Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say

Full story: TwinCities.com

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.
Comments
29,521 - 29,540 of 32,022 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago
DonPanic

Paris, France

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32560
Mar 27, 2014
 

Judged:

3

3

2

LIbEralS wrote:
The story was true in 2009, correct?
I read the selection of messages, mosts of them are ordinary discussions on a complex problem
common sense

Coffeyville, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32561
Mar 27, 2014
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
You watch this trash? There's no hope for you.
Ben Santer (correct spelling) says on the video.
"There were deletions. To be consistent with other chapters, we dropped the summary at the end.
People love believing a good conspiracy theory."
http://www.infowars.com/exclusive-lead-author...
This is hardly a confession that he deleted evidence that CO2 is not responsible for global warming.
Which of course he didn't do, that's just nonsense from the cranks and crooks who make up the other interviewees in this piece of trash,
"there were deletions", do you know what they were and who wrote those particular parts or you just assuming it must have been in agreement with the others....since Mr. Santer (correct spelling) didn't seem to say.
"to be consistent with other chapters", consistent how....to now agree when they originally didn't agree at all? Consistent according to whom? Mr. Santer? And he is apparently the "be all end all" to make a decision on what is consistent and what shouldn't be included? Perhaps we would know better if ALL the reports that were written by ALL the climate scientist that submitted reports and were ask to submit a report had been included or at least a reference to them had been mentioned.
"everyone does like a good conspiracy theory"....well that is true. That might be one reason why one would want to include ALL the information gathered about climate change and human's connection to it or not...you know, just so all reports were included and all views were included and all sides were heard on the issue to leave NO ROOM for a conspiracy theory.
Mr. Santer (correct spelling) out right LIED about the fact that he only dropped the summer at the end. The climate scientist that wrote summaries for the report that were deleted and left out all together have said they wrote reports with evidence to back their theories up but they were left out or deleted from the final report that was submitted and has since been referenced numerous times and used as evidence of human connection to climate change. See you may just watch a show or read an article that agrees with what you already want to believe, but some of us require more evidence and actually do research and try to learn more and find more evidence to back up a theory.....whether it's a theory we agree with or like or NOT! In other words scooter....you need to keep reading and keep learning. All the evidence is not proven or disproven at the conclusion of a show or an article.
By admitting to deleting reports and admitting it was so that all the information was consistent and by admitting to just deleting those reports and then just adding his own theory (which you left that part out), Mr. Santer (correct spelling) was in fact telling you that all the information NEEDED to be consistent and in agreement on the cause of climate change. Why would you need to delete reports just to make them all be consistent unless the ones you deleted were NOT the same, were not consistent with the same conclusions, were NOT in agreement with others that did come to the conclusion you wanted your report to come to?
He pretty much told you point blank the reports he deleted were from climate scientist that came to a different conclusion than those he did include by telling you point blank he HAD TO DELETE THEM TO MAKE THEM ALL CONSITENT. I really don't know how else you need it explained to you. I mean I could type it slower but I doubt that would help.
You apparently have closed your little cranium so tight that you can't even acknowledge there may be a different view than your own. You accepted the theory you agree with and you can't even conceive of anything else existing. You need an open mind to learn, you are past the point of having that ability.
litesong

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32564
Mar 27, 2014
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Fair Game wrote:
Go on then, punk, show us the proof. Take your best shot.
No one's got Clint, yet.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32565
Mar 27, 2014
 

Judged:

5

5

5

common sense wrote:
He pretty much told you point blank the reports he deleted were from climate scientist that came to a different conclusion than those he did include by telling you point blank he HAD TO DELETE THEM TO MAKE THEM ALL CONSITENT.

No, this is just the spin the stupid TV show tried to put on it.

"Santer’s shocking admission that he deleted the opinions of scientists who stated that human activity did not cause global warming from a key IPCC report."

What Santer actually said was "There were deletions".

This is what you do when you edit a document: you change things, you add things, you move things, you reword things, you delete things.

It's not a confession of suppression of dissenting views.

There are perfectly good explanations for those edits:

http://www.realclimate.org/docs/Energy_Daily_...

All you have here is a trashy conspiracy theory cooked up by a bunch of cranks and crooks for an audience of really stupid people.
SevenTee

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32567
Mar 27, 2014
 

Judged:

4

3

3

Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
No, this is just the spin the stupid TV show tried to put on it.
"Santer’s shocking admission that he deleted the opinions of scientists who stated that human activity did not cause global warming from a key IPCC report."
What Santer actually said was "There were deletions".
This is what you do when you edit a document: you change things, you add things, you move things, you reword things, you delete things.
It's not a confession of suppression of dissenting views.
There are perfectly good explanations for those edits:
http://www.realclimate.org/docs/Energy_Daily_...
All you have here is a trashy conspiracy theory cooked up by a bunch of cranks and crooks for an audience of really stupid people.
You should not believe everything you think
Blue Tool

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32568
Mar 27, 2014
 

Judged:

4

3

3

SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
You should not believe everything you think
Greenies think what they construct in their minds is fact.

IMHO, it's because the use of illegal drugs has affected their minds, the old addage "couple of fries short of a happy meal".
common sense

Coffeyville, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32569
Mar 27, 2014
 

Judged:

4

3

3

Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
No, this is just the spin the stupid TV show tried to put on it.
"Santer’s shocking admission that he deleted the opinions of scientists who stated that human activity did not cause global warming from a key IPCC report."
What Santer actually said was "There were deletions".
This is what you do when you edit a document: you change things, you add things, you move things, you reword things, you delete things.
It's not a confession of suppression of dissenting views.
There are perfectly good explanations for those edits:
http://www.realclimate.org/docs/Energy_Daily_...
All you have here is a trashy conspiracy theory cooked up by a bunch of cranks and crooks for an audience of really stupid people.
Like I said, it isn't all said and done just because the show ends unless you base all your knowledge of something on a tv show. Could by why some don't. So, one man admits to "deletions", and you just believe what he says about it. Why? Couldn't be because he says what you want to hear and all you want to believe because you have an opinion and only accept what fits your narrative. So the climate scientist must all be liars about writing summaries for the report, they just happen to be in disagreement with the popular opinion. So they all just made everything up and then lied about it while this one man that when called on it has no choice but to admit there were "deletions" made by himself by the way but he just states "there were deletions" NOT the more honest "I myself made the deletions". That man is the only one YOU think is being honest, honest about what those little nothing reports he deleted were about, honest about why he deleted them, honest in the summary he said he made but it was only based on all the reports that were all in agreement anyway with no pesty dissenting reports by any climate scientist not being represented in the report, honest about everything. Just that guy.....but all the others are lying. Yeah you're probably right!!!!! What a bafoon!

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32570
Mar 27, 2014
 

Judged:

6

6

6

common sense wrote:
<quoted text>
Like I said, it isn't all said and done just because the show ends unless you base all your knowledge of something on a tv show. Could by why some don't. So, one man admits to "deletions", and you just believe what he says about it. Why? Couldn't be because he says what you want to hear and all you want to believe because you have an opinion and only accept what fits your narrative. So the climate scientist must all be liars about writing summaries for the report, they just happen to be in disagreement with the popular opinion. So they all just made everything up and then lied about it while this one man that when called on it has no choice but to admit there were "deletions" made by himself by the way but he just states "there were deletions" NOT the more honest "I myself made the deletions". That man is the only one YOU think is being honest, honest about what those little nothing reports he deleted were about, honest about why he deleted them, honest in the summary he said he made but it was only based on all the reports that were all in agreement anyway with no pesty dissenting reports by any climate scientist not being represented in the report, honest about everything. Just that guy.....but all the others are lying. Yeah you're probably right!!!!! What a bafoon!
You sound just like a conspiracy theorist trying to justify his conspiracy theory- which is of course what you are.

Ben Santer was not the only person writing the report, so he didn't have the power to delete things on his own.
As is required by IPCC procedures, changes were made in direct response to:

Written comments made by governments and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) during October and November 1995;

Comments made by governments and NGOs during the plenary sessions of the Madrid meeting.
Changes made were
unanimously approved at the Madrid meeting by delegates from nearly 100 countries.
That's right: if there was a conspiracy to delete evidence that CO2 was not responsible for global warming, delegates from nearly 100 countries (including the US) had to be part of it.

The reason I believe Ben Santer is that he has documented the changes made and the reason for them, and these changes were approved by many governments and non-governmental organisations.

The reason I don't believe the accusations is that they were made by people with a very strong financial motive to discredit the need for action on global warming, and repeated by people with a history of misrepresenting the science of global warming and slandering climate scientists.

But you go ahead an believe the scientific community, every world government and NGO involved in the process is conspiring to deceive you if you want.
common sense

Coffeyville, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32571
Mar 28, 2014
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
You sound just like a conspiracy theorist trying to justify his conspiracy theory- which is of course what you are.
Ben Santer was not the only person writing the report, so he didn't have the power to delete things on his own.
<quoted text>
Changes made were
<quoted text>
That's right: if there was a conspiracy to delete evidence that CO2 was not responsible for global warming, delegates from nearly 100 countries (including the US) had to be part of it.
The reason I believe Ben Santer is that he has documented the changes made and the reason for them, and these changes were approved by many governments and non-governmental organisations.
The reason I don't believe the accusations is that they were made by people with a very strong financial motive to discredit the need for action on global warming, and repeated by people with a history of misrepresenting the science of global warming and slandering climate scientists.
But you go ahead an believe the scientific community, every world government and NGO involved in the process is conspiring to deceive you if you want.
Actually you are wrong! It would not nor did it take delegates from nearly 100 countries to be part of a conspiracy. It would and did take ONE man, actually a few more, but the report being changed and deletions made took ONE man to do. That is just how people that want to disprove something try to do it, just like you are, hype it up and make it sound like it would take so many people to be involved that it makes it sound ridiculous and impossible to have happened that way. Well as far as happening the way you suggest it would take, yes, it is ridiculous....so I guess it's a good thing it didn't take that many and it didn't happen that way.

I replied to a post you made suggesting someone else was a liar and telling them to prove and show evidence that there were actually people on the climate change side that had lied or hid evidence that opposed their views. I did that. I have never suggested that is the ONLY reason I think that climate change is happening, as it does all the time and always has, but I do not believe it is man made nor can man control the weather or cause it to be more destructive because of their behavior. The falsified 1995 Climate Change Report and the problems with it are just one of many many reasons that we already know that man made climate change believers will do whatever they have too to try to push their agenda and continue to fill the pocketbooks of those getting rich off of something they started and made up the movement on in the first place. Follow the money is correct in the fact that that is exactly what you should do to find out the truth about "global warming", "climate change", or whatever they change it to this week. If you true believers would bother to at least do that much, just follow the money of the people, groups, organizations, business', in this "green movement" even you would have to ask yourself a few questions you wouldn't dare ask yourself now. You are all like the monkey's with your hands over your eyes, ears, and mouth. If it isn't what YOU decided to believe and want to hear and want information about, it just doesn't exist and if it does it must just be some made up conspiracy theorist that just hate what you stand for.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32572
Mar 28, 2014
 

Judged:

4

4

4

common sense wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually you are wrong! It would not nor did it take delegates from nearly 100 countries to be part of a conspiracy. It would and did take ONE man, actually a few more, but the report being changed and deletions made took ONE man to do.
You think the 100 delegates read and agreed to the first draft which you say included evidence that CO2 was not responsible for global warming, then read and agreed to the new draft where this evidence was supposedly deleted?

Without noticing?

Without objecting?

If your conspiracy theory is true, those 100 delegates have to be part of it.

Yep, your conspiracy theory is a big one: every world government including your own is in on it!
LIbEralS

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32573
Mar 28, 2014
 

Judged:

5

5

5

DonPanic wrote:
<quoted text>
I read the selection of messages, mosts of them are ordinary discussions on a complex problem
I'll take that as a YES.
common sense

Coffeyville, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32574
Mar 28, 2014
 

Judged:

4

3

3

Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
You think the 100 delegates read and agreed to the first draft which you say included evidence that CO2 was not responsible for global warming, then read and agreed to the new draft where this evidence was supposedly deleted?
Without noticing?
Without objecting?
If your conspiracy theory is true, those 100 delegates have to be part of it.
Yep, your conspiracy theory is a big one: every world government including your own is in on it!
YOU are the only one here suggesting that any of the delegates read the first draft. I never once suggested that anyone other than Santer read or did anything to the report at all!

So, do you want to debate the post I actually made or anything I actually said or do you want to just make up crap and expect me to defend my opinion on stuff that just pops out of your head?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32575
Mar 28, 2014
 

Judged:

3

3

3

DonPanic wrote:
Platitude isn't argument
Fact, not platitude. Carbon Dioxide is vital for life, its not a pollutant.

.
DonPanic wrote:
Didn't wait for your pathetic advice Scientific method is watching facts, emitting theories and watch if predictions can be confirmed in reasonnable range of accuracy
Go back and try again; the Scientific Method describes how experiments are required to test theories.

.
DonPanic wrote:
And if the result of experimentation is confirmed, it'll damned too late to leap, stupid !
Ad hominem arguments are irrational; global warming alarmism is based on fear, not science. We'll never know if climate change mitigation can work without tests, trials, demonstrations or examples.

Have you found a peer reviewed experimental test of climate change mitigation or man made global climate change? If not, wait for the science to catch up to the hype.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32577
Mar 28, 2014
 

Judged:

4

4

3

common sense wrote:
<quoted text>
YOU are the only one here suggesting that any of the delegates read the first draft. I never once suggested that anyone other than Santer read or did anything to the report at all!
You do know that the delegates read and approve every line of the draft unanimously or it doesn't go in, don't you?

Obviously not.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32578
Mar 28, 2014
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
You do know that the delegates read and approve every line of the draft unanimously or it doesn't go in, don't you?
Obviously not.
Summaries for Policymakers

Summaries for Policymakers (SPM) are prepared concurrently with the main reports and undergo a simultaneous expert and government review. In these documents, each point undergoes not only the careful scrutiny of the scientists, but the reports are also approved line-by-line by all participating governments. Typically more than 120 countries are present at approval sessions.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/press/ipcc_leaflets_20...

“J' accuse”

Since: Oct 07

Denver, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32579
Mar 28, 2014
 

Judged:

5

5

5

SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>If you say so meaninglessly..
Hear this one..
Just as Keystone represents an extreme form of oil drilling—tar sands oil is steamed from underground after the earth above has been shaved of vegetation—so Cove Point represents the new frontier of post-fracking natural gas production. By connecting vast underground fossil fuel deposits with the infrastructure needed to bring them to market, Keystone and Cove Point threaten to unleash massive greenhouse gas emissions. Both are also aimed predominantly at export rather than domestic markets.
More globull warming, hysteric:

Blizzard Wipes Out Two Canadian Reporters

The conditions in Nova Scotia on Wednesday were equivalent to a level 3 hurricane. Wind gusts of 100 mph and 19.5 inches of snow marked the strongest nor'easter of the year. But all of that did not stop two dedicated meteorologists from at least trying to report on the storm, even if they were knocked down in the process.

“J' accuse”

Since: Oct 07

Denver, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32580
Mar 28, 2014
 

Judged:

5

5

4

Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't bother, found it: a bunch of lies from Forbes magazine.
http://profmandia.wordpress.com/2011/02/16/fo...
The emails uncovered the lies, from the criminal hysterics.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32581
Mar 28, 2014
 

Judged:

5

5

4

harmonious wrote:
<quoted text>
The emails uncovered the lies, from the criminal hysterics.
In the final analysis, six separate investigations by a variety of unrelated organizations—ranging from the U.K. House of Commons to Penn State University to NOAA’s Inspector General—have found no evidence that scientific evidence was molded to a preferred outcome by climate scientists.
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...
Rocky

Ashburn, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32582
Mar 29, 2014
 

Judged:

4

4

3

Global warming is also increased by muslim extremists as bomb-blasts creates excessive pollution and increased the level of CO and CO2 gas in the environment.lol

“Come Home America!”

Since: Nov 11

Claymont, Delaware 19809

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32583
Mar 29, 2014
 

Judged:

4

3

3

"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

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

9 Users are viewing the Minneapolis Forum right now

Search the Minneapolis Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Andi uses racial slur 17 min Bellweather 2
Woman's head stepped on by Rand Paul supporters (Oct '10) 50 min hollerrat 26,186
Global cooling 'undeniable,' scientists say 53 min Bellweather 50
Tweet Gets Family Booted Off Plane 1 hr Leroy The Babtist 2
Police Shoot Dog During Chase 2 hr Mozolume Pilot 6
Franken REFUSES to debate at the State Fair 2 hr Space ace 4
Michele Bachmann 2016 first woman President ( Y... 2 hr Mozolume Pilot 20
•••
•••
•••
Minneapolis Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Minneapolis Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

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 ]
•••