Global warming 'undeniable,' scientis...

Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say

There are 36891 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.

worried

Seattle, WA

#28707 Aug 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I'm not writing about models, I'm writing about experiments and how they are used to test and refine theories. It's not my job to pay for your bad science.
oh but 'brian', we all pay for the 'bad science' of global warming. if I could get funding, I would proove it to you.
worried

Seattle, WA

#28708 Aug 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I'm not writing about models, I'm writing about experiments and how they are used to test and refine theories. It's not my job to pay for your bad science.
oh but 'brian' someone has to pay for it. bad science is all the rage nowadays. you might get famous.
Kyle

Ligonier, IN

#28709 Aug 6, 2013
Sunny wrote:
Me think KYLE had a melt down.
Me think you know you can't deny anything I wrote. Me think your failure to address with substance is - again - a clear concession. Me think no denier is intellectually honest enough to ever concede anything. Anything. Ever. I've yet to see it in the years that I've dealt with them.

That is a classic trait of copnspiracy theorists and other cranks. They never concede anything. They will insist that black is white first. They'll gladly appear retarded while insisting that a grossly fallacious argument is valid.

Thanks for playing. All rational people here know how it went down and that's the point. Nothing defeats liars and cranks better than keeping them posting. You effed yourself, moron.
Kyle

Ligonier, IN

#28710 Aug 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Ask your teachers, what's the most compelling experiment for climate change mitigation they've found. If they describe something that doesn't test man made greenhouse gas on Earth's climate; there's your proof this isn't hard science.
See? Here's Lyin' Brian willing to appear retarded because he can't possibly concede to the idiocy of this mantra.
Kyle

Ligonier, IN

#28711 Aug 6, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
Looks like someone confuses their opinions with facts. Looks like someone needs a timeout. Looks like someone is having a hissy fit.
Looks like another denier f#&knugget can't refute what I posted. Looks like another denier f#&knugget is incapable of conceding anything. Looks like another denier f#&knugget dogmatically maintains unsupportable positions.

Looks like a concession to me.
Kyle

Ligonier, IN

#28712 Aug 6, 2013
A Republican Case for Climate Action
By WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS, LEE M. THOMAS, WILLIAM K. REILLY and CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN
Published: August 1, 2013, New York Times

EACH of us took turns over the past 43 years running the Environmental Protection Agency. We served Republican presidents, but we have a message that transcends political affiliation: the United States must move now on substantive steps to curb climate change, at home and internationally.

There is no longer any credible scientific debate about the basic facts: our world continues to warm, with the last decade the hottest in modern records, and the deep ocean warming faster than the earth’s atmosphere. Sea level is rising. Arctic Sea ice is melting years faster than projected.

The costs of inaction are undeniable. The lines of scientific evidence grow only stronger and more numerous. And the window of time remaining to act is growing smaller: delay could mean that warming becomes “locked in.”

A market-based approach, like a carbon tax, would be the best path to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, but that is unachievable in the current political gridlock in Washington. Dealing with this political reality, President Obama’s June climate action plan lays out achievable actions that would deliver real progress. He will use his executive powers to require reductions in the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the nation’s power plants and spur increased investment in clean energy technology, which is inarguably the path we must follow to ensure a strong economy along with a livable climate.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#28713 Aug 6, 2013
Kyle wrote:
<quoted text>
Looks like another denier f#&knugget can't refute what I posted. Looks like another denier f#&knugget is incapable of conceding anything. Looks like another denier f#&knugget dogmatically maintains unsupportable positions.
Looks like a concession to me.
a tornado in Oklahoma looks to you like a direct cause from co2 emissions, too. But that's not the case either, son. Unless you can support your positions I'll just accept your rants as a concession to not knowing much at all about most things you post about.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#28714 Aug 6, 2013
Maybe the alarmists should put a real scientist on the forum. These jokers only make their position seem weaker by the post.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#28715 Aug 6, 2013
Kyle wrote:
A Republican Case for Climate Action
By WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS, LEE M. THOMAS, WILLIAM K. REILLY and CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN
Published: August 1, 2013, New York Times
EACH of us took turns over the past 43 years running the Environmental Protection Agency. We served Republican presidents, but we have a message that transcends political affiliation: the United States must move now on substantive steps to curb climate change, at home and internationally.
There is no longer any credible scientific debate about the basic facts: our world continues to warm, with the last decade the hottest in modern records, and the deep ocean warming faster than the earth’s atmosphere. Sea level is rising. Arctic Sea ice is melting years faster than projected.
The costs of inaction are undeniable. The lines of scientific evidence grow only stronger and more numerous. And the window of time remaining to act is growing smaller: delay could mean that warming becomes “locked in.”
A market-based approach, like a carbon tax, would be the best path to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, but that is unachievable in the current political gridlock in Washington. Dealing with this political reality, President Obama’s June climate action plan lays out achievable actions that would deliver real progress. He will use his executive powers to require reductions in the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the nation’s power plants and spur increased investment in clean energy technology, which is inarguably the path we must follow to ensure a strong economy along with a livable climate.
hey, "Kyle", how will a tax save the polar bears and climate? i need an explanation on that one!!
The Integral

Hilo, HI

#28717 Aug 6, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>hey, "Kyle", how will a tax save the polar bears and climate? i need an explanation on that one!!
The difference between deniers such as yourself and individuals who understand global warming is that people who understand global warming provide peer reviewed references and deniers provide vague generalities.

If you do not understand how saving polar bear habitat by addressing global warming there is no hope for you whatsoever.

Carbon taxes offer a potentially cost-effective means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.[6] From an economic perspective, carbon taxes are a type of Pigovian tax.[7] They help to address the problem of emitters of greenhouse gases not facing the full (social) costs of their actions. Carbon taxes can be a regressive tax, in that they may directly or indirectly affect low-income groups disproportionately . The regressive impact of carbon taxes could be addressed by using tax revenues to favour low-income groups.[8] However, there are about USD $550 billion in fossil fuel subsidies annually worldwide.[9]

6.^ a b c d Gupta, S. et al.(2007). "13.2.1.2 Taxes and charges". Policies, instruments, and co-operative arrangements. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (B. Metz et al. Eds.). Print version: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., and New York, N.Y., U.S.A.. This version: IPCC website. Retrieved 2010-03-18.
7.^ Helm, D.(2005). "Economic Instruments and Environmental Policy". The Economic and Social Review 36 (3): 4–5. Retrieved 2011-04-08.
8.^ IPCC (2001). 7.34. In (section): Question 7. In (book): Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report. A Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Third Assessment Report of the Integovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Watson, R.T. and the Core Writing Team (eds.)). Print version: Cambridge University Press, UK. This version: GRID-Arendal website. p. 122. Retrieved 2011-03-29.
9.^ a b Zachary Shahan (June 11, 2010) "$550 Billion in Fossil Fuel Subsidies" Scientific American
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#28723 Aug 6, 2013
Sunny wrote:
<quoted text>"MELTDOWM"
Yes! You are!
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#28724 Aug 6, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
Maybe the alarmists should put a real scientist on the forum. These jokers only make their position seem weaker by the post.
Maybe the deniers don't have any science or mathematics to understand the AGW science.

You know how you never stick to the facts. Read Integral's post and see if you learn anything.

Since: Aug 13

Hilo, HI

#28726 Aug 6, 2013
Livin Woodbury wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the college material mis-information; the planet has cooled during that time frame.
Where do you get your "facts"?

Here is what is really happening.

The federal government's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issued its annual State of the Climate report Tuesday. Mostly, it was bad news: rising sea levels, less sea ice in the Arctic and warmer oceans. NOAA said 2012 was in the top 10 hottest years on record for global average temperature, but in the U.S. it was the hottest on record.

http://www.npr.org/2013/08/06/209462713/earth...

Since: Aug 13

Hilo, HI

#28730 Aug 6, 2013
Sunny wrote:
<quoted text>Little Tidbit.
Check it out Ice Cores from Medieval Warm Period to Little Ice Age.
This is the comment that I replied to:

Livin Woodbury wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks for the college material mis-information; the planet has cooled during that time frame.
Where do you get your "facts"?

Can you please explain the relationship between the comment I made and your comment?
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#28731 Aug 6, 2013
Poor troll....childish joke.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#28734 Aug 6, 2013
Bushwhacker wrote:
.
I told you how many shares, now you tell me your +20% stock pick, this month or admit you're a mouthy moron...
.
you "told" me a lot of things, son! Most of which have proven to be fictional. I put up! I put one measley futures account that PROVED I made over 25% last month. The forum just has to take your word for it that you can " invest". So far.....you haven't shown anything to back up that claim ! Just like your assertion that man is going to change the climate with a carbon tax.
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#28735 Aug 6, 2013
Explain science to a nut-so ?? What's that pay ?

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#28736 Aug 6, 2013
The Integral wrote:
<quoted text>
The difference between deniers such as yourself and individuals who understand global warming is that people who understand global warming provide peer reviewed references and deniers provide vague generalities.
an
i omitted part of your message in order to save bandwidth....it was a waste the first time.
If peer reviewed references are the "gospel" for your crowd......why do results and findings need to be doctored? Is it because that helps fit into your religious STORY?

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#28737 Aug 6, 2013
Bushwhacker wrote:
Explain science to a nut-so ?? What's that pay ?
better than your investments?

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#28738 Aug 6, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Maybe the deniers don't have any science or mathematics to understand the AGW science.
maybe you only have pseudoscience on your side thus preventing you from making a conclusive case for your religious zelitotry.

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
Can't manage the gov & NOT honest or trustworthy (Nov '13) 6 hr LIbEralS 585
Don't talk to commies 8 hr Waikiki murders 3
Get rough & get tough 20 hr Waikiki murders 2
News From reissues to reunions: What Prince fans can... Mon @Real Kelly 3
#Dump Betsy Hodges! Apr 21 All libertards got 10
Happy 420! Apr 20 TruDat 2
Fox news haha Apr 19 Davycrockett 1

Minneapolis Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Minneapolis Mortgages