Global warming 'undeniable,' scientis...

Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say

There are 35423 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.

LIbEralS

Saint Paul, MN

#29765 Sep 26, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Want to know where people are most likely to die prematurely due to air pollution?
NASA recently recently released a map showing the average number of deaths per year per 1,000 square kilometers (385 square miles) that can be attributed to fine particle matter pollution.
...
I guess we had better hope Mother Nature doesn't set off any more eruptions like Mount St. Helens.

Judged:

14

14

14

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#29775 Sep 27, 2013
richardIII wrote:
<quoted text>
They're dispersed all over the planet, the oceans absorb them. Ask your self why for 16 years the earth hasn't warmed? Ask yourself why the AGW hysterics continue to drive IC automobiles? ASk yourself how Al"big Oil" Gore justifies his obscene sized mansion?
Kyle

Wabash, IN

#29776 Sep 27, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>maybe you should try to bring eugenics back in vogue and amalgamate it with your climate change religion, son!
Scepticism is enemy number one to any religion, and must be silenced. You could get sort of a "twofer" for your efforts according to your apparent world view.
Make you a deal....don't pretend to be smarter than me and I'll stop reminding you just how stupid you really are, okay?
See below. I preemptively disemboweled your claim of being a skeptic. You're a denier. The differences - as i already said - have been discussed at length. You repeat yourself very well, but you never address the rebuttals of your BS.
Kyle

Wabash, IN

#29777 Sep 27, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>Did you mean to say, "in a nutshell", son?
To your turgid points:
1. Look at me as a climate change agnostic.....but you can label me however you want. You're a faith based idiot....so I really don't care what you call me.
2. Exactly!!! Science doesn't deal in proof! But observations need to match the theory before actions are taken. I could go on all night about this.....but I'll ease you into the process of real science,'kay?
3. Climate science isn't all models. If it were......your 'team' wouldn't be on the field anymore. Get it? LOL
4. The science is shaky.....meaning that the more scientist learn the more they realize how little is understood regarding climate drivers, variabilities, weighting, solar fluxes, infrared radiation actualities, glacial growth and retreats, oceanic measures, natural co2 sources vs man made, total heat sinks.... don't get me started on the m/f's!!
5. No it doesn't. No they haven't. No one denies that climate has and does change. No one denies that man made CO2 contributes to GHG's. No one can quantify or determine how this does, or will, cause any significant change in climate. YOU AZZHOLES INSIST that last weeks tornado or next months hurricane is because of man made co2!! How absurd is that?! If you're making claims like that.....who in the hell is going to believe you? You have no evidence of such....and you lying bastards know it!!
Don't preach to others about science!!! Your crowd is the most unscientific group of snake oil salesman I've come across in my lifetime, brownshirt!
Yawn. All heard before. All refuted before. I refuse to play whack-a-mole with the defeated. Actually address criticisms - even acknowledge correction - and I'd deem you worthy of a response.

BTW, how desperate are you? Desperate enough to lead off this bit of drivel with a dig at a single instance of incorrect autocorrect by my smartphone.

What a f'n loser!

Judged:

28

28

26

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Kyle

Wabash, IN

#29778 Sep 27, 2013
Toutle wrote:
<quoted text>OMG Kyle you sound like Adolf Hitler and the NAZI party when you talk like that my boy.
All you have to do is put JEWS in were you put DENIAL an you would fit right in with the NAZI'S mentality.
An we all know what happened to Hitler and the Nazi's right.
OMG, what a hilarious stretch.

OMG, you just played the Hitler/Nazi card.

OMG, you just conceded.(see Godwin's Law)

Judged:

26

26

24

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Kyle

Wabash, IN

#29782 Sep 27, 2013
Sunny wrote:
<quoted text>
disemboweled
whack-a-mole
defeated
f'n loser
desperate
Kyle's a Brownshirt NAZI OMG.lmao
Godwin revisited.

When you have science, let us know.

Judged:

24

24

24

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Kyle

Wabash, IN

#29783 Sep 27, 2013
Toutle wrote:
<quoted text>I like that little smiley guy with his tongue out give them to me ya little cry baby lefties.lmao
I'm a conservative. Real conservatism is a reality based philosophy. Climate science denial is not correlated with political ideology in most of the world. The Rep's and TP's will someday know the folly of linking multiple flavors of reality denial with conservatism. Conservatism will wander in the wilderness while liberalism runs rampant.

Even religions have often rejected linkage between their doctrine and reality denial. St. Augustine of Hippo and modern popes come to mind. If an early church figure could see 1600 yrs ago that linking your core principles to nonsense is dangerously counterproductive, why can't a conservative US politician do it today?!

Answer?: Because the lunatics have taken over the asylum.

Judged:

27

26

23

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#29788 Sep 27, 2013
Kyle wrote:
<quoted text>
Yawn. All heard before. All refuted before. I refuse to play whack-a-mole with the defeated. Actually address criticisms - even acknowledge correction - and I'd deem you worthy of a response.
BTW, how desperate are you? Desperate enough to lead off this bit of drivel with a dig at a single instance of incorrect autocorrect by my smartphone.
What a f'n loser!
so you posted a rant to admit you have no real response? is that what you meant 'in a nutshell', son?

concession accepted!

Judged:

22

21

20

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#29789 Sep 27, 2013
Kyle wrote:
<quoted text>OMG, what a hilarious stretch.
OMG, you just played the Hitler/Nazi card.
OMG, you just conceded.(see Godwin's Law)
pretender.
you know less about posters here than you do climate change......and that's hard to believe, bermuda divot.

Judged:

21

21

21

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
LIbEralS

Saint Paul, MN

#29790 Sep 28, 2013
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...

Judged:

20

20

20

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Kyle

Wabash, IN

#29806 Sep 28, 2013
GW is the problem wrote:
<quoted text>So, your point is flaws exist in products ???
LMAOROTFU~!
WOW ! Guess you learned a different way to spell or are a complete hypocrite, huh ???
Love teabaggers, their irony is FUNNY !!!
"Mission Accomplished" !!!
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.
Kyle

Wabash, 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

Toronto, 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

Wabash, 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

Wabash, 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

Wabash, 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

Wabash, 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

Wabash, 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

Wabash, 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

Wabash, 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?

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
new hampshire results 9 min space ace 9
Outrage!!! Boy and Elsa Dress Disney Day School 1 hr DSM Local 4
massive brainwashing 1 hr TOASTER 29
News Chelsea Clinton rallies the faithful in Twin Ci... 1 hr TOASTER 23
State Patrol endangers unborn baby. 3 hr DSM Local 10
Obama Policy " Catch and Release " 3 hr FOVR 17
The situation in Syria will get worse and peace... 4 hr USA USA USA USA 6
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Minneapolis Mortgages