Global warming 'undeniable,' scientis...

Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say

There are 35519 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.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#30217 Oct 27, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
In science, proof means an experimental test. Climate change mitigation has never been experimentally tested, that's how you can know it's a hoax and man made catastrophic climate change is pseudoscience.
Straight out of the creationist handbook, just substituting climate change for evolution:
In science, proof means an experimental test. Evolution has never been experimentally tested, that's how you can know it's a hoax and evolution is pseudoscience.
http://creation.com/is-evolution-pseudoscienc...

Judged:

11

10

9

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
litesong

Everett, WA

#30218 Oct 27, 2013
litesong wrote:
It was "middleofthedownwronggull y" who didn't get new material by continually avoiding science or mathematics degrees & science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra & pre-calc in its poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa.
However, if "middleofthedownwronggull y" had gotten a hi skule DEE-plooomaa, it would have felt out of place, & NOT gained the approval of "at home in lynching county", as this exchange indicates:
//////////
litesong wrote:
Many toxic topix AGW deniers have no hi skule DEE-plooomaa, at all.
/////////
"at home in lynching county" coughed:
An over educated man don't make a smart man.......
//////////
"middleofthedownwronggull y" guffed:
nothing new here people..... move along!
//////////
litesong wrote:
True! nothing new here people....."middleofthedo wnwronggully", "at home in lynching county" & surprisingly high percentages of toxic topix AGW deniers never got any education in science or mathematics.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#30219 Oct 27, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
In science, proof means an experimental test.
Lie. If that were true, then cold fusion would be 'proven'.
Brian_G wrote:
Climate change mitigation has never been experimentally tested, that's how you can know it's a hoax and man made catastrophic climate change is pseudoscience.
We already have the science to put AGW into the highest level of scientific rigor, called 'theory'. We now should be taking responsibility for that fact and reducing the CAUSE of AGW in order to 'experiment' with moderation.
SpaceBlues

United States

#30223 Oct 27, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Straight out of the creationist handbook, just substituting climate change for evolution:
<quoted text>
http://creation.com/is-evolution-pseudoscienc...
Thanks for the facts.

b_g is bankrupt.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#30224 Oct 27, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Introduction to the Scientific Method
"Theories which cannot be tested... do not qualify as scientific theories."
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/ap...
Theories which cannot be tested, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as scientific theories.
Warming temperatures would be an observable ramification.

As are decreased heat radiation into space and increased back radiation from the atmosphere.
litesong

Everett, WA

#30225 Oct 27, 2013
motheaten wrote:
Dodge, weave and avoid.
Lame.
"motheaten" avoided science & mathematics degrees, dodge around science, chemistry, astronomy & physics courses, & avoided algebra & pre-calc in its poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa.......... & turned up mathematically & scientifically lame.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#30227 Oct 27, 2013
Motheaten wrote:
<quoted text>
Introduction to the Scientific Method
"Theories which cannot be tested... do not qualify as scientific theories."
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/ap...
V. Are there circumstances in which the Scientific Method is not applicable?

There are, of course, circumstances when one cannot isolate the phenomena or when one cannot repeat the measurement over and over again. In such cases the results may depend in part on the history of a situation. This often occurs in social interactions between people. For example, when a lawyer makes arguments in front of a jury in court, she or he cannot try other approaches by repeating the trial over and over again in front of the same jury. In a new trial, the jury composition will be different. Even the same jury hearing a new set of arguments cannot be expected to forget what they heard before.
AGW is just such a phenomenon of course, where it is not possible to isolate it (there will always be changes in other factors that affect climate) and the measurements cannot be repeated over and over again (it's not possible to add and remove a trillion tons of carbon to the atmosphere over and over again).

As has been pointed out "motheaten" avoided science & mathematics degrees, dodged around science, chemistry, astronomy & physics courses, & avoided algebra & pre-calc in its poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa.

If motheaten had taken the science class which the notes he posted were intended for, he would have learnt that there is a branch of the science intended for just such circumstance, which does not rely on "performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments".

http://www.usc.edu/org/cosee-west/Jul_Aug2012...
litesong

Everett, WA

#30228 Oct 27, 2013
motheaten muffed:
Dodge, weave and avoid.
Lame.
/////////
litesong wrote:
"motheaten" avoided science & mathematics degrees, dodge around science, chemistry, astronomy & physics courses, & avoided algebra & pre-calc in its poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa.......... & turned up mathematically & scientifically lame.
//////////
motheaten observed:
.....loon
///////
litesong wrote:
Good that motheaten understands the pure, true tones of the Loon.
litesong

Everett, WA

#30230 Oct 27, 2013
litesong wrote:
"motheaten" avoided science & mathematics degrees, dodge around science, chemistry, astronomy & physics courses, & avoided algebra & pre-calc in its poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa.......... & turned up mathematically & scientifically lame.
//////////
motheaten observed:
.....loon
///////
litesong wrote:
Good that motheaten understands the pure, true tones of the Loon.
////////
motheaten muffed:
another litesong loon
////////
litesong wrote:
I'm glad that motheaten agrees & praises me, that my biographical depiction of its education is as pure & true as the tones of the Loon.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#30231 Oct 27, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Introduction to the Scientific Method
"Theories which cannot be tested... do not qualify as scientific theories."
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/ap...
but EXPERIMENT is not the only or even the best 'test'.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php...
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

You don't see 'that must incorporate experiments' do you..

Perhaps you just don't recognise the NAS as 'scientific authorities' and want to make up your OWN 'scientific method'.

But mostly you pervert the scientific method as well as the statements about it.
Kyle

Columbia City, IN

#30234 Oct 27, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
In science, proof means an experimental test. Climate change mitigation has never been experimentally tested, that's how you can know it's a hoax and man made catastrophic climate change is pseudoscience.
Wrong! And you know it's wrong because it's been explained - directly to you - many, many times. That illustrates both primary traits of denier scum:

1) Refusal to acknowledged failure of arguments in favor of repeating them endlessly.

2) A staggering level of intellectual dishonesty.

One more time - so that you can undoubtedly ignore it or hand wave it away one more time: Much of the most rock solid science in existence is not subject to real time, controlled, laboratory experiments. They're based on 'natural experiments'.

By your jackass criteria, entire fields of science are dismissable out of hand. If you're not a creationist (evolution denier), you need to explain why you accept the sciences of evolutionary biology, geology, paleontology, cladistics, comparative genomics, etc.

Let the weaseling begin!
Kyle

Columbia City, IN

#30235 Oct 27, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Dodge, weave and avoid.
Lame.
Actually, it was a devastating rebuttal. Naturally, your response is to dodge, weave, avoid, and project, project, project.

Care to address the problem of using dumbazz creatard arguments to deny climate science? Or would you prefer to dodge some more, denier scum?
Kyle

Columbia City, IN

#30236 Oct 27, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Introduction to the Scientific Method
"Theories which cannot be tested... do not qualify as scientific theories."
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/ap...
They can be tested without real time, controlled, laboratory experiments. You may be dumb enough to think that they are the only way to test theories, bit thankfully most people are not.
Kyle

Columbia City, IN

#30237 Oct 27, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
I was citing a 'basic' course. Sorry if it was beyond you.
What is it with warmists that they have to find higher and higher authority figures to support their lunacy?
Must have really struck a cord.
LOL
You were using simplistic explanations to imply falsely that testing = only lab tests. Sorry that we're too smart to be impressed by such idiocy. What is it with denier scum that they have to resort to trickery and fallacious arguments to support their lunacy? You must have struck your head.
Kyle

Columbia City, IN

#30238 Oct 27, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
I was citing a 'basic' course. Sorry if it was beyond you.
What is it with warmists that they have to find higher and higher authority figures to support their lunacy?
Must have really struck a cord.
LOL
(Oops; forgot)

LOL!
litesong

Everett, WA

#30239 Oct 27, 2013
litesong wrote:
"motheaten" avoided science & mathematics degrees, dodged around science, chemistry, astronomy & physics courses, & avoided algebra & pre-calc in its poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa.......... & motheaten is mathematically & scientifically lame.
//////////
motheaten muffed:
talking to yourself only confirms my opinion.
loon.
////////
litesong wrote:
Hear the convincing, pure, true, & even loud cries of the Loon, which are heard by many:

"motheaten" avoided science & mathematics degrees, dodged around science, chemistry, astronomy & physics courses, & avoided algebra & pre-calc in its poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa. motheaten confirms its opinion is scientifically & mathematically lame.
dont drink the koolaid

Savage, MN

#30241 Oct 28, 2013
Kyle wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong! And you know it's wrong because it's been explained - directly to you - many, many times. That illustrates both primary traits of denier scum:
One more time - so that you can undoubtedly ignore it or hand wave it away one more time: Much of the most rock solid science in existence is not subject to real time, controlled, laboratory experiments. They're based on 'natural experiments'.!
Yes, many, many, times it has been explained by many many different authorities including Kevin Trenberth, Gavin Schmidt, and the UNIPCC.

Global warming "IS UNDENIABLE" but...

Carbon Dioxide (Man made or otherwise) is not the primary driver of surface temperatures as clearly demonstrated by observations for the better part of the last two decades. The experts explained it many times: CO2 has been rising unabated but global average temperature measurements have not.

If one wishes to deny this FACT take your complaints to the experts.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#30242 Oct 28, 2013
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, many, many, times it has been explained by many many different authorities including Kevin Trenberth, Gavin Schmidt, and the UNIPCC.
Global warming "IS UNDENIABLE" but...
Carbon Dioxide (Man made or otherwise) is not the primary driver of surface temperatures as clearly demonstrated by observations for the better part of the last two decades. The experts explained it many times: CO2 has been rising unabated but global average temperature measurements have not.
If one wishes to deny this FACT take your complaints to the experts.
Ignorant, misinformed and unthinking, as usual.

There are many drivers of surface temperature apart from CO2: solar output, aerosols, ocean circulation, volcanic activity.

All of those have been negative for the period you mention: they should have caused cooling.

The fact that temperatures have continued to rise demonstrates that CO2 is the primary driver.

Or it would to anybody with a brain, an organ you are sadly lacking.
dont drink the koolaid

Savage, MN

#30243 Oct 28, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Ignorant, misinformed and unthinking, as usual.
There are many drivers of surface temperature apart from CO2: solar output, aerosols, ocean circulation, volcanic activity.
All of those have been negative for the period you mention: they should have caused cooling.
The fact that temperatures have continued to rise demonstrates that CO2 is the primary driver.
Or it would to anybody with a brain, an organ you are sadly lacking.
All valid points that are best addressed to the EXPERTS because it is clear that the aforementioned drivers are a major factor in surface temps. The issue is with the EXPERTS that observed the "hiatus" or "pause". It appears necessary to explain it to THEM so they can 'adjust' THEIR findings to fit your view.

Post Script:
It may not be productive and is clearly unscientific to insult those better informed when attempting to convince them they should reinterpret their findings.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#30244 Oct 28, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. I've seen your posts.
You're a jackass.
'nuf said.
Enough said, indeed.

He is a jackass because he defeats you at every turn.

He is a jackass because he is rational and informed.

He is a jackass because you can't dispute the science.

You call Kyle a name because....that's all you have.

I think you're the jackass.

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
News Purple Faith: Prince's Life as a Jehovah's Witness 2 min GreatSouthbay4040 778
reasons for it 20 min space ace 4
Somalians 3 hr Tellitlikeitis 26
Adolf H!tler : The Greatest Story Never Told 3 hr space ace 44
Drop one word....add one word game (Apr '14) 6 hr Whiny1 566
Can't manage the gov & NOT honest or trustworthy (Nov '13) 8 hr LIbErals 493
Let's use DDT the Zika virus mosquito 14 hr DSM Local 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Minneapolis Mortgages