Global warming 'undeniable,' scientis...

Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say

There are 35607 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.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#24803 Mar 29, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
BINGO! Game is OVER. STOP posting.
I knew they wouldn't like my answer. Do you think their answer is any better?

Whoops, my bad. That assumes they ever answer the question.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#24804 Mar 29, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
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:
<quoted text>
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?
You're right of course, there was no control: we need to deduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and see if we observe the opposite effect.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#24805 Mar 29, 2013
Kyle wrote:
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?
I asked for an experiment on man made greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, or are you proposing we mitigate natural greenhouse gas too. We need that greenhouse gas to keep our planet habitable.

What do you think was the dependent variable in the experiment?

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#24806 Mar 29, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
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.
Taxes cost the taxpayers and their customers plenty already.

If you think taxes cost nothing; you don't pay taxes.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
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.
1% corruption, or 10% or 30%? Better off with a zero carbon tax, that's 100% revenue neutral.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
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.
Finally an answer; climate demagogy. If you don't have reason to convince people, use fear.

"[D}roughts, floods, agricultural declines, storms & slight sea level [changes]" have always happened; don't panic.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
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.
Of course droughts are expensive but if your politicians tell you we need a new tax to stop droughts; your problem isn't the atmospheric climate.

Irrigation, agricultural improvements, refrigeration, steam heating, and building rafts are well demonstrated adaptations to climate while nobody has ever published a peer reviewed test of mitigating droughts, heat waves, storms, cold snaps or sea level change.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
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.
Show me the money, prove it. Those costs only exist in HSL's imagination. They are a justification for an energy and fuel tax.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
It's like the national debt but WAY worse.
No, we know who's responsible for the national debt and we pay the interest in hard cash. We know the EXACT cost of the national debt but have no idea of the 'cost' of man made CO2 emissions.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
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.
They call us evil, I think they just don't understand the facts; this is where we differ.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
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.
They want to prescribe our atmosphere, I prefer freedom. This is where we differ.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
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.
I'll never pay even one shekel for the inundation of New York, I don't live there and I never forced anyone to live there.

.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#24807 Mar 29, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
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.
I haven't seen a citation for a peer reviewed experiment on climate change mitigation, have you?

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
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,
I'm not advocating changing the atmosphere, I advocate the freedom to add or remove as much CO2 as you like. There's already plenty of CO2 in the atmosphere, I won't change that.

It's HSL who advocates changing and controlling atmosphere CO2, not I.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
not on us to prove mitigation is possible & effective.
No, its on scientist to provide compelling experimental evidence; else science fails.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
You have your ethics arrantly backward. No surprise for a selfish sociopath like you, though.
I don't call my opponents names because I prefer rationality to childish insults.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#24808 Mar 29, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
You're right of course, there was no control:
Thank you for acknowledging the 'experiment' wasn't on man made greenhouse gases and thus not on the man made climate change.

What was the dependent variable and how did they change it?

.
Fair Game wrote:
we need to deduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and see if we observe the opposite effect.
What do you mean "we"?

Speak for yourself; I'm not a scientist. I don't do experiments.

Put me in the control group, I want to emit CO2 ad lib.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#24809 Mar 29, 2013
Kyle wrote:
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.
My entire argument is, there have been no trials, tests, experiments, demonstrations or real world atmospheric models of climate change mitigation so we don't know if it will harm more than help or how much it would cost.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#24810 Mar 29, 2013
Kyle wrote:
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.
^^^I don't insult my political opponents because I believe reason is better than emotional arguments; this is where we differ.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#24811 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.
Fair Game wrote it wasn't an experiment on man made greenhouse gas emissions because it wasn't 'reversed'. I still can't figure out what the dependent variable was, maybe the focus of the lenses.

Did you learn what dependent variables were changed while the greenhouse gas spectra was measured?
PHD2

Minneapolis, MN

#24812 Mar 29, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>You live in a country where there's no free lunch. Yet you show up here demanding explanation for your claims.
You came up with your claims; you do your own research. You must remember what you say is not science unless you reference science.
Good luck.
Here are 174 questions people like you repeat for answers. Go for yours.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
I don't understand how in both cases where temps rise and fall a year later anyone with a straight face can claim when temps rise it's an indication of Global Warming AND when temps fall it's also evidense of Global Warming.

MAKES NO SENSE!!

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#24813 Mar 29, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^I don't insult my political opponents because I believe reason is better than emotional arguments; this is where we differ.
You use unreasonable arguments in an attempt to get an emotional response. Mostly you get rational explanations of why your arguments are unreasonable, but also people point out that repeating them endlessly makes you a troll, which is a reasonable argument.

Where we differ is you are disingenuous and the people who respond to you are honest.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#24814 Mar 29, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Fair Game wrote it wasn't an experiment on man made greenhouse gas emissions because it wasn't 'reversed'.
I agree: we need to reverse it to make it an experiment: reduce CO2 and see if we get the opposite effect. Just adding more CO2 and seeing more warming and less radiation escaping to space proves nothing.
Amused Slew

Minneapolis, MN

#24815 Mar 29, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
You use unreasonable arguments in an attempt to get an emotional response. Mostly you get rational explanations of why your arguments are unreasonable, but also people point out that repeating them endlessly makes you a troll, which is a reasonable argument.
Where we differ is you are disingenuous and the people who respond to you are honest.
No he doesn't.
I've seen nothing but character attacks from your side of the argument.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#24816 Mar 29, 2013
PHD2 wrote:
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!!
Science is full of apparent contradictions.

*Normal* warmer temperatures are an indication of global warming.

*Anomalous* colder temperatures may be evidence of warming *if* the mechanism is described.

Normal winter temperatures are increasing; anomalous colder temperatures due to Arctic cold being pushed south are also occurring as Arctic sea ice declines influencing weather patterns.

Both were predicted before the event.

If you're looking for simple, science isn't it.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#24817 Mar 29, 2013
Amused Slew wrote:
<quoted text>
No he doesn't.
I've seen nothing but character attacks from your side of the argument.
Possibly due to your not being able to spot an unreasonable argument.

"You constantly demand an experiment even though experiments are not part of observational science therefore you are a troll" may seem like a character attack if the words before "you are a troll" have no meaning for you.
Amused Slew

Minneapolis, MN

#24818 Mar 29, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Possibly due to your not being able to spot an unreasonable argument.
"You constantly demand an experiment even though experiments are not part of observational science therefore you are a troll" may seem like a character attack if the words before "you are a troll" have no meaning for you.
Your lack of respect for others point of view speaks volumes about how you define what is reasonable or unreasonable.
PHD2

Minneapolis, MN

#24819 Mar 29, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Science is full of apparent contradictions.
*Normal* warmer temperatures are an indication of global warming.
*Anomalous* colder temperatures may be evidence of warming *if* the mechanism is described.
Normal winter temperatures are increasing; anomalous colder temperatures due to Arctic cold being pushed south are also occurring as Arctic sea ice declines influencing weather patterns.
Both were predicted before the event.
If you're looking for simple, science isn't it.
OK I'll forget it.

But if you view temps at the north and south poles they are both very cold.
Amused Slew

Minneapolis, MN

#24820 Mar 29, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Possibly due to your not being able to spot an unreasonable argument.
"You constantly demand an experiment even though experiments are not part of observational science therefore you are a troll" may seem like a character attack if the words before "you are a troll" have no meaning for you.
Seems like anyone who disagrees with you is a troll.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#24821 Mar 29, 2013
Amused Slew wrote:
<quoted text>
Your lack of respect for others point of view speaks volumes about how you define what is reasonable or unreasonable.
Why should I respect people who do not post in good faith?

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#24822 Mar 29, 2013
PHD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
OK I'll forget it.
But if you view temps at the north and south poles they are both very cold.
Obviously you don't actually view the temps at the north pole, co they ain't.

http://www.scilogs.de/wblogs/gallery/16/previ...

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
BLM urge rioting over OSU SHOOTING 1 hr Phineas 15
Drop one word....add one word game (Apr '14) 15 hr texas pete 628
Get Over It! 22 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
Trump Won The Popular Vote Nov 29 Obamas comments 3

Minneapolis Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Minneapolis Mortgages