Global warming 'undeniable,' scientis...

Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say

There are 35579 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.

Kyle

Columbia City, IN

#29807 Sep 28, 2013
Sunny wrote:
<quoted text>Geez kyle I was just punning ya take a chill pill.
You do know the first people the NAZI party took out was comedians punning there master.
Plus what ever you're talking about here doesn't make any since to me at all buddy.LMAO
Typical denier nitwit. You missed the point entirely. You made the usual mistake of assuming all scientists and acceptors of science are "lefties". Then you failed to respond in any way to my rebuttal.

Either that or you're just refusing to engage honestly by pretending to be retarded. That's standard denier MO.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#29808 Sep 28, 2013
Kyle wrote:
<quoted text>The funniest bit was the claim that a blade tip traveled 8 kilometers. If it were made of lead, it would have to be traveling at a ridiculous speed. Considering that they're made of featherweight composites, the necessary initial speed would be sufficient to both shred it and spontaneously combust.
In other words, just another example of how to tell when a denier is lying - they're making a claim.
The best analysis I can find is at http://tinyurl.com/mhm9o6k which documents normal failure 'throw' less than 50 meters. High winds have been documented to cause a throw of up to 100 meters. Of less convincing documentation is the 'caithness' report which claims a blade *fragment* thrown 1300 meters. I have no idea how that would work and the physics doesn't seem to add up unless it is a very dense part of the blade (anchor bolts?) that was propelled by an unusual 'slingshot' action on failure. Hard to accept and if it DID happen (not certain) it would be a very improbable event.
Kyle

Columbia City, IN

#29809 Sep 28, 2013
Sunny wrote:
<quoted text>Are you one of them want to be scientist Kyle.
And I'll be post what ever the f'n I want Kyle!!!!!lol
Of course you will, but like I said, let us know if you EVER post science.

BTW, your anti-science slip is showing.
Kyle

Columbia City, IN

#29810 Sep 28, 2013
Sunny wrote:
<quoted text>Hey Kyle you're living in what is called fancy world in the real world it's eat or be eaten,stay warm or die from be cold.
Hell you don't know there could be a bug come along tomorrow an just start eating the chit out of us an or a killer CME could be here in a couple days or Yellowstone could blow or most likely it could be something that Kyle the want to be scientist hasn't even thought about.LOL
Look up "non sequitur", nitwit. or can you explain how that string of BS is in any way responsive to the points that I made? Maybe it makes sense in your "fancy world" (snicker).
Kyle

Columbia City, IN

#29811 Sep 28, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>so you posted a rant to admit you have no real response? is that what you meant 'in a nutshell', son?
concession accepted!
As I clearly stated, you posted nothing worthy of a response. That hasn't changed. Work on your comprehension skills.
Kyle

Columbia City, IN

#29812 Sep 28, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>pretender.
you know less about posters here than you do climate change......and that's hard to believe, bermuda divot.
If I'm so ignorant about climate science, then why did I know that the GHE warming causes stratospheric cooling, whereas you incorrectly "corrected" me.(And refused to acknowledge your error multiple times)

If I'm so ignorant about climate science, then why did I know that the three other patterns in the warming are slam dunk evidence that the warming is GHE warming, whereas you've refused to even acknowledge the entire subject many times (except for the aforementioned f'up)?
Kyle

Columbia City, IN

#29813 Sep 28, 2013
LIbEralS wrote:
Models of misinformation -- climate reports melt under scrutiny:
A last-ditch effort to refute climate “skeptics”—people unconvinced that we need to spend trillions to reshape our economies to halt or slow “climate change”-- has failed.
Last week, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) published a study by 13 prestigious atmospheric scientists that supposedly provides “clear evidence for a discernible human influence on the thermal structure of the atmosphere.”
The NAS researchers pointedly echo the famous declaration by the United Nation-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, that the “balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.” With this new study, the authors claim to clinch the case. The IPCC, we’re supposed to believe, has been right all along.
With the IPCC now issuing the first segment of its latest mammoth study on the same topic, readers should take the NAS pronouncement with a large grain of salt—and the IPCC report too. This is an attempt to change the subject and ignore the elephant in the room: the crisis in “consensus” climate science arising from the growing mismatch between model-predicted warming and observed warming.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/26/don...
Yawn. Infinitely refuted denier BS. Got anything new?
Kyle

Columbia City, IN

#29814 Sep 28, 2013
Sunny wrote:
<quoted text>Geez just checking to see if my little green mars man is still a goot spell checker.
And admitting that you can't follow a comment that any functionally literate, English-speaking adult should be able to understand. The only question is whether you're functionally illiterate, new to the English language, 10 yrs old, retarded, or pretending to be because deniers never engage honestly.

Judged:

10

10

8

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Kyle

Columbia City, IN

#29815 Sep 28, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
The best analysis I can find is at http://tinyurl.com/mhm9o6k which documents normal failure 'throw' less than 50 meters. High winds have been documented to cause a throw of up to 100 meters. Of less convincing documentation is the 'caithness' report which claims a blade *fragment* thrown 1300 meters. I have no idea how that would work and the physics doesn't seem to add up unless it is a very dense part of the blade (anchor bolts?) that was propelled by an unusual 'slingshot' action on failure. Hard to accept and if it DID happen (not certain) it would be a very improbable event.
Agreed - highly improbable to throw a blade fragment 1300 meters, though I'm not going to take the time to do the math. That said, it may have happened once or twice. I've seen video of a runaway failure in high winds. I'll assume that at least several feet of blade tip would go supersonic, so a tip piece might launch at 750 - 800mph. If its departure angle was ~45 degrees, the blade was 150' long on a 250' tower, and maybe if there's a tuned mass damper in the tip for added mass, then just MAYBE ...

However, I don't have to do any math to know that the 8 kilometers claim is an example of denier scum reflexively lying. Do you think the semipro liar will even attempt to support his claim?
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#29816 Sep 28, 2013
The Atlantic:

The polar icecaps are melting faster than we thought they would; seas are rising faster than we thought they would; extreme weather events are increasing. Have a nice day! That’s a less than scientifically rigorous summary of the findings of the Fifth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report released this morning in Stockholm.

Appearing exhausted after a nearly two sleepless days fine-tuning the language of the report, co-chair Thomas Stocker called climate change “the greatest challenge of our time," adding that “each of the last three decades has been successively warmer than the past,” and that this trend is likely to continue into the foreseeable future.

Pledging further action to cut carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said, "This isn’t a run of the mill report to be dumped in a filing cabinet. This isn’t a political document produced by politicians... It’s science."

<><><>< ><><><> <><><>

I continue to be astounded by the stupidity of some deniers here.

Complimented by the deniers who, for reasons of obstinate ideology or money in the mailbox, deny the truth that they know very well.

Who warn of Nazis, and worldwide conspiracies, and communist takeovers, and Bilderburgs...who are as great a threat to their own children and grandchildren as climate change itself.

You should be ashamed.

You should be ashamed, either because of your ignorance or because of your deceit.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#29817 Sep 28, 2013
Kyle wrote:
<quoted text>As I clearly stated, you posted nothing worthy of a response. That hasn't changed. Work on your comprehension skills.
I'm in favor of not replying to them at all. Why give them legitimacy?

Instead, leave them out of the conversation and let's talk to each other about how stupid their particular statement is.

At least when we "warmists" talk to each other we don't have to imagine punctuation and mentally correct the bad grammar, along with the bad science and the no science..
Kyle

Columbia City, IN

#29819 Sep 28, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm in favor of not replying to them at all. Why give them legitimacy?
Instead, leave them out of the conversation and let's talk to each other about how stupid their particular statement is.
At least when we "warmists" talk to each other we don't have to imagine punctuation and mentally correct the bad grammar, along with the bad science and the no science..
It's tempting, but to the extent that we have the time, we should continue to reveal their ignorance and/or deceit whenever possible. As incredible as it may seem to rational people, if left unchallenged, there are people so lacking in critical thinking skills that they're swayed by - even impressed by - the obvious idiocy that they spout.
Kyle

Columbia City, IN

#29820 Sep 28, 2013
richardIII wrote:
<quoted text>
Kyle, Kyle
the well known pedophyle
and BJ queen.
Ah yes, denier science. Impressive.

Judged:

16

16

15

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Rambeaux

Philadelphia, PA

#29821 Sep 28, 2013
When I see palm trees growing in my back yard here in Philadelphia, I'll accept global warming. Until then it is so much hogwash.

Judged:

14

14

14

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Kyle

Columbia City, IN

#29822 Sep 28, 2013
Rambeaux wrote:
When I see palm trees growing in my back yard here in Philadelphia, I'll accept global warming. Until then it is so much hogwash.
Correction:

"Until then, a moron called Rambeaux thinks - or claims to think - that it's hogwash."

Reality deniers of all stripes share your problem; they confuse what they want to believe with reality. Rational people grow out of that phase at ~ the age of four.

You could have gone a little further and repeated what a raving teabagger told me to my face - "I'll never accept AGW." At least he was honest enough to admit to being impervious to evidence.

Judged:

16

16

16

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#29823 Sep 29, 2013
GW is the problem wrote:
<quoted text>So, your point is flaws exist in products ???
yes. and flaws exist in climate change theory. flaws exist in the thought process of alarmists, too.

Judged:

13

13

13

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#29824 Sep 29, 2013
Kyle wrote:
<quoted text>As I clearly stated, you posted nothing worthy of a response. That hasn't changed. Work on your comprehension skills.
is that what you did, son, make another statement based on your loony opinions?

Judged:

12

12

12

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#29825 Sep 29, 2013
Kyle wrote:
<quoted text>If I'm so ignorant about climate science, then why did I know that the GHE warming causes stratospheric cooling, whereas you incorrectly "corrected" me.(And refused to acknowledge your error multiple times)
If I'm so ignorant about climate science, then why did I know that the three other patterns in the warming are slam dunk evidence that the warming is GHE warming, whereas you've refused to even acknowledge the entire subject many times (except for the aforementioned f'up)?
warming causes cooling. exactly! you have nothing to fear. rest well at night, son.

Judged:

14

14

13

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#29826 Sep 29, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm in favor of not replying to them at all.
LOL

I've never seen a cogent reply from you, son.

LOL

Who are you kidding, mullet?

Judged:

12

12

12

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#29827 Sep 29, 2013
Kyle wrote:
<quoted text>If I'm so ignorant about climate science, then why?
probably because you choose erroneous climate model predictions over actual observations? maybe you're not as 'bright' as you pretend to be?

Judged:

14

14

14

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

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
Statewide protective agency (Oct '15) Mon Troy 34
News Fmr. Prior Lake Youth Pastor Charged With Havin... Mon Paris Hilton 24
Sick hillary Sun LIbEralS 11
News Ramsey County / Meth dealer's motives in sting ... (Aug '08) Sep 24 Lynnhollenbeck 13
Hillary will lose! "EmailGate" NOT WORTHY TO BE... Sep 24 cantmakeitup 5
Don't vote for Hillary! Sep 24 cantmakeitup 7
Can't manage the gov & NOT honest or trustworthy (Nov '13) Sep 23 LIbEralS 548

Minneapolis Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Minneapolis Mortgages