Global warming 'undeniable,' scientis...

Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say

There are 35607 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.

Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#25965 May 22, 2013
All I want from you is the experiment, Brain Gone to bubbles....

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#25966 May 22, 2013
Bushwhacker wrote:
All I want from you is the experiment, Brain Gone to bubbles....
Sit by the ocean shore and listen to the hiss as the waves lap onto the warm beach and dissolved gas bubbles out.
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#25967 May 22, 2013
Do the experiment, then ask other folks to run around for you....
SpaceBlues

United States

#25968 May 23, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>fail.LOL
Yes, you fail to produce evidence.
SpaceBlues

United States

#25969 May 23, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>"nonrite"?? you're starting to look as pathetic as the bushwhacker and litesong.....not that you were far ahead of them in the first place.
A lot of noise you produce to cover up your failure to produce evidence!
SpaceBlues

United States

#25970 May 23, 2013
DCA-CAPITAL wrote:
Popcorn in hand :)
Oh left over popcorn .. from your fossil fuel troll class for topix.

P.S. A fresh graduate. LOL.
SpaceBlues

United States

#25971 May 23, 2013
It appears bonds are made at Popcorn Flowing fossil fuel troll class for topix.
SpaceBlues

United States

#25972 May 23, 2013
From - http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/02402...

The public perception of a scientific consensus on AGW is a necessary element in public support for climate policy (Ding et al2011). However, there is a significant gap between public perception and reality, with 57% of the US public either disagreeing or unaware that scientists overwhelmingly agree that the earth is warming due to human activity (Pew 2012).

Contributing to this 'consensus gap' are campaigns designed to confuse the public about the level of agreement among climate scientists. In 1991, Western Fuels Association conducted a $510,000 campaign whose primary goal was to 'reposition global warming as theory (not fact)'. A key strategy involved constructing the impression of active scientific debate using dissenting scientists as spokesmen (Oreskes 2010). The situation is exacerbated by media treatment of the climate issue, where the normative practice of providing opposing sides with equal attention has allowed a vocal minority to have their views amplified (Boykoff and Boykoff 2004). While there are indications that the situation has improved in the UK and USA prestige press (Boykoff 2007), the UK tabloid press showed no indication of improvement from 2000 to 2006 (Boykoff and Mansfield 2008).

The narrative presented by some dissenters is that the scientific consensus is '...on the point of collapse'(Oddie 2012) while '...the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year'(Allègre et al2012). A systematic, comprehensive review of the literature provides quantitative evidence countering this assertion. The number of papers rejecting AGW is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.
Kyle

Ligonier, IN

#25973 May 23, 2013
Livin Woodbury wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the college material mis-information; the planet has cooled during that time frame.
There's a good example of why you're called deniers. You don't like the data - you just deny it. How convenient.

“Come Home America!”

Since: Nov 11

Claymont, Delaware 19809

#25974 May 23, 2013
YES!!!! New energy secretary Ernest Moniz said he doesn't want to spend time arguing with climate change skeptics.

"Let me make it very clear that there is no ambiguity in terms of the scientific basis calling for a prudent response on climate change," Moniz said in a speech to energy department employees. He looks forward to advancing the administration's goals on climate."

http://politix.topix.com/homepage/6179-new-en...

“Come Home America!”

Since: Nov 11

Claymont, Delaware 19809

#25975 May 23, 2013
YES!!!! I'll let the leading scientific expert on climate change , NASA scientist Dr. James Hansen , speak . "Supporting his "moral obligation" to step up to the fight now, Hansen adds in the Times article that burning a substantial fraction of Earth's fossil fuels guarantees "unstoppable changes" in the planet's climate, leaving an unfixable problem for future generations." Check this out: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm ...

“Come Home America!”

Since: Nov 11

Claymont, Delaware 19809

#25976 May 23, 2013
It was under the President Ronald Reagan when the United States entered into an international agreement to ban the use of ozone-depleting industrial aerosols. Check this out: http://www.climateconservative.org/Timelineof...
President Reagan called the Montreal Protocol a 'monumental achievement", so why is it so difficult for today's republicans to agree with President Obama that a new international climate change treaty is crucial to the future of our country and planet too?

“Come Home America!”

Since: Nov 11

Claymont, Delaware 19809

#25977 May 23, 2013
President Carter warned us of the consequences of not having a National Energy Policy two weeks into his first Administration. And Carter is still right today. http://youtu.be/MmlcLNA8Zhc
Kyle

Ligonier, IN

#25978 May 23, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
BTW, CO2 in the oceans feed plankton, this is necessary to sustain life as we know it on Earth.
And H2O is necessary to sustain your life. So by your "logic" you should be immersed in it; it's good for you!

Note that you've made this grossly irrational argument so many times - and I've personally debunked it at least one other time - that your continued use of it can ONLY be characterized as DISHONEST. If you had good arguments, you wouldn't use retarded ones that have already been revealed as such.

YOUR CONCESSION IS AGAIN ACCEPTED.
Kyle

Ligonier, IN

#25979 May 23, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>I'd be willing to speculate that your only 'scientific' interest is political science. Let's face it......that's why most of you alarmists are here. That is to promote more government authority over the people and business because it somehow seems your life will be better for it. Nothing could be further from the truth, but that's beside the point.
Most of you only read what you're fed from the science skeptic blogster.....you really could care less about facts and science.
Nice dodge, a-hole. Deal with your error. Admit you're wrong. The solubility of gasses in water does decrease with increasing temperatures, but that only releases CO2 if at the saturation point.

1) We are not at the saturation point.
2) We aren't because the ocean is chemically active. This includes organic chemistry.
3) Science has determined that ~1/3 of the anthropogenic CO2 contribution has been absorbed into the oceans.
4) Measurements of relative concentrations of ions support the numbers.
5) You just took a FACTOID and a faulty assumption, ignored ALL of the science, and boldly made a BS claim merely because it supported your conclusion.

Be a man and admit it, you steaming heap of excrement.
Dont drink the koolaid

Minneapolis, MN

#25980 May 23, 2013
Kyle wrote:
<quoted text> And H2O is necessary to sustain your life. So by your "logic" you should be immersed in it; it's good for you!
Note that you've made this grossly irrational argument so many times - and I've personally debunked it at least one other time - that your continued use of it can ONLY be characterized as DISHONEST. If you had good arguments, you wouldn't use retarded ones that have already been revealed as such.
YOUR CONCESSION IS AGAIN ACCEPTED.
"Note that you've made this grossly irrational argument so many times - and I've personally debunked it at least one other time - that your continued use of it can ONLY be characterized as DISHONEST. If you had good arguments, you wouldn't use retarded ones that have already been revealed as such."
SpaceBlues

United States

#25981 May 23, 2013
Deniers are liars. They are trained to offend others, misrepresent, and twist facts.

They ignore the offenses of their ilk. Hypocrites.
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#25982 May 23, 2013
Dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
"Note that you've made this grossly irrational argument so many times - and I've personally debunked it at least one other time - that your continued use of it can ONLY be characterized as DISHONEST. If you had good arguments, you wouldn't use retarded ones that have already been revealed as such."
Poor Schmahl, go "rape your blow up doll", as you bragged/confessed.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#25983 May 23, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
From - http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/02402...
The public perception of a scientific consensus on AGW is a necessary element in public support for climate policy (Ding et al2011). However, there is a significant gap between public perception and reality, with 57% of the US public either disagreeing or unaware that scientists overwhelmingly agree that the earth is warming due to human activity (Pew 2012).
Contributing to this 'consensus gap' are campaigns designed to confuse the public about the level of agreement among climate scientists. In 1991, Western Fuels Association conducted a $510,000 campaign whose primary goal was to 'reposition global warming as theory (not fact)'. A key strategy involved constructing the impression of active scientific debate using dissenting scientists as spokesmen (Oreskes 2010). The situation is exacerbated by media treatment of the climate issue, where the normative practice of providing opposing sides with equal attention has allowed a vocal minority to have their views amplified (Boykoff and Boykoff 2004). While there are indications that the situation has improved in the UK and USA prestige press (Boykoff 2007), the UK tabloid press showed no indication of improvement from 2000 to 2006 (Boykoff and Mansfield 2008).
The narrative presented by some dissenters is that the scientific consensus is '...on the point of collapse'(Oddie 2012) while '...the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year'(Allègre et al2012). A systematic, comprehensive review of the literature provides quantitative evidence countering this assertion. The number of papers rejecting AGW is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.
your 97% figure has been debunked. too bad idiots like you don't bother reading the "fine print". brown shirts just do what they're told.....some things never change. EXCEPT CLIMATE!

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#25984 May 23, 2013
Kyle wrote:
<quoted text> Nice dodge, a-hole. Deal with your error. Admit you're wrong. The solubility of gasses in water does decrease with increasing temperatures, but that only releases CO2 if at the saturation point.
1) We are not at the saturation point.
2) We aren't because the ocean is chemically active. This includes organic chemistry.
3) Science has determined that ~1/3 of the anthropogenic CO2 contribution has been absorbed into the oceans.
4) Measurements of relative concentrations of ions support the numbers.
5) You just took a FACTOID and a faulty assumption, ignored ALL of the science, and boldly made a BS claim merely because it supported your conclusion.
Be a man and admit it, you steaming heap of excrement.
Kyle, have you been drinking more than usual? That could explain your apparent confusion.

What are you claiming I dodged?

What are you claiming I said?

Admit to what?

Kyle, what are you talking about?

I'm concerned for you!

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
Drop one word....add one word game (Apr '14) 5 hr Chanta53 637
BLM urge rioting over OSU SHOOTING Fri LIbEralS 39
News Couple Charged In Fatal Shooting In North Minne... Fri Hunter 20
Obama & BLM mourn monstor Fidel Castro Dec 7 Trump worst presi... 71
Child sex ring>Pizzagate>Clinton's>Obama's>FBI ... Dec 7 Trump worst presi... 2
California Dems Block Gang Member Database Dec 6 TAAM 1
Get Over It! Dec 3 Evil Roy Slade 10

Minneapolis Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Minneapolis Mortgages