Global warming 'undeniable,' scientis...

Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say

There are 37289 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.

EXPERT

United States

#28625 Aug 4, 2013
Kyle wrote:
OK, denier scum. You regulars need to address the refutations of your BS in your very next posts. No repetitions of the BS without acknowledging them. Anything less is tantamount to an admission that the facts aren't on your side and you're engaged in willful ignorance.
Deniers routinely deny any of the science, even when doing so is self contradictory. You scumbags are no exceptions. Sometimes you claim non GHG causation. You might address the patterns of warming that only the greenhouse effect can explain - four different patterns.
The above mentioned patterns have compounding effects, resulting in a 10.7deg mid-winter increase at a Canadian Arctic weather station. Pretty effing hard to get that by subtle data manipulation. Explain how the sun (even if it's output were rising) would selectively warm most somewhere when the sun never rises.
Other times you claim it's not warming. Usually by invoking the laughable global conspiracy theory. See above. See Muller's Koch brothers sponsored meta study of temperature records that found MORE warming when the corrected data from problematic weather stations were omitted. See the short term, highly reliable temperature data that showed 1998 to be the warmest on record at the time, only to be eclipsed twice since then. See the precise, far less noisy, ocean temperature data that shows a massive recent increase down to hundreds of feet deep that represents 93.4% of the total global heat gain.
You know, just ANYTHING that's actually a fact based and rational argument.
Or just STFU and stop embarrassing yourselves. I'd suggest that you might admit your errors and accept the objective facts, but monkeys will fly out of your butt before you'll develop that level of intellectual integrity.
Let's dance...

So is your position that the Earth is fine tuned to support life and if the climate average increases then life will not be able to adapt to that change?

Or do you hold the position that natural selection, random mutations and adaptation determine the evolution of life?
The Integral

Hilo, HI

#28627 Aug 4, 2013
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's dance...
So is your position that the Earth is fine tuned to support life and if the climate average increases then life will not be able to adapt to that change?
Or do you hold the position that natural selection, random mutations and adaptation determine the evolution of life?
Extinction is actually a natural and common phenomenon – of the roughly 4 billion species estimated to have evolved on Earth, some 99% are gone. In the past, the extinction rate has been balanced by the evolution of new species, but the current, human-caused extinction is happening so fast that evolution cannot keep pace. Barnosky estimates that the current rate is 1,000 times the natural rate, putting it easily on a par with the so-called “big 5” mass extinction events.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v471/n73...
Kyle

Columbia City, IN

#28628 Aug 4, 2013
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's dance...
So is your position that the Earth is fine tuned to support life and if the climate average increases then life will not be able to adapt to that change?
Or do you hold the position that natural selection, random mutations and adaptation determine the evolution of life?
Yes, let's dance, simpleton. My position is that your infantile false dichotomy makes you an EXPERT in making sophomoric, fallacious arguments. You may be that stupid but I'm certainly not.
Kyle

Columbia City, IN

#28630 Aug 4, 2013
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's dance...
So is your position that the Earth is fine tuned to support life and if the climate average increases then life will not be able to adapt to that change?
Or do you hold the position that natural selection, random mutations and adaptation determine the evolution of life?
Your turn to do a jig, fnugget. Is your position that if anything survives anywhere, life will be just hunky dory? Do you think that CO2 concentration rising 100+ times faster than any time in the 800,000 yr historical record, desertification of crop lands, inundation of land currently supporting 100's of miilions, the death of the fish nurseries in dissolved corral reefs and drowned mangrove forests, all in mere decades, will be so smoothly compensated by hyper-evolution that 7+ billion will continue to live and eat without a major hitch? Hmmm?
Angered American

Rochester, MN

#28631 Aug 4, 2013
Global warming? LOL!!!
SpaceBlues

United States

#28632 Aug 4, 2013
Angered American wrote:
Global warming? LOL!!!
What's so funny?

That "current extinction rates are higher than would be expected from the fossil record?"[ibid]
Angered American

Rochester, MN

#28633 Aug 4, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>What's so funny?
That "current extinction rates are higher than would be expected from the fossil record?"[ibid]
only and I mean only "The Victim Culture" by into this Global Warming.

its the same folks that sold their soles for The Next Ice Age theory in the mid 1980's
Kyle

Columbia City, IN

#28634 Aug 4, 2013
Angered American wrote:
<quoted text>only and I mean only "The Victim Culture" by into this Global Warming.
Not only. You forgot about those who understand science, the scientific method, and aren't lunatic conspiracy theorists.
Angered American wrote:
<quoted text>its the same folks that sold their soles for The Next Ice Age theory in the mid 1980's
BINGO!

This is so effin' repetitive. Listen up ftard, because this has been covered endlessly:

* It was NOT the same people, and ...

*... even if it were, they would be correcting their positions based upon the latest data, which is a good thing. It's what scientists do - while dogmatic thinkers like you deny, deny, deny.

* There was no scientific consensus; there was a couple of popular media pieces.

* The climate science literature at the time had many papers concluding GW for every one speculating about POTENTIAL cooling.

* The science of GW is very old - as in 150 yrs old. It has advanced, slowly at first, but exponentially later. The first POTUS briefed on the matter was Eisenhower. The pop culture ice age story came and went in a flash.
Kyle

Columbia City, IN

#28635 Aug 4, 2013
Angered American wrote:
Global warming? LOL!!!
Dunning-Krueger conspiracy theorist science denier? ROTFLMAO!!!
Kyle

Columbia City, IN

#28636 Aug 4, 2013
The Integral wrote:
<quoted text>
Now I know where the climate change deniers get their information. Global Depot. What a bunch of biased articles. Rancourt is a tenured professor that was kicked off of the campus. He also believes that ozone depletion was a hoax. What a nut case.
I watched that entire video. Here's a brief analyis:

100% bare assertions without any supporting argument whatsoever, including many dismissals of the science as a (laughably improbable) conspiracy theory.

0% scientific arguments; not one data point; not so much as a passing reference to a single argument for why a single finding of climate science is wrong.

In summary, it's political polemics from a guy who happens to be a scientist. It's about as close to being science as my s#*t is to being chocolate pudding.

You denier scum are such hopeless buffoons. Can't you produce anything remotely rational? And if not, why don't you STFU?
SpaceBlues

United States

#28637 Aug 4, 2013
Kyle, a clarification for you, "The Integral" is not a denier.
Angered American

Rochester, MN

#28638 Aug 4, 2013
Oh look folks the little indoctrinated Obama loons from the far left are out spoon feeding their tax and regulate agenda once again.

Sorry Millions arent buying what they are selling.
EXPERT

United States

#28639 Aug 4, 2013
Kyle wrote:
<quoted text>Your turn to do a jig, fnugget. Is your position that if anything survives anywhere, life will be just hunky dory? Do you think that CO2 concentration rising 100+ times faster than any time in the 800,000 yr historical record, desertification of crop lands, inundation of land currently supporting 100's of miilions, the death of the fish nurseries in dissolved corral reefs and drowned mangrove forests, all in mere decades, will be so smoothly compensated by hyper-evolution that 7+ billion will continue to live and eat without a major hitch? Hmmm?
I understand that you are ignorant, but really? There are no 'Historical' records that date back that far.

What a tool.
EXPERT

United States

#28640 Aug 4, 2013
Kyle wrote:
<quoted text>
Not only. You forgot about those who understand science, the scientific method, and aren't lunatic conspiracy theorists.
<quoted text>
BINGO!
This is so effin' repetitive. Listen up ftard, because this has been covered endlessly:
* It was NOT the same people, and ...
*... even if it were, they would be correcting their positions based upon the latest data, which is a good thing. It's what scientists do - while dogmatic thinkers like you deny, deny, deny.
* There was no scientific consensus; there was a couple of popular media pieces.
* The climate science literature at the time had many papers concluding GW for every one speculating about POTENTIAL cooling.
* The science of GW is very old - as in 150 yrs old. It has advanced, slowly at first, but exponentially later. The first POTUS briefed on the matter was Eisenhower. The pop culture ice age story came and went in a flash.
Here's a brief analyis:

100% bare assertions without any supporting argument whatsoever, including many dismissals of the science as a (laughably improbable) conspiracy theory.

0% scientific arguments; not one data point; not so much as a passing reference to a single argument for why a single finding of climate science is correct.
Kyle

Columbia City, IN

#28641 Aug 4, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Kyle, a clarification for you, "The Integral" is not a denier.
Indeed. I merely quoted from one of his posts.
SpaceBlues

United States

#28642 Aug 4, 2013
Angered American wrote:
<quoted text>
only and I mean only "The Victim Culture" by[sic] into this Global Warming.
its[sic] the same folks that sold their soles[sic] for The Next Ice Age theory in the mid 1980's
Good grief.

What's the "victim culture?" Was Kissinger in it?

What did you do since the mid eighties? You sound like a couch potato.
Kyle

Columbia City, IN

#28643 Aug 4, 2013
Angered American wrote:
Oh look folks the little indoctrinated Obama loons from the far left are out spoon feeding their tax and regulate agenda once again.
Sorry Millions arent buying what they are selling.
Oh look, another Dunning-Krueger special posts a political polemics comment on a science site.

Sorry, reality is not affected one whit by the opinions of ignorant people.

Science, dummy. It works. Most rational people realize that. Wingnuts just sputter nonsensical conspiracy theories with ZERO evidence.
Kyle

Columbia City, IN

#28644 Aug 4, 2013
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand that you are ignorant, but really? There are no 'Historical' records that date back that far.
What a tool.
Really now, fnugget? Just how far back do you think they go?

And why do you think that?

(This should be fun)
Angered American

Rochester, MN

#28645 Aug 4, 2013
Kyle wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh look, another Dunning-Krueger special posts a political polemics comment on a science site.
Sorry, reality is not affected one whit by the opinions of ignorant people.
Science, dummy. It works. Most rational people realize that. Wingnuts just sputter nonsensical conspiracy theories with ZERO evidence.
Voted Obama huh? You poor poor little liberal indoctrinated socialist.

You are the victim culture...did you also occupy wallstreet?
SpaceBlues

United States

#28646 Aug 4, 2013
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand that you are ignorant, but really? There are no 'Historical' records that date back that far.
What a tool.
hahaha do you want notebooks?

Better records are geological, biological, planetary, archeological, etc. Have you heard of tree rings or ice records?

Just because you don't know...

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/05/07/1...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predi...

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
Robert spencer 1 hr Space ace 1
Senator Hopes Trump Assassinated 5 hr Truth 46
Drop one word....add one word game (Apr '14) 7 hr _Zoey_ 740
'Back up': Hillary's 'skin crawled' 7 hr Space ace 7
Trump speech 8 hr MAGA Trump 14
Aliens land during solar eclipse Tue Roma 4
All these big mouth white boys who never fought... Tue Grady 8

Minneapolis Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Minneapolis Mortgages