Global warming 'undeniable,' scientis...

Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say

There are 34401 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.

common sense

Coffeyville, KS

#32589 Mar 29, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you know that cow flatulation is studied at the University level.
They apply for global warming grants to get Federal Money for research.
The whole global warming movement is about $$$ for research grants, and there is HUGE money in research, it is a major money player in American Universities.
Al Gore knows that, it's why he owns stock in a company making a fortune off all the "green movement" bs!!!
It is ALL about money and control and nothing more. Follow the money and you will find the ones wanting the control!

“Come Home America!”

Since: Nov 11

Claymont, Delaware 19809

#32590 Mar 29, 2014
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>Don't live in fear! A warmer climate has many upside benefits.
http://blog.heartland.org/2014/03/benefits-of...
Of course , maybe for other species , just not for humans. You see, buddy boy, humans have never existed ever on the Earth when the temperature of the planet was this hot .(400ppm and rising ) You have any concrete scientific data that proves humans can adapt to these climate change conditions due to the rapid temperature increase? No? I didn't think so.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#32591 Mar 29, 2014
frontporchreactionary wrote:
<quoted text> Of course , maybe for other species , just not for humans. You see, buddy boy, humans have never existed ever on the Earth when the temperature of the planet was this hot .(400ppm and rising ) You have any concrete scientific data that proves humans can adapt to these climate change conditions due to the rapid temperature increase? No? I didn't think so.
a. we're all fine, son! people live in regions of the planet far hotter than mean temps.
b. co2 molecules aren't a measure of heat.
c. adaptation has always been the secret to survival for life.
d. do you have any data that shows when humans will begin to perish due to increased temps?
e. you people are full of hot air.
f. do you have any data that shows what mitigation will accomplish? didn't think so.
g. humans thrive in warmer temps rather than colder times. history proves that.
h. increased co2 has its benefits....and aren't most of you folks 'tree huggers'?

“Come Home America!”

Since: Nov 11

Claymont, Delaware 19809

#32592 Mar 29, 2014
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>a. we're all fine, son! people live in regions of the planet far hotter than mean temps.

c. adaptation has always been the secret to survival for life.
d. do you have any data that shows when humans will begin to perish due to increased temps?
Can you name how many species have already gone extinct from global warming? You haven't told me why you think humans won't be next? "It’s frightening but true: Our planet is now in the midst of its sixth mass extinction of plants and animals — the sixth wave of extinctions in the past half-billion years. We’re currently experiencing the worst spate of species die-offs since the loss of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. Although extinction is a natural phenomenon, it occurs at a natural “background” rate of about one to five species per year. Scientists estimate we’re now losing species at 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate, with literally dozens going extinct every day [1]. It could be a scary future indeed, with as many as 30 to 50 percent of all species possibly heading toward extinction by mid-century [2].

Unlike past mass extinctions, caused by events like asteroid strikes, volcanic eruptions, and natural climate shifts, the current crisis is almost entirely caused by us — humans. In fact, 99 percent of currently threatened species are at risk from human activities, primarily those driving habitat loss, introduction of exotic species, and global warming [3]. Because the rate of change in our biosphere is increasing, and because every species’ extinction potentially leads to the extinction of others bound to that species in a complex ecological web, numbers of extinctions are likely to snowball in the coming decades as ecosystems unravel. "The Extinction Crisis http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/b...

"A chain is no stronger than its weakest link, and life is after all a chain."-William James

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#32594 Mar 29, 2014
frontporchreactionary wrote:
<quoted text> Can you name how many species have already gone extinct from global warming? You haven't told me why you think humans won't be next? "It’s frightening but true: Our planet is now in the midst of its sixth mass extinction of plants and animals — the sixth wave of extinctions in the past half-billion years. We’re currently experiencing the worst spate of species die-offs since the loss of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. Although extinction is a natural phenomenon, it occurs at a natural “background” rate of about one to five species per year. Scientists estimate we’re now losing species at 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate, with literally dozens going extinct every day [1]. It could be a scary future indeed, with as many as 30 to 50 percent of all species possibly heading toward extinction by mid-century [2].
Unlike past mass extinctions, caused by events like asteroid strikes, volcanic eruptions, and natural climate shifts, the current crisis is almost entirely caused by us — humans. In fact, 99 percent of currently threatened species are at risk from human activities, primarily those driving habitat loss, introduction of exotic species, and global warming [3]. Because the rate of change in our biosphere is increasing, and because every species’ extinction potentially leads to the extinction of others bound to that species in a complex ecological web, numbers of extinctions are likely to snowball in the coming decades as ecosystems unravel. "The Extinction Crisis http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/b...
"A chain is no stronger than its weakest link, and life is after all a chain."-William James
another emotional appeal.

how many species have gone extinct due to man mad co2 emissions, son?

because humans adapt and change to their environment.....what part of that don't you understand? do you live inside an inner city condo? wtf!!

and....guess what man made co2 emissions had nothing to do with the die offs before anymore than man made co2 emissions have anything to do with it now!

it's already a scary future.....look at the mindless leaders we have!!!

you're lying....and your opinions have no basis in fact.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#32595 Mar 29, 2014
Poor MoniKKKers wrote:
You haven't been fine for a long while...
You must be "thinking" cheap & moronic, right ?
still waiting on your lawyers address documented liar and blowhard.....
jared

Piketon, OH

#32596 Mar 29, 2014
THE CASE FOR BIODIESEL......obese people can upon their demise significantly aid the environment by giving their bodys to rendering companys prior to having their remains cremated......case in point is muchelle obama.....each cheek of her huge ass could be converted to about 3 gallons of biodiesel fuel........and just think how much biodiesel could be obtained from the breasts of the typical obese walmart shopper....it is environmentally wrong to bury obese people....just cook out the grease and cremate the bony residue........and make gollons of biodiesel fuel

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#32597 Mar 29, 2014
jared wrote:
THE CASE FOR BIODIESEL......obese people can upon their demise significantly aid the environment by giving their bodys to rendering companys prior to having their remains cremated......case in point is muchelle obama.....each cheek of her huge ass could be converted to about 3 gallons of biodiesel fuel........and just think how much biodiesel could be obtained from the breasts of the typical obese walmart shopper....it is environmentally wrong to bury obese people....just cook out the grease and cremate the bony residue........and make gollons of biodiesel fuel
if these people really believe in their cause......that sounds like a rational plan.

after all....they're trying to tax the air we breathe.....even if they can't admit it yet.
Trigger

Minneapolis, MN

#32598 Mar 29, 2014
Global Warming IS a myth!
observer

Allentown, PA

#32599 Mar 29, 2014
I think there are some scientists that want to make a name for themselves and exaggerate. Hey we just had one of the worst winters in years, so what do they say to that? They say we are on a brink of an Ice-Age. Or when it's too warm during the cold months they say the same thing. Can't win. The Earth has been here for millians of years and survived many catastrophic weather.

The Earth goes through natural changes.Sure we should protect our air, water, and land from pollutants. But I think there are organizations out there trying to make a buck on this, which is wrong.
Trigger

Minneapolis, MN

#32600 Mar 29, 2014
A friend traveled to the south pole as a manual laborer.

He talked to "scientists" while there and asked them if they agreed with "Global Warming".

Their response was interesting. They said if they didn't support Global Warming they would not be at the south pole because they would not get a grant from the Government if they didn't support Global Warming.

So all this Global Warming IS junk science, politial junk..
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#32602 Mar 29, 2014
Trigger wrote:
A friend traveled to the south pole as a manual laborer.
All this says is that you manual labor friend couldn't understand what the scientists were saying. Or he has your agenda in mind when he asked the questions and filtered the answers to fit.

The ACTUAL scientists do not have to be interrogated by the janitor. They publish WELL documented facts in prestigious journals.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#32603 Mar 29, 2014
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
All this says is that you manual labor friend couldn't understand what the scientists were saying. Or he has your agenda in mind when he asked the questions and filtered the answers to fit.
The ACTUAL scientists do not have to be interrogated by the janitor. They publish WELL documented facts in prestigious journals.
it all starts like that... dismiss the 'little guy' because the agenda minded smarter people already know what's best for everyone.

would you distrust the 'janitor' if he said that under a different admistration about another subject?

you people aren't interested in finding the scientific proof. your mindset has nothing to do with the scientific method.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#32604 Mar 29, 2014
observer wrote:
I think there are some scientists that want to make a name for themselves and exaggerate.
Generally yes. Bad scientists that cannot get published because their papers do not stand up to scrutiny. So they lend their name to Heritage Institute, write op-eds and testify to Congress (saying whatever the congress-critter wants to hear).

But the MAJORITY are well informed and well published with about 99.9999% agreement on the issue of AGW. Oh, and you are wrong to say 'I think'. There is NO evidence for that.
observer wrote:
Hey we just had one of the worst winters in years, so what do they say to that? They say we are on a brink of an Ice-Age.
Climate change is not AGW (though related). AGW is the GLOBAL average surface temperature and that has risen steadily. This disrupts normal climate and thus you get cold, wet, warm and dry events in regions of the globe. Most reputable scientists (who you do not quote of course) accept that the general warming of AGW has led to these local climate events, pushing arctic air southward and warming the polar regions.
observer wrote:
I so what do they say to that? They say we are on a brink of an Ice-Age. Or when it's too warm during the cold months they say the same thing. Can't win..
Please be more specific. Is "they' the janitorial staff you sent to Antarctica?
observer wrote:
IThe Earth has been here for millians of years and survived many catastrophic weather.
Again, irrelevant and meaningless. The issue is not climate change over millions of years due to changes in the sun or land mass locations. It is about short term changes and it is about how this affects modern civilization, survival of man as a species and what kind of world we will live on in the future.
observer wrote:
The Earth goes through natural changes.
Not in dispute. Also not relevant to the UNNATURAL changes of AGW.
observer wrote:
Sure we should protect our air, water, and land from pollutants. But I think there are organizations out there trying to make a buck on this, which is wrong.
Why? You agree that the ecology and 'life support system' of the planet has value. Why do you then say it should be tossed in the dump as useless? Money mediates all issues we care about. It is not the objective but the means and to some degree the mandate.

Problem is that the problem is much larger than the share of the economy we are willing (so far) to spend on it.
observer

Allentown, PA

#32605 Mar 29, 2014
Trigger wrote:
A friend traveled to the south pole as a manual laborer.
He talked to "scientists" while there and asked them if they agreed with "Global Warming".
Their response was interesting. They said if they didn't support Global Warming they would not be at the south pole because they would not get a grant from the Government if they didn't support Global Warming.
So all this Global Warming IS junk science, politial junk..
That is sad to force scientists to say what they want, we must hear all sides on this issue.
Casey

Saint Paul, MN

#32606 Mar 29, 2014
Trigger wrote:
A friend traveled to the south pole as a manual laborer.
He talked to "scientists" while there and asked them if they agreed with "Global Warming".
Their response was interesting. They said if they didn't support Global Warming they would not be at the south pole because they would not get a grant from the Government if they didn't support Global Warming.
So all this Global Warming IS junk science, politial junk..
A friend of mine knows your friend. Says he makes up stories to support his stance. Basically a pathological liar.

So your posts Are straight garbage, pure junk.

“you know i know”

Since: Oct 07

denver

#32607 Mar 29, 2014
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
http://www.c2es.org/blog/gulledgej/sixth-inde...
Of course, no amount of evidence is going to change the mind of a conspiracy theorist once he's made his mind up...
There is no evidence, merely conjecture, speculation, theories and mostly flat out lies.

Wise up, dummy.

“you know i know”

Since: Oct 07

denver

#32608 Mar 29, 2014
frontporchreactionary wrote:
"Methane emissions come from a variety of sources. Municipal solid waste landfills, for example, emit gas — approximately 18 percent of the U.S.’s total methane emissions in 2012, according to White House statistics. That same year, 28 percent of methane emissions was attributed to the oil and natural gas sectors. Ten percent of U.S. methane emissions came from coal mining, and nearly 36 percent came from agriculture (of which cow flatulence is a contributing factor). Those emissions are only projected to increase through 2030 if additional action is not taken, the White House’s methane reduction plan says, warning of its negative effect on a warming world.
“Every ton of methane in the atmosphere has a global warming effect that is more than 20 times greater than a ton of carbon dioxide,” the plan said.“Thus, methane reductions yield important climate benefits, particularly in the near term.”
With its strategy, Utech says the White House hopes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 90 million metric tons in 2020 — the pollution equivalent of approximately 474 million cars." Everything You Need To Know About The White House&#65533;s New Plan To Cut Back On A Powerful Greenhouse Gas http://thkpr.gs/1iIc1D6 via @climateprogress
All that hot air exuded from Il Douche's fat yap isn't helping the situation, he should STFU, as should the rest of you shreiking chicken littles.

“you know i know”

Since: Oct 07

denver

#32609 Mar 29, 2014
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
All this says is that you manual labor friend couldn't understand what the scientists were saying. Or he has your agenda in mind when he asked the questions and filtered the answers to fit.
The ACTUAL scientists do not have to be interrogated by the janitor. They publish WELL documented facts in prestigious journals.
I prefer scientists who are truthful, you prefer liars:

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical - Forbes
www.forbes.com/.../peer-reviewed-survey-finds... ;
Forbes
Feb 13, 2013 - They are skeptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC .... Just like calling AGW “deniers” instead of skeptics, of which is what ...

s there a scientific consensus on global warming?- Skeptical Science
www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scien... ;
Skeptical Science
A Skeptical Science peer-reviewed survey of all (over 12,000) peer-reviewed ... "Only [a] few abstracts explicitly reject or doubt the AGW (anthropogenic global ...

The 10 Most-Respected Global Warming Skeptics - Business Insider
www.businessinsider.com/the-ten-most-importan... ;
Business Insider

The only thing that is settled is that you're a lunkhead.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#32610 Mar 29, 2014
harmonious wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no evidence, merely conjecture, speculation, theories and mostly flat out lies.
An accurate summary of what you have, reflected in the number of independent enquiries that say the same.

http://www.c2es.org/blog/gulledgej/sixth-inde...

Even Inhofe had to recognise this and STFU.

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
Third Term for Obama ? 5 min FOVR 25
Don't make me mad or I Delete you. 11 min FOVR 4
grossest thing ever 12 min FOVR 10
I Banned Crassus Again 3 hr TOASTER 4
Alan Greenspan - stop spending so much on enti... 3 hr TOASTER 3
Brave Great White Hunter Mr Palmer 3 hr TOASTER 16
IRS political witch hunt of President Obama's f... 7 hr Little Boy Blue 5
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Minneapolis Mortgages