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 1,231)

Showing posts 24,601 - 24,620 of29,880
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25970
May 23, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

3

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

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25971
May 23, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

It appears bonds are made at Popcorn Flowing fossil fuel troll class for topix.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25972
May 23, 2013
 

Judged:

7

4

4

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25973
May 23, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25974
May 23, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25975
May 23, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25976
May 23, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25977
May 23, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25978
May 23, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25979
May 23, 2013
 

Judged:

4

2

2

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

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25980
May 23, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

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

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25981
May 23, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Deniers are liars. They are trained to offend others, misrepresent, and twist facts.

They ignore the offenses of their ilk. Hypocrites.
Bushwhacker

Kent, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25982
May 23, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

3

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.

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25983
May 23, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

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!

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25984
May 23, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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!

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25985
May 23, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

frontporchreactionary wrote:
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?
wtf?!?! you people are hysterical!! LOL

republicans went along with democratic presidents to go to war against germany, japan, korea, viet-nam....and democrats thought it was a good idea to go along with bush on iraq.....right?????

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25986
May 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

frontporchreactionary wrote:
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...
I like Ernie! He's a droll and quirky guy....but he is a smart fellow. He has a talent for bringing people together with different thoughts of view (maybe he can give Obama some lessons?)
Anyway....he should do a good job as Sect. of E! I'm confident he'll do a good job in my area of interest. I also like the fact that he knows what to say and how to say it when. He's all about efficiency!! Which is really what's most important to a prosperous economy.

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25987
May 23, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, you fail to produce evidence.
producing evidence is the burden of those who want to prove THEIR theory, son?

your evidence has been shaky, inconclusive, and doesn't prove the outcomes of your predictions. sorry :-/

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25988
May 23, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

SpaceBlues wrote:
Deniers are liars. They are trained to offend others, misrepresent, and twist facts.
They ignore the offenses of their ilk. Hypocrites.
LOL!!

you're so twisted in denial that your pseudoscience isn't close to being taken seriously. sorry if i sound offensive.....i just reject your faith in unfounded studies.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25989
May 23, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>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!
Science is not discussed as an opinion piece. You fail without evidence.

I read the whole study. No, you are wrong.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 24,601 - 24,620 of29,880
|
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.

20 Users are viewing the Minneapolis Forum right now

Search the Minneapolis Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Affordable Care Act (Oct '13) 1 hr LIbEralS 350
Koch Brothers Net Worth Tops $100 Billion as TV... 3 hr goose 6
For a good, cheaper cigar, head to Wisconsin; M... 11 hr Brown fingers and teeth 60
Minneapolis Public Schools aims for new level o... 11 hr redeemer 1
The 1% Should Pay Their Fair Share in Taxes 12 hr redeemer 12
Will Michelle DUMP Barak 12 hr Judy 19
CBO Estimates U.S. Deficit Will Shrink More Tha... 13 hr redeemer 3
•••
•••
•••
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 ]
•••