There are 35608 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.

Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#24783 Mar 28, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>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.
That's one lie that I just revealed as such, one retarded brainfart that has also been revealed as such, and one braindead repetition of a stupid of nonsense argument that has been revealed as such several times.

Congratulations for hitting the denier trifecta. Your prize is being laughed at by all rational participants. Enjoy.
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#24784 Mar 28, 2013
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...
There's the endlessly debunked BS he referred to. I suppose you expect us to repeat our refutations every time you repeat your idiocy. Is this your idea of debate? You repeat nonsense endlessly while ignoring all rebuttals and if we stop wasting time on you, you declare victory?

I laugh at your infantile denier sophistry.
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#24785 Mar 28, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Think about it, that means more extreme beautiful weather too, more extremely beautiful days and nights... Put that way, global warming's not really all bad.
Global warming; I can barely wait!
Could you make your biases and disengenuousnes a little more obvious? Your concession is accepted.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#24786 Mar 28, 2013
Kyle wrote:
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.
Please post one peer reviewed experimental test showing man made greenhouse gas making any change to climate temperature.

I'll wait...
SpaceBlues

United States

#24787 Mar 28, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>To another poster:
I think I can answer your question, and you won't like the answer:
Man made catastrophic climate change means more extreme weather of all kinds. Think about it, that means more extreme beautiful weather too, more extremely beautiful days and nights... Put that way, global warming's not really all bad.
Global warming; I can barely wait!
BINGO!

Game is OVER.

STOP posting.
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#24788 Mar 28, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>We have no peer reviewed experimental test on man made greenhouse gas that shows any climate change. There's no way to calculate the externalities without experimental data.
YES WE DO, DENIER A-HOLE. Respond to previous rebuttals, cease spamming us with this refuted BS, or just stfu.

Failure to respond to repeated rebuttals is a concession in any debate forum. You conceded 20 times in a row.
SpaceBlues

United States

#24789 Mar 28, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Please post one peer reviewed experimental test showing man made greenhouse gas making any change to climate temperature.
I'll wait...
This was done over and over.

Look them up. No repeat is necssary by you any more.

Stop posting. As you promised.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#24790 Mar 29, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
This was done over and over. Look them up. No repeat is necssary by you any more. Stop posting. As you promised.
If you know a peer reviewed experiment that shows any man made greenhouse gas emission making even the smallest measurable climate change, please post a citation. I'll wait.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#24791 Mar 29, 2013
PHD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
So spring 2012 was warmer than average AND the experts said it was evidence of Global Warming.
Spring of 2013 is colder than average and the experts claim it's more evidence of Global Warming.
WHICH IS IT?
You can't have it both ways!!
Please explain flaws in my logic.
They will explain it with scientific science fiction cut and paste useless babble. There all a bunch of empty chairs that get no attention at home so they post useless scare tactics to make themselves feel important.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#24792 Mar 29, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>If you know a peer reviewed experiment that shows any man made greenhouse gas emission making even the smallest measurable climate change, please post a citation. I'll wait.
The experiment has been done and the results are in folks:

According to radiative physics and decades of laboratory measurements, increased CO2 in the atmosphere is expected to absorb more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space. In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period (Harries 2001). What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation was consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using data from later satellites (Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evi...
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#24793 Mar 29, 2013
According to radiative physics and decades of laboratory measurements, increased CO2 in the atmosphere is
"expected"
to absorb more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space. In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded
"similar"
observations. Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period (Harries 2001). What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation was consistent with
"theoretical expectations".
Thus the paper found
"direct experimental evidence"
for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using data from later satellites (Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).
Old scientific science fiction. Got more?

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#24794 Mar 29, 2013
PHD wrote:
According to radiative physics and decades of laboratory measurements, increased CO2 in the atmosphere is
"expected"
to absorb more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space. In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded
"similar"
observations. Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period (Harries 2001). What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation was consistent with
"theoretical expectations".
Thus the paper found
"direct experimental evidence"
for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using data from later satellites (Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).
Old scientific science fiction. Got more?
You are obviously determined to go to the grave a know-nothing.

Don't worry- you'll make it.
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#24795 Mar 29, 2013
PHD wrote:
According to radiative physics and decades of laboratory measurements, increased CO2 in the atmosphere is
"expected"
to absorb more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space. In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded
"similar"
observations. Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period (Harries 2001). What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation was consistent with
"theoretical expectations".
Thus the paper found
"direct experimental evidence"
for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using data from later satellites (Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).
Old scientific science fiction. Got more?
You are truly insane. You quote science that unequivocally supports GW and just dismiss it with nothing more than an unjustified characterization. I think there might be one other possibility. If you're not batshite bonkers, you could be a rational acceptor of science attempting to discredit denial to the absolute maximum extent possible.
In which case, you're succeeding in spades. Keep up the good work.
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#24796 Mar 29, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>If you know a peer reviewed experiment that shows any man made greenhouse gas emission making even the smallest measurable climate change, please post a citation. I'll wait.
Well, efftard, your wait is over. What dishonest denier claptrap will you employ to avoid learning anything, changing any of your dogmatic preconceptions, or engaging in anything remotely resembling a rational debate? Hmmm?
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#24797 Mar 29, 2013
PHD2 wrote:
<quoted text>Please explain flaws in my logic.
That's a tall order, Post Hole Digger. Often because your posts contain no discernible logic at all, even of the fallacious variety. Always because you are incapable of and/or unwilling to grasp any explanations - ever.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#24798 Mar 29, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text> If the tax rate is greater than zero, it costs the taxpayer and the government, just to calculate, produce and collect the tax. I'm waiting for HSL's reply to my question, why not a 0% carbon tax like we have now? A zero percent tax is revenue neutral, takes no effort to prosecute the tax cheat and gives no incentives to the taxman. I'm for a revenue neutral carbon tax of 0%. Can we compromise on zero?
.
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>^^^...farmers need atmospheric CO2 to fertilize their plants and we need to emit CO2 or we die. CO2 isn't poison, carbon dioxide is vital to life.

<quoted text>^^^Here I assume, HSL believes his opinions reflect reality, that CO2 is poisonous at atmospheric levels and a nonzero carbon tax won't cost "the economy" anything, even though the economy is full of people who would be forced to pay more for energy and fuel.
.
<quoted text>Climate always changes, floods, droughts and extreme weather events define our climate. Don't panic.
.
<quoted text>If you think I'll pay one penny to abandon New York, you're sadly mistaken. If some New Yorker decides to move inland, that's his lookout, not mine.
The government already has tax collectors for excise & other taxes. It already has computers to spit out checks or make e-deposits every month. A carbon tax would cost virtually nothing to collect & disburse. OK, MAYBE the government will only be able to disburse 99% of the moneys collected, so it'll "only" be 99% revenue-neutral. That's plenty close enough for most people.

Why not a zero carbon tax? Once AGAIN: we're ALREADY seeing increased droughts, floods, agricultural declines, storms & slight sea level rise. We'll see a LOT more of these in the future.

Droughts are expensive; a 30-40% agricultural collapse will be almost incalculably expensive. Heat waves, storms & cold snaps are expensive. Sea level rise will be almost incalculably expensive.

As it is now, you & all the other sociopathic, greedy, selfish, heavy carbon emitters aren't paying for these costs, you're foisting them off onto people in the future. It's like the national debt but WAY worse. You should PAY these costs NOW. So NO, we CANNOT "compromise on zero" now, because it's an incredibly evil thing you want to do.

Lots of things are necessary for life at one level but poisonous at a higher level, including oxygen & water. CO2 needs to be in the "Goldilocks zone"; it has to be "just right" for our civilization to continue as it has.

If you live long enough, you WILL pay more to prevent the inundation of New York. If you don't, your progeny will - & they'll despise your current attitudes. I hope it's worth it for a few shekels.

BTW, posters like Kyle, Fair Game & SpaceBlues have already simply CRUSHED your "arguments" - not that you'd notice it. You'll just keep repeating the same things you've said in the past.

So this is my repeated point: YOU are the ones who want to change the atmosphere, so the onus is on YOU to prove it's safe, not on us to prove mitigation is possible & effective. You have your ethics arrantly backward. No surprise for a selfish sociopath like you, though.
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#24799 Mar 29, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text><quoted text>Climate always changes, floods, droughts and extreme weather events define our climate. Don't panic.
.
If you think I'll pay one penny to abandon New York, you're sadly mistaken...... I hope New Yorkers can raise that $20,000,000,000,000 or they'll have to learn to swim.
There you have it - Brian's entire "argument" in a nutshell. Allow me to translate from denier-speak:

TRANS: "I have no scientific argument, so here's another lame repetition of the #1 retarded denier argument that has been refuted several times recently in this thread alone. Instead, here's my real argument and motivation - I want the freedom to not have to make any changes in my life, continue to avoid the external costs of my CO2 emissions, allowing others to be inordinately affected or even killed, while remaining in denial that I will be harmed at all. In other words, I'm both delusional and beyond selfish; I can't process the thought that I have to make changes for my own good and am perfectly willing to commit atrocities to avoid maintenance them."

Nice. You should be very proud.
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#24800 Mar 29, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
So this is my repeated point: YOU are the ones who want to change the atmosphere, so the onus is on YOU to prove it's safe, not on us to prove mitigation is possible & effective. You have your ethics arrantly backward. No surprise for a selfish sociopath like you, though.
BINGO! This point has been made so well and so many times, yet Brian is non-responsive and will forever be.

Refusal to acknowledge refutations IS a defacto concession. Brian HAS conceded. He's either too intellectually dishonest to do so explicitly (hypothesis #1), too irrational to process hos defeat (hypothesis #2), too well compensated to do so or go away (hypothesis #3), or some combo.

What percentage breakdown would you estimate applies?

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#24801 Mar 29, 2013
I asked for an "experiment that shows any man made greenhouse gas emission making even the smallest measurable climate change" and Fair Game thinks this is it:
Fair Game wrote:
The experiment has been done and the results are in folks:...satellite[s] which recorded similar observations... "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect[ that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.]"...[URL deleted]
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n68...

Not observations or experiments on "man made greenhouse gas emission", observations on atmospheric "atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12". There was no control for man made emissions, just observation of the effect of all greenhouse gas, from man made and natural sources combined.

Perhaps it was an experiment testing whether the satellites did what they were designed to do. I'm not going to buy the abstracts, what were the independent variables in this experiment?

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#24802 Mar 29, 2013
PHD wrote:
According to radiative physics and decades of laboratory measurements, increased CO2 in the atmosphere is
"expected"
to absorb more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space. In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded
"similar"
observations. Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period (Harries 2001). What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation was consistent with
"theoretical expectations".
Thus the paper found
"direct experimental evidence"
for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using data from later satellites (Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).
Old scientific science fiction. Got more?
I can't tell what the independent variables were from the extract. I'll bet they were whether the satellites would function or break. It sure doesn't sound like any controlled and measured man made CO2 emission or capture was used.

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
Drop one word....add one word game (Apr '14) 4 hr Mutant-cucumber 627
Get Over It! 7 hr Evil Roy Slade 10
Obama & BLM mourn monstor Fidel Castro Fri Protesters CAN WORK 50
Child sex ring>Pizzagate>Clinton's>Obama's>FBI ... Dec 1 Georgia 1
News Cops To Drunk Drivers: We'll Make You Listen To... Nov 30 Ferrerman 20
BLM urge rioting over OSU SHOOTING Nov 30 Drumpf 14
Trump Won The Popular Vote Nov 29 Obamas comments 3

Minneapolis Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Minneapolis Mortgages