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
23,481 - 23,500 of 32,066 Comments Last updated 19 hrs ago
Bushwhacker

Kent, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24773
Mar 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Guy using another poster's moniker says you're correct and you embrace the dishonest POS... Of course, nothing wrong there, right ?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24774
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.
No matter how many times you lie like this, it just isn't true. A revenue neutral carbon tax diverts ZERO resources from the economy & adds ZERO resources to government. It does NOT hurt the economy like you claim. It's a pigouvian tax that takes money from heavy carbon emitters & gives it to low carbon emitters.

It would discourage you people from poisoning our atmosphere.

Your opinion may not reflect reality, but others' opinios do.

Yes, when sea levels rise, we move inland. The last time it happened, perhap ~11 Kya, it was relatively easy, & we got the Noah story out of it.

Today, we'd have to abandon places like New York. There goes $20 T down the drain - all because you don't want to pay a few pennies for a carbon tax that will be given to more responsible, less selfish citizens.

Nice one, BG. I hope they're paying you enough to justify it.
PHD2

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24775
Mar 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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!!
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24776
Mar 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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!!
Do us a favor and learn a little. If it's nuts to you, it's nuts to us.

There's no shortcut to learning science. However, your fallback is to believe the scientists as a group, right?

Good luck.

Remember: Ultimately, from the perspective of policy makers and the general public, the impacts of climate change and the required mitigation and adaptation efforts are largely the same in a world of 2 or 4 C per doubling of CO2 concentrations where carbon dioxide emissions are rising quickly.
PHD2

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24777
Mar 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Do us a favor and learn a little. If it's nuts to you, it's nuts to us.
There's no shortcut to learning science. However, your fallback is to believe the scientists as a group, right?
Good luck.
Remember: Ultimately, from the perspective of policy makers and the general public, the impacts of climate change and the required mitigation and adaptation efforts are largely the same in a world of 2 or 4 C per doubling of CO2 concentrations where carbon dioxide emissions are rising quickly.
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.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24778
Mar 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
No matter how many times you lie like this, it just isn't true. A revenue neutral carbon tax diverts ZERO resources from the economy & adds ZERO resources to government.
If the tax rate is zero, that's true. 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?

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
It does NOT hurt the economy like you claim. It's a pigouvian tax that takes money from heavy carbon emitters & gives it to low carbon emitters.
This is interesting:
The Measurement Problem:

"Arthur Pigou said in "It must be confessed, however, that we seldom know enough to decide in what fields and to what extent the State, on account of [the gaps between private and public costs] could interfere with individual choice." In other words, the economist's blackboard "model" assumes knowledge we don't possess — it's a model with assumed "givens" which are in fact not given to anyone. Friedrich Hayek would argue that this is knowledge which could not be provided as a "given" by any "method" yet discovered, due to insuperable cognitive limits."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
It would discourage you people from poisoning our atmosphere.
^^^This is proof of Pigou's wisdom, 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.

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.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
Your opinion may not reflect reality, but others' opinios do.
^^^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.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
Yes, when sea levels rise, we move inland. The last time it happened, perhap ~11 Kya, it was relatively easy, & we got the Noah story out of it.
Climate always changes, floods, droughts and extreme weather events define our climate. Don't panic.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
Today, we'd have to abandon places like New York. There goes $20 T down the drain - all because you don't want to pay a few pennies for a carbon tax that will be given to more responsible, less selfish citizens. Nice one, BG. I hope they're paying you enough to justify it.
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. Nobody forced him to move to New York or stay there, I won't pay for his moving expenses, housing expenses or his food.

I have to earn my own living and he's free to earn his. I hope New Yorkers can raise that $20,000,000,000,000 or they'll have to learn to swim.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24779
Mar 28, 2013
 
Like New York is abandoning waterfront properties:

Brooklyn Heights waterfront real estate market heating up
If smart investors are a guide, prices are rising, and will continue to increase

Comments (2)
BY JASON SHEFTELL / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

THURSDAY, MARCH 28, 2013, 5:01 PM

savvy real estate investors are any indication of hot or soon to be hot markets, then we should all be looking on the Brooklyn Heights waterfront.
A Brooklyn source told the Daily News that New York-based real estate investor Andrew Borrok looked at and was close to contract on a unit at One Brooklyn Bridge Park.
Listed at $4.25 million, the three-bedroom four-bath apartment has a wrap-around terrace with Manhattan skyline views.

...

If sold, the combined unit would likely go to contract in the $9 million range, a record for a Brooklyn condominium.
Developed by RAL Companies, One Brooklyn Bridge is a former Jehovah’s Witness printing plant converted to 449 condo units. The homes are loft-like. The amenity package includes golf simulators, full fitness center, public terraces, yoga studio, music room, children’s playroom, game room, screening room, bike storage, and on-site parking, and powerful lobby with columns and high ceilings.
The building, at 360 Furman St., is located within Brooklyn Bridge Park across from Pier 6. Designed by Brooklyn Heights-based Michael Van Valkenburgh, Brooklyn Bridge Park will have playing fields, a kayak launch, and highlands that block the noise from the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/real-es...
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24780
Mar 28, 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.
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 Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24781
Mar 28, 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!! Please explain flaws in my logic.
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!
Bushwhacker

Kent, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24782
Mar 28, 2013
 
Been answered spammer. Pretty sad, you're playing dumb, but you're a natural, right ?




Guy using another poster's moniker says you're correct and you embrace the dishonest POS... Of course, nothing wrong there, right ?
Kyle

Cromwell, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24783
Mar 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

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

Cromwell, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24784
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...
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

Cromwell, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24785
Mar 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24786
Mar 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24787
Mar 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

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

Cromwell, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24788
Mar 28, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

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

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24789
Mar 28, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

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.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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...

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

7 Users are viewing the Minneapolis Forum right now

Search the Minneapolis Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Space ace of Base 1 hr Less Testakill 1
Is Space ace Still Sleeping? 1 hr Less Testakill 3
Extra Officers Walk North Minneapolis Streets 1 hr Bellweather 2
Woman's head stepped on by Rand Paul supporters (Oct '10) 2 hr Flint hill bandit 26,196
White House fears impeachment 2 hr Space ace 1
Own Part of Puckett's Pond, Get Your Limited Ed... 3 hr Less Testakill 1
Man Cited For Driving 100 MPH, Twice In 1 Hour (Mar '12) 3 hr Kunta Kante 51
•••
•••
•••
•••

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 ]
•••