Global warming 'undeniable,' scientis...

Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say

There are 35524 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.

SpaceBlues

United States

#30025 Oct 9, 2013
There's no picnic for me today. LOL.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#30026 Oct 9, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
No. That is the claim by one denialist, but it is based on MSU satellites which CANNOT SEE THE SURFACE. His 'processing' has been found faulty EIGHT times so far, so this is not a guy to take seriously.
The FACTS are that the southern ocean has warmed enough to undercut the ice shelves around Antarctica. It has warmed LESS because most warming occurs "over land at higher latitudes" but that is just the distribution 'globally'. It is actually confirmation of the 'fingerprint' of GHG as the causation.
<quoted text>
No. The AIR temperature slowed it's rise but the GLOBAL SURFACE has increased in temperature as more thermal energy has been gained. Mostly in the deeper ocean but nobody says that it has to be 'evenly distributed' or in the air. The 'climate oscillations' move heat around and also between air and water. That is why AIR temperature has to be filtered over 30 years and this cannot be done with just 15 years of data.
<quoted text>
Only to a denialist who doesn't care about the flaws in his understanding or the details of the science.
<quoted text>
Well, he is an idiot but the two are not so much contradictory and two different misinterpretations of two different claims. The post is certainly stupid but that may be deliberate on his part.
"(1) Warming not ‘global’. It is shown in satellite data to be northern hemisphere only"

"(2) It is now not warming. Warming (global mean and northern hemisphere) stopped in the 1990s"

1. Only the northern hemisphere is warming.
2. The northern hemisphere is not warming.

That's contradictory!
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#30027 Oct 9, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"(1) Warming not ‘global’. It is shown in satellite data to be northern hemisphere only"
"(2) It is now not warming. Warming (global mean and northern hemisphere) stopped in the 1990s"
1. Only the northern hemisphere is warming.
2. The northern hemisphere is not warming.
That's contradictory!
The second characteristic of denialists is that they keep parroting the same stupid and invalid claims even after being debunked. Like caveman.

The vast majority of climate scientists say YOU are wrong. And so is the 'one scientist' that Der Spiegel quoted. Probably Roy Spencer, though how they confused him with a 'TOP' scientist is still a mystery.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#30028 Oct 9, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
The second characteristic of denialists is that they keep parroting the same stupid and invalid claims even after being debunked. Like caveman.
The vast majority of climate scientists say YOU are wrong. And so is the 'one scientist' that Der Spiegel quoted. Probably Roy Spencer, though how they confused him with a 'TOP' scientist is still a mystery.
Gee, LHMF, have you forgotten who I am? I'm one of those damned alarmists!

I quoted the idiot to show how contradictory and illogical they are, not because I agreed! You need to pay attention; you attacked an ally.

The one "top" scientist Der Spiegel quoted was Judith Curry, the person who gave us the idea that hurricanes would be bigger and stronger with global warming.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#30029 Oct 9, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Gee, LHMF, have you forgotten who I am? I'm one of those damned alarmists!
I'm not a 'club member' of anything. I am not a 'joiner' so I play them as I see them. But I did miss your last line where you claimed a 'contradiction'. I dealt with that already. And to be an 'alarmist' you must exaggerate the dangers. Are you really doing that??? I didn't think so but if you want to 'wear it', I cannot stop you.
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I quoted the idiot to show how contradictory and illogical they are, not because I agreed! You need to pay attention; you attacked an ally.
I attacked a post that mostly seemed to be parroting the denial. Sorry, but you are 'collateral damage' ;-)

As I pointed out, the two 'facts' are not contradictory so much as both are patently false. The southern ocean IS warming. And their has been no 'pause' in AGW (warming of the SURFACE, of which only about 2% is air).
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The one "top" scientist Der Spiegel quoted was Judith Curry, the person who gave us the idea that hurricanes would be bigger and stronger with global warming.
I am rapidly losing respect for Judith. She is another one of the rare 'scientists' who puts their 'viewpoint' above and ahead of the facts. I was really upset when Richard Lindzen went off the rails. Not sure if he has published anything since the faulty 'Infrared Iris'. But the abysmal quality of the denialists 'science' has only a few exceptions, usually scientists that have put their politics above their research.

http://tinyurl.com/ofrs7b8
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#30030 Oct 9, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not a 'club member' of anything. I am not a 'joiner' so I play them as I see them. But I did miss your last line where you claimed a 'contradiction'. I dealt with that already. And to be an 'alarmist' you must exaggerate the dangers. Are you really doing that??? I didn't think so but if you want to 'wear it', I cannot stop you.
<quoted text>
I attacked a post that mostly seemed to be parroting the denial. Sorry, but you are 'collateral damage' ;-)
As I pointed out, the two 'facts' are not contradictory so much as both are patently false. The southern ocean IS warming. And their has been no 'pause' in AGW (warming of the SURFACE, of which only about 2% is air).
<quoted text>
I am rapidly losing respect for Judith. She is another one of the rare 'scientists' who puts their 'viewpoint' above and ahead of the facts. I was really upset when Richard Lindzen went off the rails. Not sure if he has published anything since the faulty 'Infrared Iris'. But the abysmal quality of the denialists 'science' has only a few exceptions, usually scientists that have put their politics above their research.
http://tinyurl.com/ofrs7b8
Neither am I a joiner. I am a member of the alarmist club according to deniers. I am actually a realist.

The two statements are fact to deniers. They miss the fact that they are contradictory, in addition to being false.

It may come as a surprise to you, but Curry is considered an alarmist by some denialists.
http://www.google.com/url...
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#30031 Oct 9, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Neither am I a joiner. I am a member of the alarmist club according to deniers. I am actually a realist.
So don't accept their label.
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The two statements are fact to deniers. They miss the fact that they are contradictory, in addition to being false.
I wouldn't consider them completely contradictory even if true.
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
It may come as a surprise to you, but Curry is considered an alarmist by some denialists.
No surprise there. Extremists have a hard time determining how extreme is extreme enough..

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#30032 Oct 9, 2013
Hello, peeps!!

What did I miss?

Oh, still no answers to the predictions of your certainties??

Oh, well......your prognostications are overdue anyway!!

I love this country in spite of the fact that it has a majority of misguided loons in it.

No wonder we have a group of idiots in DC!!

You reap what you sow....
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#30033 Oct 10, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
Hello, peeps!!
What did I miss?
Everything. You have a VERY short attention span.

http://tinyurl.com/mz64rsf
"The results of this analysis indicate that observed temperature after 1998 is consistent with the current understanding of the relationship among global surface temperature, internal variability, and radiative forcing, which includes anthropogenic factors that have well known warming and cooling effects."
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#30034 Oct 10, 2013
"...comments from Republican moderates suggest there could be a majority to end the federal government shutdown and avoid a federal debt default if Speaker of the House John Boehner allowed votes on bills without defunding Obamacare. But that is not likely to happen, the Democracy Corps analysis suggested, because right now the GOP radicals are in control. If somehow an Obamacare coup is averted, the pollsters say that any federal action on climate change would be the radicals' next target."

"That’s because the evangelicals “deeply doubt scientists writ large” and Tea Partiers “are concerned that climate science is another way to force regulations on individuals and businesses.” While the report’s profile of moderates is encouraging, it closes by reminding readers that the radicals rule today."

“We probably need to remind you that evangelicals and Tea Party Republicans dominate the party,” it ends.“This looks like the future battle ahead, driven by the dymanics of the Republican Party.”
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#30035 Oct 10, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
"...comments from Republican moderates suggest there could be a majority to end the federal government shutdown and avoid a federal debt default if Speaker of the House John Boehner allowed votes on bills without defunding Obamacare. But that is not likely to happen, the Democracy Corps analysis suggested, because right now the GOP radicals are in control. If somehow an Obamacare coup is averted, the pollsters say that any federal action on climate change would be the radicals' next target."
"That’s because the evangelicals “deeply doubt scientists writ large” and Tea Partiers “are concerned that climate science is another way to force regulations on individuals and businesses.” While the report’s profile of moderates is encouraging, it closes by reminding readers that the radicals rule today."
“We probably need to remind you that evangelicals and Tea Party Republicans dominate the party,” it ends.“This looks like the future battle ahead, driven by the dymanics of the Republican Party.”
It is a very good illustration of how Hitler was able to gain power in Germany. The public thought that the 'democratic process' would restrain him, but he was able to get radicals into too many positions of power and the moderates were too afraid of them to speak up. So the radicals became the FACE of Germany. The public was NOT so radicalized but had nobody to give them a voice.

And there are other similarities between John Boehner and Hitler.. Both had no scruples, a fixed belief in an ideology and a 'wedge issue' to exploit. In the US it is the working poor while in Germany it was the Jews.

Note: Godwins Law is not applicable because there are serious comparisons.
Sunny

Longview, WA

#30038 Oct 10, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
It is a very good illustration of how Hitler was able to gain power in Germany. The public thought that the 'democratic process' would restrain him, but he was able to get radicals into too many positions of power and the moderates were too afraid of them to speak up. So the radicals became the FACE of Germany. The public was NOT so radicalized but had nobody to give them a voice.
And there are other similarities between John Boehner and Hitler.. Both had no scruples, a fixed belief in an ideology and a 'wedge issue' to exploit. In the US it is the working poor while in Germany it was the Jews.
Note: Godwins Law is not applicable because there are serious comparisons.
Oh no you don't Canuck...
If you put Oblamber where you got John Boehner you would be right. After all Hitler did close the doors on the German congress an had them all gunned down remember.
You are right about the Godwin Law.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#30040 Oct 10, 2013
Sunny wrote:
<quoted text>Oh no you don't Canuck...
If you put Oblamber where you got John Boehner you would be right. After all Hitler did close the doors on the German congress an had them all gunned down remember.
You are right about the Godwin Law.
You're thinking of the St. Valentine's Day massacre.

Try again. Use facts next time.

Judged:

12

12

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#30041 Oct 10, 2013
Sunny wrote:
<quoted text>Oh no you don't Canuck...
If you put Oblamber where you got John Boehner you would be right.
I see no comparison there. Obama is not intimidating his moderates or leading the extremists. You flunk..
Sunny wrote:
<quoted text>Oh no you don't Canuck...
After all Hitler did close the doors on the German congress an had them all gunned down remember.
I was a little young at the time, being born after the war.
And my reading doesn't support your claim.

I suppose you are talking about the 'night of the long knives'??
http://tinyurl.com/cn8c5

But that came a year AFTER Hitler had total power. It is a truism that totalitarians with fixed ideologies have to kill off all opposition to their rule. They cannot abide any objections to their plans and have to keep suppressing any dissent, by any means.They mean so well and do so badly. Expect it if Boehner succeeds in gaining power by this coup.
http://tinyurl.com/7n2axmq
Sunny wrote:
<quoted text>
You are right about the Godwin Law.
Yes. LEGITIMATE comparisons or use of history does not invoke Godwins Law.

Judged:

12

12

12

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#30042 Oct 10, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You're thinking of the St. Valentine's Day massacre.
Try again. Use facts next time.
Probably. The only possible comparison in Hitlers rule was the "Night of the Long Knives" which was a series of individual assassinations and purges. He already had total power since an year before so there would be no Congress to lock up and the burning of the Reichstagg had been the trigger for his taking total power so there was no building to burn! He probably burned it to end the power of Congress and take dictatorial power by blaming it on the communists, but note that the Reichstagg was burned with nobody inside as far as I can tell. At least no political figures were noted as dying in the fire.

Judged:

11

11

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Sunny

Longview, WA

#30043 Oct 10, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
I see no comparison there. Obama is not intimidating his moderates or leading the extremists. You flunk..
<quoted text>
I was a little young at the time, being born after the war.
And my reading doesn't support your claim.
I suppose you are talking about the 'night of the long knives'??
http://tinyurl.com/cn8c5
But that came a year AFTER Hitler had total power. It is a truism that totalitarians with fixed ideologies have to kill off all opposition to their rule. They cannot abide any objections to their plans and have to keep suppressing any dissent, by any means.They mean so well and do so badly. Expect it if Boehner succeeds in gaining power by this coup.
http://tinyurl.com/7n2axmq
<quoted text>
Yes. LEGITIMATE comparisons or use of history does not invoke Godwins Law.
I don't see Boehner doing anything what so ever.
But I do see oblamber doing just what you're saying Boehner is going to do so I guess will just have to watch an see who does what right?
Have you ever watch World at War it's a Documentary that's 26 Episodes long.
If you haven't you should watch it.A lot of things that where going on then are going on now.
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Judged:

12

12

12

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Sunny

Longview, WA

#30044 Oct 10, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You're thinking of the St. Valentine's Day massacre.
Try again. Use facts next time.
Ok bosss any more orders from the caveman.lol

Judged:

10

10

9

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#30045 Oct 11, 2013
Sunny wrote:
<quoted text>Ok bosss any more orders from the caveman.lol
It was good advice. Therefore you will not take it.

Judged:

12

12

12

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Sunny

Longview, WA

#30046 Oct 11, 2013

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#30047 Oct 11, 2013
Sunny wrote:
http://reason.com/archives/201 2/10/02/half-of-the-facts-you- know-are-probably
"Dinosaurs were cold-blooded."

Never became a myth with any scientist I am aware of. The size of some dinosaurs precluded such a low metabolic rate. However, they weren't warm blooded (homeostatic temperature) either. Kind of midway, generating some heat internally.

"Vast increases in the money supply produce inflation."
If unaccompanied by vast increases in the GDP, sure.

"Increased K-12 spending and lower pupil/teacher ratios boosts public school student outcomes. "

Limited validity. Generally it is a weak correlation often cited to boost budgets. But mostly it is the quality of the teachers and the design of the curriculum.

"Most of the DNA in the human genome is junk."

"One mans junk is another mans treasure.". This was a former 'meme' but never a 'myth' at least to anyone I know. Even 'active' DNA is moderated by methylization to turn it on and off. How can you be sure what can be turned ON?

"Saccharin causes cancer and a high fiber diet prevents it."

High fiber is definitely good for you and reduces risk of colon cancer. It was never claimed it prevented any cancer.

On Saccharin in 2000, scientists learned that rodents, unlike humans, have a unique combination of high pH, high calcium phosphate, and high protein levels in their urine. One or more of the proteins that are more prevalent in male rats combine with calcium phosphate and saccharin to produce microcrystals that damage the lining of the bladder. Over time, the rat's bladder responds to this damage by over-producing cells to repair the damage, which leads to tumor formation. Since this does not occur in humans, there is (probably) no elevated risk of bladder cancer.

"Stars cannot be bigger than 150 solar masses."

What it really said was that stars above 150 solar masses 'cannot form' from the dust and gasses. "A study have determined that stars larger than 150 solar masses in R136 were created through the collision and merger of massive stars in close binary systems, providing a way to sidestep the 150 solar mass limit."

The misreading skills of diwmits is what leads to these errors of fact within the PUBLIC community.

Judged:

12

12

12

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
BLM lies on a 0-4 losing streak 4 hr Joe Balls 22
News Purple Faith: Prince's Life as a Jehovah's Witness 11 hr truth 992
Trump does it again Sat anarchist 56
FOVR fascist past Fri anarchist 1
Boots On the Ground Guy from Minneapolis diddle... May 27 Joe Balls 6
FOVR assaults old women/children May 27 anarchist 1
Pathetic FOVR no money left May 27 anarchist 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Minneapolis Mortgages