Global warming 'undeniable,' scientis...

Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say

There are 36584 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

#25191 Apr 20, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I might have abbreviated my argument, in the example above the AGW assumption is tacit. I'm sorry of gcaveman1 is confused.
WTF?! You were had. You admit to the effect while denying it. It's pointed out. You post indecipherable nonsense.

You lose.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#25192 Apr 20, 2013
You don't have to be a scientist to appreciate an experiment. Robert Andrew Millikan had a compelling demonstration for the force of one electron. Don't panic, climate always changes.
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#25193 Apr 20, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Even non scientists can see how experiments are used in science to test theories. I find the emotion driven climate fear argument worst of all; shame on politicians demagoguing climate science. They are as shameful as the public funded researchers that find a vested interest in public funds for research.
But apparently, you're not one of them, since you remain stuck on your 5th grade conception of the scientific method after endless refutations that you fail to acknowledge; after multiple request that you apply your 5th grade level of understanding equally to other scientific fields; after this failure to respond has been exposed repeatedly.

So who's demagoguing science here, LOSER?

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#25194 Apr 20, 2013
Kyle wrote:
WTF?! You were had. You admit to the effect while denying it. It's pointed out. You post indecipherable nonsense.
You lose.
I call it testing an argument by making an assumption. Even if the AGW effect is true, there's no experiment that shows there would be harm or benefit from climate change mitigation. Get real.
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#25195 Apr 20, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
You don't have to be a scientist to appreciate an experiment. Robert Andrew Millikan had a compelling demonstration for the force of one electron. Don't panic, climate always changes.
But you have to be a sentient being to acknowledge and respond to critique, eh LOSER?

A sentient being wouldn't remain stuck on a 5th grade conception of the scientific method after endless refutations, nor would it fail to acknowledge said refutations. A sentient being wouldn't ignore multiple request to apply their conception of science equally to other scientific fields even after this failure to respond has been exposed repeatedly.
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#25196 Apr 20, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I call it testing an argument by making an assumption. Even if the AGW effect is true, there's no experiment that shows there would be harm or benefit from climate change mitigation. Get real.
Uh, OK. I'll "get real" about whatever you just said as soo as you explain what it means. It appears to be a muddle of anti-logic. Explain it - clearly and logically - and I'll "get real" all over it.

Capiche, loser?
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#25197 Apr 20, 2013
Dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
We know it is not water vapor because the scientists leave that variable out of their computer models...
Further evidence that the planet may burn up from 40 additional molecules of CO2.
You just lost, LOSER. You lost because you just simultaneously showed that you know nothing about the science and exposed your disinterest in learning anything about it.

Water vapor is ALL OVER the computer models, you simpering twit!
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#25198 Apr 20, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you might have gotten confused. That's what happens you tell a lot of lies; it's hard to keep up with all of them.
Just yesterday, you admitted that sea level is rising and said on another thread that there was no proof of that. You might be confused, but there's something else. Everyone here is getting used to your new name, lyin' brian.
Indeed. One of the easiest ways for the non-scientifically minded to see the intellectual dishonesty of science deniers is to be exposed to the willingness of the many variations of denial to support each other against the science even though they are mutually exclusive. In the extreme - though by no means rare - individual science deniers support multiple, mutually exclusive, contradictory anti-science positions. They sometimes do so in the same paragraph.

This is dogmatic rejection of reality. It is PRECISELY the same phenomenon that one sees among 9-11 conspiracy theorists, moon landing hoaxers, Obama birthers, and most any conspiracy theory one can name.

This is not a coincidence. Science denial, whether it be creationism, climate denial, relativity denial, plate techtonics denial, heliocentrism denial, round earth denial, or rejection of any other scientific field or conclusion, IS conspiracism. They're just a subset of conspiracy theories.

And as with all CT'ists, science deniers are immune to rational discourse. I truly believe that it is a symptom of a particular type of brain "wiring".
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#25199 Apr 20, 2013
Where did you go, Lyin' Brian? I suppose you'll lie low for a while and then come back repeating your idiocies as if never refuted. Got to, right? I mean, it's your job, isn't it?

If it is your job, I again suggest that you get with your bosses because you're not helping your cause by being so blatantly non-responsive to criticisms.

If it's not your job, I suggest that you seek mental help. Whatever pathology leads you to such adamant and unending use of fallacies and lies cannot be healthy.
Dont drink the koolaid

Eden Prairie, MN

#25200 Apr 20, 2013
Kyle wrote:
<quoted text>
You just lost, LOSER. You lost because you just simultaneously showed that you know nothing about the science and exposed your disinterest in learning anything about it.
Water vapor is ALL OVER the computer models, you simpering twit!
CO2 is the main 'variable' that drives AGW. Water vapor is represented as a "Positive Feedback" in the climate models. We appear to be debating Cause and Effect v Effect and Cause... as usual.

Post Script:
We are all losers if James Hansen, Phil Jones, Kevin Trenberth, and Mike Mann don't find a way to remove 40 molecules of Carbon Dioxide poison from the other 999,960 molecules in our atmosphere.
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#25201 Apr 20, 2013
We debate nothing, you're a bagger mor-on....
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#25202 Apr 20, 2013
Recall that Lyin' Brian lied about the fact that rising CO2 cools the stratosphere. Even the deniers' favorite guy to quote - the tragically misguided Freeman Dyson, states that the cooling of the stratosphere is the most obvious and easiest to measure results of CO2 increases.

Just watch the first few seconds of the youtube video :

Freeman Dyson on Global Warming 2of2 Stratospheric Cooling

LOSER LOSES AGAIN.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#25203 Apr 20, 2013
Kyle wrote:
<quoted text>
You just lost, LOSER. You lost because you just simultaneously showed that you know nothing about the science and exposed your disinterest in learning anything about it.
Water vapor is ALL OVER the computer models, you simpering twit!
It's like Chinese wispers.

Starts as clouds aren't in the models, and ends up as water vapour isn't.

Another idiot recently claimed it hadn't warmed for 15 years.

Probably heard there hadn't been statistically significant warming for 15 years and thought it meant the same thing.
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#25204 Apr 20, 2013
Dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
CO2 is the main 'variable' that drives AGW. Water vapor is represented as a "Positive Feedback" in the climate models. We appear to be debating Cause and Effect v Effect and Cause... as usual.
Post Script:
We are all losers if James Hansen, Phil Jones, Kevin Trenberth, and Mike Mann don't find a way to remove 40 molecules of Carbon Dioxide poison from the other 999,960 molecules in our atmosphere.
Your BS doesn't make sense. Try again. State your argument clearly and completely. I pretty much know what denier arguments you;re alluding to but merely alluding to them is a dishonest denier tactic to make it harder to fillet their pitiful arguments.
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#25205 Apr 20, 2013
Dont drink the koolaid wrote:

"We know it is not water vapor because the scientists leave that variable out of their computer models..."

THEN, Dont drink the koolaid wrote:

"Water vapor is represented as a "Positive Feedback" in the climate models."

The above are 100% contradictory; an indication of lying to anyone with any sense.

Science denier then wrote:

"We appear to be debating Cause and Effect v Effect and Cause... as usual."

Which is precisely what I explained previously when I showed - to anyone with any sense - that water vapor can ONLY be a dependent variable.

I accept your concession.

And finally, dishonest, illogical science dienier wrote:

"... find a way to remove 40 molecules of Carbon Dioxide poison from the other 999,960 molecules in our atmosphere."

Which is meant for the mentally challenged denier base that STILL hasn't grasped how RETARDED the argument is to ignore a 41% increase (soon to be 100%) of the primary GHG while throwing out rthe red herring - WITHOUT ANY LOGICAL ARGUMENT - that it is small compared to the IRRELEVANT non-GHG's.

One way to know that science deniers lack good arguments is their very heavy rotation of insanely poor arguments such as these.

Thanks for playing, LOSER.
Dont drink the koolaid

Eden Prairie, MN

#25206 Apr 20, 2013
Kyle wrote:
<quoted text> Try again. State your argument clearly and completely..
Hope this completely.clarifies (that means 'make clear') the argument: It is time for Dr. James Hansen, lead scientist of NASA's GISS (retired), to save the planet from The CO2 Caused Catastrophic Climate Change Crisis by doing what every science academy in the world recommends:
Subtract 40 molecules of CO2 from the rest of the 999,960 remaining molecules of air.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#25207 Apr 20, 2013
Kyle wrote:
But you have to be a sentient being to acknowledge and respond to critique, eh LOSER?
You get to choose how to respond or not respond. Human freedom trumps insults, you have the power to be amused instead of offended when insulted. Get a grip on rationality; ad hominem arguments are fallacies.

.
Kyle wrote:
A sentient being wouldn't remain stuck on a 5th grade conception of the scientific method after endless refutations, nor would it fail to acknowledge said refutations.
There's never been a field experiment of climate change mitigation published in a peer reviewed journal; that's not a refuted fact. We all agree, we've even seen lab experiments that demonstrate the warming effect of CO2 far lower than the IPCC's best guesses.

.
Kyle wrote:
A sentient being wouldn't ignore multiple request to apply their conception of science equally to other scientific fields even after this failure to respond has been exposed repeatedly.
Here's where we differ, sentience isn't enough. I feel Kyle's fear of man made global warming and understand his perception of proof, his faith. That's not the ability to reason, sentience is the ability to feel; global warming alarmism is irrational.
Bushwacker

Seattle, WA

#25208 Apr 20, 2013
Blathering BS, by the spammer/child....
Bushwacker

Seattle, WA

#25209 Apr 20, 2013
Endless repetition of utterly destroyed nonsense argument = just another concession. You have no shame. Apparently, you also have no idea what effect you're having on your cause, either.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#25210 Apr 20, 2013
drink the kkk-aid wrote:
CO2 is the main 'variable' that drives AGW. Water vapor is represented as a "Positive Feedback" in the climate models.
More precisely, descriptively & accurately:

Increasing man-made GHGs, infra-red energy absorbing, non-phase change CO2, methane, nitrogen oxides, SF6, etc. control average, atmospheric amounts of GHG, infra-red energy absorbing, phase change water vapor.

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
Dont watch the oscars 7 hr Waikiki ripoff 4
Liberals sinking further into insanity 19 hr LIbErals 23
What does " bigly" mean Sat Co-pilot 9
President orange caveman Sat Co-pilot 5
Little boy blue nowhere to be found Sat Space ace 1
Keith ellison communist scum qualifications Sat Space ace 1
News Why Liberal Policies Are Terrible For Young People Sat Texxy the Selfie Cat 1

Minneapolis Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Minneapolis Mortgages