Global warming 'undeniable,' scientis...

Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say

There are 34463 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.

Bushwacker

Seattle, WA

#25224 Apr 21, 2013
Poor Brain Gone, welfare right winger....

You seem to love telling folks you want an experiment...DO IT, nanny state LOSER !!!

No, you're expressing an opinion and saying lack of proof is proof, while we have observable data and you have nothing.

Nothing you present poorly, at that.
Bushwacked

Saint Paul, MN

#25225 Apr 21, 2013
Bushwacker wrote:
Poor Brain Gone, welfare right winger....
You seem to love telling folks you want an experiment...DO IT, nanny state LOSER !!!
No, you're expressing an opinion and saying lack of proof is proof, while we have observable data and you have nothing.
Nothing you present poorly, at that.
Gay Slewsie speaks. And everyone laughs at her.

“Come Home America!”

Since: Nov 11

Claymont, Delaware 19809

#25226 Apr 21, 2013
www.yidio.com/movie/Carbon-Nation “Desertification is a fancy word for land that is turning to desert,” begins Allan Savory in this quietly powerful talk. And it's happening to about two-thirds of the world’s grasslands, accelerating climate change and causing traditional grazing societies to descend into social chaos. Savory has devoted his life to stopping it. He now believes -- and his work so far shows -- that a surprising factor can protect grasslands and even reclaim degraded land that was once desert. " http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_...
Bushwacker

Seattle, WA

#25227 Apr 21, 2013
You wish I were gay, BOTTOM !!!

Might be time to "tip" them to this nut-so ! LMAOROFU~! Geez, what a complete loser POS....

No thanks, you made up a story and you're not man enough to STFU !!!
Bushwacked

Saint Paul, MN

#25228 Apr 21, 2013
Gay Slewsie needs to take more meds.
Kyle

United States

#25229 Apr 21, 2013
Dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
Assuming the current level of atmospheric CO2 is 390ppm how many molecules did man put into the air... 4, 14, perhaps 40? More than that?
-koolaid
I believe current level is 393. Absent human activity, it would be ~280. 393 - 280 = 113.

And your point (besides the one on your head) is ...?
Kyle

Knox, IN

#25230 Apr 21, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
40% gramps.
.4x390=156ppm.
41% increase from the 280 baseline = 113ppm
Kyle

Knox, IN

#25231 Apr 21, 2013
Dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Try again, denier scum. Explain the significance - and appropriateness - of comparing 40 with a million instead of 113 with 280. Make it make sense. This should be good ;o)

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#25232 Apr 21, 2013
Kyle wrote:
<quoted text>
41% increase from the 280 baseline = 113ppm
You're right. It's a 40% increase, not 40% of the total.
Kyle

Knox, IN

#25233 Apr 21, 2013
[QUOTE who="Lyin' Brian"]<quoted text>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.[/QUOTE]

Look up ad hominem, you twit; I already explained it to you once. Insults are NOT ad hominem arguments. I make logical arguments; you're the master of the fallacy - repeated endlessly after being revealed as fallacies.

[QUOTE who="Lyin' Brian"]<quoted text>There's never been a field experiment of climate change mitigation published in a peer reviewed journal; that's not a refuted fact.[/QUOTE]

I'm tired of your evasions while repeating this nonsense. I repeat - Here's an experiment that fits the bill:

Drastically reduce human CO2 production for several decades and then wait for the response. That is an appropriate magnitude of change and appropriate time scale. Since you keep bitching endlessly that we haven't done that yet, do I have your support in doing so now?

Hmmm?

[QUOTE who="Lyin' Brian"]<quoted text> We all agree, we've even seen lab experiments that demonstrate the warming effect of CO2 far lower than the IPCC's best guesses.[/QUOTE]

BS. I don't agree to that. I'm sure you willfully misinterpret something that way. I'm also sure that you'd LOVE to derail the conversation onto that instead of you recent implosions. Like this one:

Please respond to the fact that denier hero Freeman Dyson said that the most obvious sign of GHG warming is the COOLING of the stratosphere when you claimed that increased GHG's would warm it.

DON'T BE A EFFIN' WEASEL, LOSER.
Kyle

Knox, IN

#25234 Apr 21, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
We can't mitigate climate change; if we could there would be a demonstration showing a man made global climate change. Don't buy a pig in a poke.
As explained multiple times, this demonstration would necessarily be exactly what you don't want to do - drastically reduce human CO2 emissions for decades.

Explain yourself, weasel. Do you want to do the experiment or not? If you don't want to do it, then you don't get to bitch about it not being done.

Capeche?

RETARD!
Dont drink the koolaid

Minneapolis, MN

#25235 Apr 21, 2013
Kyle wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe current level is 393. Absent human activity, it would be ~280. 393 - 280 = 113.
And your point (besides the one on your head) is ...?
How much of that CO2 should be removed so the Earth will no longer be at risk from Catastrophic Climate Change?
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#25237 Apr 21, 2013
Guy's a spamming fool wasting your time....
gcaveman1

Laurel, MS

#25238 Apr 21, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
An atmospheric experiment testing man's CO2 emissions on overall atmospheric composition. Either add or remove a known amount of greenhouse gas then measure a change in global climate temperature or even merely atmospheric composition. That would be a start.
What have you got? What's the most compelling experiment you've found for climate change mitigation?
I'll repeat again, you unmitigated idiot; the experiment has been ongoing for many, many years.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#25239 Apr 21, 2013
Important to repeat .. Firms 'own unburnable fossil fuels'...
... there is a danger of a carbon "bubble."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment...

Everywhere the plume went, the die-off went," Hollander said.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/environment/wate ...

In some areas where the die-off occurred, he said, the tiny creatures came back, but in others the bottom remains bare. Meanwhile, some of the burrowing kind are digging down into the contaminated sediment — and stirring it up all over again.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#25240 Apr 22, 2013
Kyle wrote:
... Here's an experiment that fits the bill:
Drastically reduce human CO2 production for several decades and then wait for the response. That is an appropriate magnitude of change and appropriate time scale. Since you keep bitching endlessly that we haven't done that yet, do I have your support in doing so now? Hmmm?....
No, I'll be in the control group that emits CO2 ad lib. I don't consent to your unprecedented, novel experiment. I don't consent to reducing human CO2 emissions because once a human stops emitting CO2 he dies.

Try again.
Bushwacker

Seattle, WA

#25241 Apr 22, 2013
Poor Brain Gone, welfare right winger....

You seem to love telling folks you want an experiment...DO IT, nanny state LOSER !!!

No, you're expressing an opinion and saying lack of proof is proof, while we have observable data and you have nothing.

Nothing you present poorly, at that.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#25242 Apr 22, 2013
[QUOTE who="lyin' brian"] I'll be in the control group that emits CO2......[/QUOTE]

To save money, "lyin' brian" needs to also be the control group breathing the entire emission products that produce CO2....... & CO..... & nitrogen oxide products...... & soot particles......

Oh, yeah....... we should remove the catalytic converter, since he wants to reduce production costs.

I'll even let "lyin' brian" drink the water vapor product ....... as long as "lyin' brian" drinks it directly from the tailpipe. I'll let "lyin' brian" cool the water first. We don't want "lyin' brian" to burn its lips, like "lyin' brian" burns his finger tips, typing its lies.

'
Kyle

Kendallville, IN

#25243 Apr 22, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>No, I'll be in the control group that emits CO2 ad lib. I don't consent to your unprecedented, novel experiment. I don't consent to reducing human CO2 emissions because once a human stops emitting CO2 he dies.
Try again.
Every time you dodge like this and lead us around in a circle, you just illustrate more clearly what a deceptive weasel you are. Let’s list how many ways the above is BS and non-responsive, shall we?:

1) There can’t be a control group on a planetary scale. When I pointed this out BEFORE, you said that we didn’t need another Earth, just do it on the one we have. Therefore, your control group BS is both stupid and contradicts your earlier statements.
2) It has been shown conclusively that we are performing an experiment – the inverse of the one that you insist we must have while simultaneously insisting we should not.
3) You’re still using the RTARDED 5th grade conception of what makes for valid scientific observation – because to deal with it being refuted would be to implode.
4) You’re still ignoring the clear impact of your RETARDED 5th grade conception on several other scientific fields – because to engage on it would be to implode.
5) You’re perfectly willing to look RETARDED by conflating reduction with elimination – as denier scum will do to avoid reality.
6) You’re perfectly willing to look RETARDED by spouting non sequitur BS about exhaling CO2 – as this particular denier scum often does to avoid reality.

Nothing but a miserable implosion, Lyin’ Brian. So miserable, so deceptive, and so non-responsive as to represent another clear concession.

Now, tell us how you square your claim the GH theory says that the stratosphere should warm when I linked to denier hero Freeman Dyson saying that stratospheric cooling is the most obvious evidence for GH warming.

Do it now or concede that you’re a weasel.
Kyle

Kendallville, IN

#25244 Apr 22, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>No, I'll be in the control group that emits CO2 ad lib. I don't consent to your unprecedented, novel experiment. I don't consent to reducing human CO2 emissions because once a human stops emitting CO2 he dies.
Try again.
Here I am, trying again as you asked:

Now, tell us how you square your claim the GH theory says that the stratosphere should warm when I linked to denier hero Freeman Dyson saying that stratospheric cooling is the most obvious evidence for GH warming.

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
News State Fair gate closes as Black Lives Matter pr... 9 hr LIbEralS 3
Amazing 4 blacks IDed on race 19 hr Gerry 9
Gayism the mental illness 19 hr Wrong 2
Black Lies Matter to Disrupt State Fair! 20 hr Wrong 63
Team Obama behind IRS Scandal (May '13) Fri LIbErals 115
News St. Paul man convicted of stabbing wife 64 time... (Apr '11) Fri dGo mdDaen lyHo i... 21
Hillary should pay for Benghazi (Apr '14) Fri Normal is OK 51
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Minneapolis Mortgages