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 1,189)

Showing posts 23,761 - 23,780 of29,866
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
litesong

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25063
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

anon wrote:
You are too invested in this.
It is good to be......'invested in the truth'. You aren't.

“CAPS LOCK CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25064
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

5

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

Kent, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25065
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

5

4

4

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"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25066
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

"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...
Kyle

Ligonier, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25067
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Do you think you fooled anyone when you quoted me, but then followed each quote with a non-responsive, off the wall, denier BS, bumper sticker slogan, fallacy? I think you've embarrassed yourself and the entire denial industry more than sufficiently for one thread. I'm doing what I had every right to do several days ago. I'm accepting my total victory and moving on.

In the future, anyone looking for undeniable evidence that you're maximally intellectually dishonest and that you've effectively conceded every single retarded denier argument, need only link to the these last few pages of this thread.

Just your last post can stand alone as a towering example of your implosion. It's especially egregious as I had just predicted exactly what you would do. Denier scum are do predictable:

"And please folks, don’t give any credibility to a pig like Lyin’ Brian.

And now, because we know that Lyin' Brian is fully capable of dishonestly ignoring refutations both in bulk and singularly, I will repost the science that he refuses to acknowledge.He will refuse to acknowledge it again.

Or possibly, he will acknowledge it, and then proceed to excrete a foul melange of fallacies, misdirection, and hand-waving nonsense.Which will, of course, no matter which tack he takes, illustrate that Lyin' Brian is anti-science, anti-reality, intellectually dishonest, grossly dishonest in general, and not here to get to the truth but to promote what he knows to be lies."

He could, theoretically, acknowledge these refutations and deal with them in an honest manner, but I hereby swear that I'll donate my entire net worth to the Koch brothers and commit suicide if he actually does that.
Kyle

Ligonier, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25068
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Thanks for playing, Lyin' Brian. You science deniers never let me down. In the past, I've especially enjoyed taking advantage of the pathologies of creatards, but they're so last decade. I think I'll concentrate on discrediting your brand of anti-science for a while. Besides, even though creationism is the gateway drug of science denial for many, it just doesn't have the same danger as climate denial.

If we meet again, don't let me down. Keep at it until any onlooker knows beyond question that you're thoroughly dishonest and utterly lacking in valid arguments. Good day.
litesong

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25069
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

[QUOTE who="lyin' brian"] Greenland's not melting. I've seen it myself[/QUOTE]

From 36,000 feet with cloud cover, but no equipment(not even binoculars?), you're not making scientific observations. That's OK. You're not a scientist. But you are a slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AND 4-time alleged & 4-time proud threatener.

Your erroneous post matches your errors of 1 million TIMES, 1000 TIMES, 3000 TIMES, & 73 million TIMES......... only more so. Over 2.5 trillion tons are missing from Greenland in the last 10 years.......
litesong

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25070
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

When dirtling, earthling has no brain,'eart hling(alien has no affinity for Earth)' was around,'lyin' brian), with its errors of as much as 1 million TIMES, was small pototoes to dirtling's error of 500 million TIMES. Jealous,'lyin' brian' then popped an error of 73 million TIMES. Still not as great as dirtling's 500 million TIMES, but 'lyin' brian' gave a good effort.

But now, with dirtling gone(6 months?),'lyin' brian' dumps an error of 2.5+ trillion TIMES,~35,000 TIMES more than its error of 73 million times. I knew that 'lyin' brian' could beat dirtling...... & dirtling never got its hi skule DEE-plooomaa.

Very good,'lyin' brian'...... you live up to your name,'lyin' brian'. I'm glad I adopted it from Kyle.

“CAPS LOCK CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25071
Apr 11, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Easy pickings, ask for experimental tests and see what shakes out. Keep alert, the mob gets unruly...

“CAPS LOCK CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25072
Apr 11, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Look at Kyle's experiments; climate sensitivity to CO2 means doubling it in the atmosphere and temperatures rise less than 1°C, maybe much less.

Thanks again for posting quantitative experimental evidence. I feel better now.
Bushwhacker

Kent, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25073
Apr 11, 2013
 
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>"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.
.
<quoted text>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.
.
<quoted text>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.
.
<quoted text>A new carbon tax would harm our economy and insult our intelligence.
.
<quoted text>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.
.
<quoted text>Climate always changes; don't panic.
.
<quoted text>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.
Sure, burning is "natural", all living creatures destroy chemicals to exist.. Poor Brain Gone, when you get to China, they'll destroy you for having no value...
Kyle

Ligonier, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25074
Apr 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The upper atmosphere is supposed to warm because of greenhouse warming, but the models are wrong.
You've read the LIE. Now read the SCIENCE:

----------

"The sky IS falling"

— gavin @ 26 November 2006

A timely perspective article in Science this week addresses the issues of upper atmosphere change.‘Upper’ atmosphere here is the stratosphere up to the ionosphere (~20 to 300 km). Laštovi&#269;ka et al point out that cooling trends are exactly as predicted by increasing greenhouse gas trends, and that the increase in density that this implies is causing various ionspheric layers to ‘fall’. This was highlighted a few years back by Jarvis et al (1998) and in New Scientist in 1999 (and I apologise for stealing their headline!).

The changes in the figure are related to the cooling seen in the lower stratospheric MSU-4 records (UAH or RSS), but the changes there (~ 15-20 km) are predominantly due to ozone depletion. The higher up one goes, the more important the CO2 related cooling is. It’s interesting to note that significant solar forcing would have exactly the opposite effect (it would cause a warming)– yet another reason to doubt that solar forcing is a significant factor in recent decades.

----------

Google any unique phrase, then follow the links to the peer-reviewed SCIENCE. Lyin' Brian's concession is accepted.
Kyle

Ligonier, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25075
Apr 11, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Does it mean man made CO2 is the cause? No, there's no experimental data.
Just proven wrong by real SCIENCE.

I accept Lyin' Brian's concession.
Kyle

Ligonier, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25076
Apr 11, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>We are part of nature, our CO2 emissions is reemission of solar powered fossil carbon fuel.
You've read the LIE. Now read the SCIENCE. Is he narrowly correct? Yes. Is it an argument for our CO2 emissions being harmless because they're "natural"? Of course not; quite the opposite:

----------

The Carboniferous Period occurred from about 360 to 286 million years ago. At the time, the land was covered with swamps filled with huge trees, ferns and other large leafy plants. The water and seas were filled with algae. Some deposits of coal were deposited during the late Cretaceous Period (90-65 million years ago), but the main deposits of fossil fuels are from the Carboniferous Period.

Most commercially important petroluem deposits formed from organic materials laid down in shallow seas during two periods approximately 160 million and 90 million years ago, each lasting several million years.

----------

If we approximate the time period over which solar energy was stored in the form of organic molecules that are now fossil fuels at 100 million years (conservative), and that we are currently releasing this energy (and converting the C to CO2 in the process) at a rate that would consume all of the original fossil fuel reserves in 1000 yrs (conservative), then we are (conservatively) releasing C into the atmosphere 100,000 times faster than it was removed.

An analogy - throughout a 70 yr lifespan, a person will receive a large dose of natural radiation from radioactive elements in nature, solar radiation, and cosmic rays. Therefore, there's no problem with subjecting a person to 14,286 times as much radiation over their lifetime or, alternatively, subjecting them to the same amount of radiation in less than 43 hours.

That's what Lyin' Brian would have you believe - if you were RETARDED enough.
Kyle

Ligonier, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25077
Apr 11, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Correction: <43 hours should have been 6 hrs, 8mins, and 10secs.
Kyle

Ligonier, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25078
Apr 11, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Kyle: "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."

Lyin' Brian: "A new carbon tax would harm our economy and insult our intelligence."

A complete non sequitur, a dodge, and a concession.
Kyle

Ligonier, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25079
Apr 11, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Kyle: "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."

Lyin' Brian: "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."

Another complete non sequitur, dodge, and concession.
Kyle

Ligonier, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25080
Apr 11, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Kyle: "All 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."

Lyin' Brian: "Climate always changes; don't panic."

.

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

Lyin' Brian: "I'll not deny +20 degree changes, or less. Climate always changes."

Two repetitions of RETARDED denier fallacious argument #1 which has been refuted several times on this thread alone. Just two more dodges; two more concessions.

Lyin' Brian: "Does it mean man made CO2 is the cause? No, there's no experimental data."

Another repetition of what has become his mantra, even thoughit's been refuted several times on this thread and even though he refuses to answer questions that reveal the patent absurdity of this 5th grade level of science understanding. Just one more dodge; one more concession.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25081
Apr 11, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

b_gone must be drinking a lot of beer and crying ...
Kiwi

Christchurch, New Zealand

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25082
Apr 11, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

THIS IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE,I WILL EXPLAIN.
SLOW DOWN AND THINK.
Its like this,Planets and moons are wound up from their primaries radiation (belts,rings)
Planets from the sun and moons from their planets.
As a planet is made it starts rotating the sun.
As a planet gets older it starts travelling further and further away from the sun as it rotates .
As a planet gets older it starts tilting its south pole toward the sun.Mercury -2 degress,Venus 3 earth 23.5 mar 25 etc.
if you want to know where earth is heading look at mars we will be rotating on mars plane one day and mars further out.Mars atmosphere at 25 degress tilt 97% co2(They must have had alot of cars on mars,NOT)GOVERNMENTS WANT MORE TAX$$$ CARBON $$$$ WAKE UP,This is the natural course of the earth,nothing more ,nothing less.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 23,761 - 23,780 of29,866
|
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.

•••
•••
•••
Minneapolis Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Minneapolis Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Minneapolis People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••