Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say

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. Full Story
Kyle

Knox, IN

#25046 Apr 9, 2013
You actually replied to this one, but YOUR REPLY WAS TRANSPARENTLY NON-RESPONSIVE:

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>It sure doesn't sound like any controlled and measured man made CO2 emission or capture was used.

Please support your imbecilic interpretation that for science to be valid it must disentangle the identical molecules representing 1% of the total from the other 99%.

Perhaps an analogy will kick-start your remaining neuron:

A biology experiment is undertaken to determine the salinity tolerance of a bacteria. The bacteria flourished with a low level of salt in the aqueous solution. The salt was from a mine near Cleveland and processed to be pure NaCl.

Then, the salinity is increased by a factor of 100, using salt from a mine near Kansas City, similarly refined. The bacteria die. The researchers conclude that its salinity tolerance is <100 times the original level.

Your insane assertion is that the experiment is bad science because the original salt was still present so the effect couldn't be reliably linked to the addded salt.

Defend your insanity or concede.

----------

You neither defended it or conceded it. You just spouted non sequiturs and repeated your BS like an autistic parrot.
Kyle

Knox, IN

#25047 Apr 9, 2013
Here's a Lyin' Brian comment so breathtakingly inane that it is self-refuting:

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>It sure doesn't sound like any controlled and measured man made CO2 emission or capture was used.

Please support your imbecilic interpretation that for science to be valid it must disentangle the identical molecules representing 1% of the total from the other 99%.

Perhaps an analogy will kick-start your remaining neuron:

A biology experiment is undertaken to determine the salinity tolerance of a bacteria. The bacteria flourished with a low level of salt in the aqueous solution. The salt was from a mine near Cleveland and processed to be pure NaCl.

Then, the salinity is increased by a factor of 100, using salt from a mine near Kansas City, similarly refined. The bacteria die. The researchers conclude that its salinity tolerance is <100 times the original level.

Your insane assertion is that the experiment is bad science because the original salt was still present so the effect couldn't be reliably linked to the addded salt.

Defend your insanity or concede.
Kyle

Knox, IN

#25048 Apr 9, 2013
Yo! Lyin' Brian! Here's an example of what RATIONAL and HONEST debaters do. You said that I needed to prove something. Actually, I really didn't have to because science has. But since you deny science, I did anyway.

----------

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?

----------

As a RATIONAL and HONEST debater, I explained how your excuse for denial was invalid.

As an IRRATIONAL or DISHONEST debater, you never acknowledged that your excuse for denial had been refuted.

That's a concession in the eyes of any RATIONAL and HONEST person. One of many that you've made. However, you'll never admit to any of them - because YOU'RE IRRATIONAL A_N_D DISHONEST.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#25049 Apr 9, 2013
From the thread, "Once slow-moving threat, global warming leaves little...."

Or what I like to call "Brain_G gets hoisted by his own petard".

Brian_G wrote:
Using fossil fuel helps free ancient carbon back into the atmosphere where it can do some good. Freeing carbon dioxide into the air helps mitigate climate change against global cooling; the well known ice age climate scenario.
We've always adapted to climate change. Don't panic.

Whoa, whoa, wait a minute, Brain!

I thought you said climate change mitigation was a hoax. In fact, you've said it a thousand times.

So what is this? "Freeing carbon dioxide into the air helps mitigate climate change against global cooling...."

With that logic, and a few of your own words, we say, "Removing carbon dioxide from the air helps mitigate climate change against global warming."

Care to dispute that?
Kyle

Knox, IN

#25050 Apr 9, 2013
Here's a good example of Lyin' Brian being a transparent science denier. He employes the usual science denier arguments, lifted, no doubt, from a creationist website.

But like most questions he's been asked, Lyin' Brian refused to answer if he was a creatard, too.:

----------

HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:

"The proof is in scientific journals, where deliberate deception is virtually impossible..."
We accept your concession. How else would a rational person interpret your latest evasive, steaming heap of nonsense?

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Science hoaxes:

No. 1- Piltdown Man
No. 2- Archaeoraptor
No. 3 - El Chupacabra
No. 4 - Rabbit Mother
No. 5 - The Fiji Mermaid
No. 6 - The Turk
No. 7 - Alien Autopsy
No. 8 - Say No to Cake
No. 9 - Disappearing Blonde Gene
No. 10 - The Nacirema Tribe

No. 1 - Thanks for providing the evidence that, besides being ancient, it was self-correcting, peer-reviewed SCIENCE that corrected this - "40 years later scientists proved that the Piltdown man was a deliberate attempt at paleontological fraud." - NOT admittedly scientifically illiterate wingnuts such as yourself.

No. 2 - Ditto #1 - "Turns out this "fossil" found in China was actually a forgery constructed from rearranged pieces of real fossils from different species."

Nos. 3-9 - Not science at all! Just urban legends and other crap from mass media, you simpleton!

No. 10 - Well, at least this one was actually published science, but again - WHO DO YOU THINK CORRECTED IT, KNOW-NOTHINGS LIKE YOU?

If these are your arguments for science denial, I accept your concession. Because that's exactly what it is whether or not you admit it.

Your penchant for repeating tired, failed, anti-science arguments reeks of the work of a denier that knows they're wrong and is denying with deceptive intent, rather than as a result of being deceived.

----------

And of course, Lyin' Brian failed to acknowledge that he's been nailed and refuted.

That's what deniers do.

That's what Lyin' Brian is paid to do.

The fact that he's done it more times than you can count is just one of many clues to the fact that the deniers don't have any valid arguments. If they did, why would they try to drown the gullible in BS ones?
Kyle

Knox, IN

#25052 Apr 9, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
...Brian_G wrote: Using fossil fuel helps free ancient carbon back into the atmosphere where it can do some good. Freeing carbon dioxide into the air helps MITIGATE climate change against global cooling; ...

... With that logic, and a few of [Lyin' Brian's] own words, we say, "Removing carbon dioxide from the air helps mitigate climate change against global warming."

Care to dispute that?
LOL! I sure don't!

Thanks for that. What a buffoon that Lyin' Brian is. Anyone who follows a thread with a tenacious denier like him can't help but conclude, not only that science denial IS denial, but that the tenacious deniers are the most transparent liars on the planet. i thought creationists were by far the most intellectually dishonest, but Lyin' Brian (who may be a creatard, too; he's refused to answer) is even more dishonest than any creatard I've ever encountered.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#25053 Apr 9, 2013
Kyle, of course one CO2 molecule behaves like any other; I dispute attributing 100% of the CO2 increase to man, not the effect of a man made vs a naturally emitted molecule of CO2.

As the oceans warm, they emit CO2 like a soda can going flat as it warms. Oceans, mountains and latitude cause climate, not man.

Some of the dissolved oceanic carbon is from the same fossil sources as fossil fuel. Our Earth constantly settles as carbon and oxygen float up out of denser elements into the air.

Don't panic, without CO2, life as we know it would be impossible.
Kyle

Knox, IN

#25054 Apr 9, 2013
So, Lyin' Brian, though you're far too dishonest to ever admit it, I've presented the science that refutes every BS (and often hilarious) excuse you've proffered for denying that excess GHG's are man's doing. You've been evasive and grossly dishonest and generally conceded in every dishonest fashion imaginable, so i accept that concession.

Now, let me explain for the rational people some rather simple facts that prove that it's impossible for the warming to be caused by anything other than the GHE:

First, an analogy. If you turn up the fire in an oven, the inside of the oven gets warmer. So does the outside. This is analogous to global warming induced by orbital mechanics or solar cycles. Deniers love to toss out these things; anything but GHG's as the actual cause of GW. You know, the "I'm smarter than a million PHD's" syndrome, explainable only by the Dunning-Krueger Effect. Well here's super-simple evidence that any moron can understand that refutes all such claims.

If you increase the insulation around your oven, the inside also gets warmer, but the outside gets cooler. This is analogous to GW induced by the GHE. We have been measuring the temperature of the upper atmosphere from satellites with exquisite precision for many years, using instruments that are based upon fundamental physical principles that make them self-diagnostic. In other words, their output is as close to metaphysically correct as anything in science. What do they show?

The upper atmosphere is cooling. QED.

If that's not enough for you, consider that the upper atmosphere contracts when it cools far more than the dense lower atmosphere expands as it warms. Thus the limits of the atmosphere have contracted closer to the Earth - a LOT. Easily measurable. In fact, it's been taken into account when predicting the decay of satellite orbits.

Just for overkill that only Lyin' Brian would DENY, here's three more simple ways that we know the warming is caused by the GHE:

Climate science (and the common sense stemming from the basic intuitive physics of a moderately intelligent child) tells us that GHE warming would be greater at night, in the winter, and near the poles.

Al three are in evidence in spades. The fractions of a degree of globalized anomalies make it easier for denier scum and dumb people to dismiss the science. However, temps near the poles in mid-winter (whihc is also middle of the night when above the Arctic circle) are many degrees warmer. I read recently that such a temperature from an island weather station shows a 10.7degF increase.

So, Lyin' Brian, how are you going to DENY the logic above? how are you going to DENY 10+ degree changes?

Hmmm?
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#25055 Apr 9, 2013
Denier b_gone in #25053: "Our Earth constantly settles as carbon and oxygen float up out of denser elements into the air."

This is absolutely wrong ... This evidence informs the world of the craziness of b_gone.

WHOA .. "Our Earth constantly settles as carbon and oxygen float up out of denser elements into the air." [b_gone]
Kyle

Knox, IN

#25056 Apr 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Kyle, of course one CO2 molecule behaves like any other; I dispute attributing 100% of the CO2 increase to man, not the effect of a man made vs a naturally emitted molecule of CO2.
As the oceans warm, they emit CO2 like a soda can going flat as it warms. Oceans, mountains and latitude cause climate, not man.
Some of the dissolved oceanic carbon is from the same fossil sources as fossil fuel. Our Earth constantly settles as carbon and oxygen float up out of denser elements into the air.
Don't panic, without CO2, life as we know it would be impossible.
But Lyin' Brian, you're forgetting a couple of things. First, you've evaded all demands that you elaborate on your BS demands because you're not a scientist, yet you're once again making scientific claims that are not supported (and are dead wrong). So, concede immediately or support with science that the oceans are emitting more CO2 from a ~.1% increase in absolute temperature than they're absorbing from the 40+% increase in atmospheric partial pressure of CO2. You forgot that I'm an engineer, didn't you? I not only know that the science is 180 degrees from your assertion, I KNOW EXACTLY WHY IT MUST BE.

Second, I accept your concession that the oceans are warming. Don't you dare DENY it at a later time.

As for the last line - utterly RETARDED and you know it, but you have nothing else. You can't live without water either, so I recommend that you be immersed in it - permanently.
Kyle

Knox, IN

#25057 Apr 9, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Denier b_gone in #25053: "Our Earth constantly settles as carbon and oxygen float up out of denser elements into the air."
This is absolutely wrong ... This evidence informs the world of the craziness of b_gone.
WHOA .. "Our Earth constantly settles as carbon and oxygen float up out of denser elements into the air." [b_gone]
And yet he thinks it necessary to continually remind us that he's not a scientist. I doubt that anyone has mistaken him for one. If they ever did, that last one surely corrected their misconception.
Kyle

Knox, IN

#25058 Apr 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Kyle, of course one CO2 molecule behaves like any other; I dispute attributing 100% of the CO2 increase to man, not the effect of a man made vs a naturally emitted molecule of CO2.
As the oceans warm, they emit CO2 like a soda can going flat as it warms. Oceans, mountains and latitude cause climate, not man.
Some of the dissolved oceanic carbon is from the same fossil sources as fossil fuel. Our Earth constantly settles as carbon and oxygen float up out of denser elements into the air.
Don't panic, without CO2, life as we know it would be impossible.
I'm keeping my individual replies short to make it all that more obvious when you evade your many refutations. Deal with this immediately or concede it:

I did not claim that 100% of CO2 was anthropogenic - nice straw man, a-hole. But I have posted the science that proves to anyone with a brain that we can absolutely know by multiple cross-checking methods, based upon fundamental scientific principles, that damn near 100% of the increased CO2 in the atmosphere is anthropogenic!

I've had to repeat it becuase you DISHONESTLY evaded it the first time. Now you have DISHONESTLY repeated your UNSUPPORTED claim that we don;t know this while failing to acknowledge the ACTUAL SCIENCE yet again.

Deal with it. Deal with it now or concede the point, you insufferable douche nozzle.
anon

Minneapolis, MN

#25059 Apr 9, 2013
Kyle wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm keeping my individual replies short to make it all that more obvious when you evade your many refutations. Deal with this immediately or concede it:
I did not claim that 100% of CO2 was anthropogenic - nice straw man, a-hole. But I have posted the science that proves to anyone with a brain that we can absolutely know by multiple cross-checking methods, based upon fundamental scientific principles, that damn near 100% of the increased CO2 in the atmosphere is anthropogenic!
I've had to repeat it becuase you DISHONESTLY evaded it the first time. Now you have DISHONESTLY repeated your UNSUPPORTED claim that we don;t know this while failing to acknowledge the ACTUAL SCIENCE yet again.
Deal with it. Deal with it now or concede the point, you insufferable douche nozzle.
You are too invested in this.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#25060 Apr 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Yet my argument follows the previous poster's ideas. They are rational conjecture based on consensus facts. I'm just trying to prove that the 'delicate climate carbon balance' is bogus; by demonstrating the tipping point.
I don't use profanity or defamation, my arguments aren't ad hominem fallacies.
Rational conjecture? Who typed that for you?

Consensus facts? Surely you don't accept consensus!

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#25061 Apr 10, 2013
Kyle wrote:
So, Lyin' Brian, though you're far too dishonest to ever admit it, I've presented the science that refutes every BS (and often hilarious) excuse you've proffered for denying that excess GHG's are man's doing. You've been evasive and grossly dishonest and generally conceded in every dishonest fashion imaginable, so i accept that concession.
"excess GHG's are man's doing" What's that mean, "pollution is man made"? We are part of nature, our CO2 emissions is reemission of solar powered fossil carbon fuel. I don't think CO2 is a problem, there are other molecules that are problems, CO2 is life.

.
Kyle wrote:
Now, let me explain for the rational people some rather simple facts that prove that it's impossible for the warming to be caused by anything other than the GHE:
First, an analogy. If you turn up the fire in an oven, the inside of the oven gets warmer. So does the outside. This is analogous to global warming induced by orbital mechanics or solar cycles. Deniers love to toss out these things; anything but GHG's as the actual cause of GW. You know, the "I'm smarter than a million PHD's" syndrome, explainable only by the Dunning-Krueger Effect. Well here's super-simple evidence that any moron can understand that refutes all such claims.
That's just argument to authority, another logical fallacy. Why not cite a compelling experimental test if you want, or we could discuss one previously posted.

.
Kyle wrote:
If you increase the insulation around your oven, the inside also gets warmer, but the outside gets cooler. This is analogous to GW induced by the GHE. We have been measuring the temperature of the upper atmosphere from satellites with exquisite precision for many years, using instruments that are based upon fundamental physical principles that make them self-diagnostic. In other words, their output is as close to metaphysically correct as anything in science. What do they show? The upper atmosphere is cooling. QED.
CO2 is in the upper atmosphere too, not as much but more thanks to our CO2 emissions. The upper atmosphere is supposed to warm because of greenhouse warming, but the models are wrong.

Because there are no experimental tests.

.
Kyle wrote:
If that's not enough for you, consider that the upper atmosphere contracts when it cools far more than the dense lower atmosphere expands as it warms. Thus the limits of the atmosphere have contracted closer to the Earth - a LOT. Easily measurable. In fact, it's been taken into account when predicting the decay of satellite orbits.
A new carbon tax would harm our economy and insult our intelligence.

.
Kyle wrote:
Just for overkill that only Lyin' Brian would DENY, here's three more simple ways that we know the warming is caused by the GHE:
Climate science (and the common sense stemming from the basic intuitive physics of a moderately intelligent child) tells us that GHE warming would be greater at night, in the winter, and near the poles.
And more of it would be better than less. It's good to light your houselamp, warm your home, cool your perishables, transport goods and cook your food with fossil fuel, dependable and inexpensive.

.
Kyle wrote:
Al three are in evidence in spades. The fractions of a degree of globalized anomalies make it easier for denier scum and dumb people to dismiss the science. However, temps near the poles in mid-winter (whihc is also middle of the night when above the Arctic circle) are many degrees warmer. I read recently that such a temperature from an island weather station shows a 10.7degF increase.
Climate always changes; don't panic.

.
Kyle wrote:
So, Lyin' Brian, how are you going to DENY the logic above? how are you going to DENY 10+ degree changes? Hmmm?
I'll not deny +20 degree changes, or less. Climate always changes. Does it mean man made CO2 is the cause? No, there's no experimental data.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#25062 Apr 10, 2013
[QUOTE who="lyin' brian"]We are part of nature........[/QUOTE]

Next time you consider airplane flights over Greenland, you should walk....... ah naturel! You'll be part of nature in no time at all.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#25063 Apr 10, 2013
anon wrote:
You are too invested in this.
It is good to be......'invested in the truth'. You aren't.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#25064 Apr 10, 2013
litesong wrote:
Next time you consider airplane flights over Greenland, you should walk....... ah naturel! You'll be part of nature in no time at all.
Good point, Greenland's not melting. I've seen it myself, in the winter it looks like no room for new snow and ice. In the summer it looks like its freezing the ocean around the island.

We are carbon brought to life by nature. Mother nature likes our greenhouse gas emissions.
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#25065 Apr 10, 2013
Mother F'er likes game playing and pretending you're dumb, when you're simply a childish denier... Simply... too lazy to care....

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#25066 Apr 10, 2013
"A troll wants to cause a commotion and get people ranting and raving because they want their presence on a forum or comments thread to be the main focus. They want the spotlight and attention on them.

Often they will play devils advocate, vigorously defending statements or positions they know to be illogical or untrue in an attempt to get people riled up."

http://www.insidersedge.co.uk/lifestyletips/h...

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
Rino clown jeb bush booed at cpac 33 min space ace 1
Rand paul 3 peat at cpac 35 min space ace 1
Minnesota 1.87 Billion Dollar Surplus 1 hr Snoop 10
Jihadi John Identified 3 hr Mpls 8
Net Neutrality we need LANE NEUTRALITY 7 hr Snoop 3
Woman's head stepped on by Rand Paul supporters (Oct '10) 9 hr Abeliever 26,312
Net Neutrality is NOT Neutral 21 hr Snoop 9
Minneapolis Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Minneapolis People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 12:42 pm PST

Bleacher Report12:42PM
Packers Could Target Maualuga or Draft LB to Replace Hawk
NFL 2:32 PM
Adrian Peterson releases statement on ruling
NBC Sports 2:57 PM
Progress pleases Peterson; statement of thanks skips Vikings
Yahoo! Sports 4:36 PM
Peterson eager for return after judge overturns suspension
Bleacher Report 8:12 AM
Green Bay Packers: A Scout's Take on Stephone Anthony and Paul Dawson