Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say

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. Full Story

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#29757 Sep 26, 2013
Kyle wrote:
<quoted text>
There it is. The denier argument on a nutshell. Every point is wrong. Every point has been rebutted. Every rebuttal has been rejected. I count five.
1) "We're skeptics. Skepticism is good." There are clear differences between proper skepticism and denial that have been presented many times.
2) "The science should claim certainty before action is warranted." Fails on two counts; both revealed many times. Science never deals in proof or certainty. Demanding it before taking action is illogical in any case. If this semipro liar actually meant to imply that there is significant doubt within the field, he's simply lying. The truth has been revealed many times.
3) "Climate science = only models." Big Lie. Revealed as such many times.
4) "The science is shaky." Actually, the science is very robust. I have personally explained several ways that it is, some of which you assiduously avoid even acknowledging.
5) "Scientists are going off half cocked; it needs more study." It's been studied for decades by many, many scientists, with high tech research tools from the likes of NASA, etc. and by some for well over a century. The latest report by the climate researchers bumped the confidence level for anthropogenic, catastrophic warming from 90 to 95%. This matches the level of certainty that smoking causes lung cancer and exceeds the confidence level universally applied in medicine and public health matters. Also, the science has also shown the effects of delaying action.
All this information has been rejected by the denial industry as well. Congrats on so clearly stating the vacuous nature of denialist.
It is like the game of whack-a-mole. No matter how many times you whack them down, they just pop up again. Here try this, it is a lot more productive than whacking the deniers.
http://www.addictinggames.com/action-games/wh...

Judged:

16

16

14

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#29759 Sep 26, 2013
Kyle wrote:
<quoted text>
There it is. The denier argument on a nutshell. Every point is wrong. Every point has been rebutted. Every rebuttal has been rejected. I count five.
1) "We're skeptics. Skepticism is good." There are clear differences between proper skepticism and denial that have been presented many times.
2) "The science should claim certainty before action is warranted." Fails on two counts; both revealed many times. Science never deals in proof or certainty. Demanding it before taking action is illogical in any case. If this semipro liar actually meant to imply that there is significant doubt within the field, he's simply lying. The truth has been revealed many times.
3) "Climate science = only models." Big Lie. Revealed as such many times.
4) "The science is shaky." Actually, the science is very robust. I have personally explained several ways that it is, some of which you assiduously avoid even acknowledging.
5) "Scientists are going off half cocked; it needs more study." It's been studied for decades by many, many scientists, with high tech research tools from the likes of NASA, etc. and by some for well over a century. The latest report by the climate researchers bumped the confidence level for anthropogenic, catastrophic warming from 90 to 95%. This matches the level of certainty that smoking causes lung cancer and exceeds the confidence level universally applied in medicine and public health matters. Also, the science has also shown the effects of delaying action.
All this information has been rejected by the denial industry as well. Congrats on so clearly stating the vacuous nature of denialist.
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!

Judged:

16

15

14

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#29760 Sep 26, 2013
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.

Researchers compared pollution levels over a 150-year span, beginning in 1850 and ending in 2000. The dark brown areas on the map, shown prominently in Asia, India, Europe and parts of Africa, indicate locations with the highest rates of premature deaths due to air pollution.

Blue areas, as seen in the southeast United States and parts of South America, indicate areas that have seen air quality improve and the number of deaths due to air pollution decline.

Why are so many areas getting worse? According to NASA, that can be attributed to increased industrialization and urbanization. As to the areas in blue that have seen air quality improve from 1850 to 2000, researchers suggest that a decrease in biomass burning is the cause.

The research used to create the map comes from University of North Carolina professor Jason West. Published in Environmental Research Letters, the study estimated that roughly 2.1 million deaths per year could be attributed to fine particle matter pollution alone.

What's fine particle matter? The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines it as "a complex mixture of extremely small particles and liquid droplets." Particle matter that is 10 micrometers in diameter or smaller is particularly worrisome "because those are the particles that generally pass through the throat and nose and enter the lungs," according to the EPA.

Judged:

12

11

9

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
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!

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#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!

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#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)?

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
Police: 2 Arrested In St. Paul Bank Robbery 5 min bros 6
Madison wi=craphole 43 min Space ace 1
Bill cosby special drink 5 hr Space ace 1
Vikings' Peterson says he'll never use a switch... 5 hr Liberal 2
Autopsy reports on Ferguson Shooting 6 hr Liberal 36
any good whorehouses in twincitys (Jun '11) 13 hr Space ace 17
Zimmer says the Vikings love and support Peterson 14 hr Letsgohoyas 18
Minneapolis Dating
Find my Match

Minneapolis People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Minneapolis News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Minneapolis

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 1:03 pm PST

NBC Sports 1:03PM
Union questions Harold Henderson's neutrality
NBC Sports 1:37 PM
Asiata out with concussion for Vikings vs. Packers - NBC Sports
NBC Sports 1:37 PM
Asiata out with concussion for Vikings vs. Packers - NBC Sports
NBC Sports 1:58 PM
Packers LB Matthews probable against Vikings - NBC Sports
NBC Sports 1:58 PM
Packers LB Matthews probable against Vikings - NBC Sports