Global warming 'undeniable,' scientis...

Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say

There are 35852 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.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#33004 Apr 22, 2014
frontporchreactionary wrote:
Reason 2636 we need Obama's plan to cut carbon pollution to become a reality: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2013...
Right, because there were no heat waves before "dirty energy". When you base science on faith instead of experimental tests; this is the kind of writing we get. Even the Democrat majority in the Senate reject Obama's plan to cut carbon, we are carbon and the costs are too great. Obama's plan will cut jobs, productivity and economic growth. Obama's plan will cut your freedom to select the energy or fuel of your choice, without punitive taxation.
LIbEralS

Minneapolis, MN

#33006 Apr 22, 2014
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
"lyin' brian" needs to move to populated communist china(always small letters) & deeply breathe the non-regulated airs of communist china(always small letters), drink the non-regulated waters of communist china(always small letters) & farm the eroded & flooded non-regulated earths of communist china(always small letters).
Oh...... that's right..... "lyin' brian" is a sleazy slimy filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig & alleged & proud threatener, who cares more about money than quality of life & life itself.
Wow, what a spew! Do you always do this when someone doesn't see things the same way you do? If so, you probably aren't helping your cause very much...

“Come Home America!”

Since: Nov 11

Claymont, Delaware 19809

#33008 Apr 22, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The government is about coercion (in the USA. the government licensed slavery by US Supreme Court fiat) the government uses the force of law, the markets give you the freedom to choose. The government is about limiting choices, freedom and adding regulatory hurdles to the market challenge of providing goods or services at a negotiated price; markets are about creative solutions, valued products and respected workers.
The 'free ' markets are about anarchic power without law or order that favors large , stronger corporations or conglomerates over smaller businesses or individuals(state of war) unless representative government(yours, mine, and others ) acts as the ultimate, non-partisan arbitrator and protector of the Public Interest.

“Come Home America!”

Since: Nov 11

Claymont, Delaware 19809

#33009 Apr 22, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Right, because there were no heat waves before "dirty energy". When you base science on faith instead of experimental tests; this is the kind of writing we get. Even the Democrat majority in the Senate reject Obama's plan to cut carbon, we are carbon and the costs are too great. Obama's plan will cut jobs, productivity and economic growth. Obama's plan will cut your freedom to select the energy or fuel of your choice, without punitive taxation.
A carbon tax and carbon limits was first proposed way back in the 1990's by Republican President George H W Bush, a Texas oilman who had the foresight to see the 'writing on the wall', depleting world oil reserves(Peak Oil), deeper dependency on hostile Middle East oil , climate change/global warming as the penultimate threat to our future economic and political stability.
Mothra

Tempe, AZ

#33010 Apr 22, 2014
LIbEralS wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, what a spew! Do you always do this when someone doesn't see things the same way you do? If so, you probably aren't helping your cause very much...
Yup, he does... and he talks to himself. Just watch...

As for the "cause"... he's a tolerated useful idiot. Warmists give him a pass for his inanities, cuz he's so devoted.
Mothra

Tempe, AZ

#33011 Apr 22, 2014
litesong wrote:
LOL

Talking to yourself so soon?

Take you meds and quit being a fool.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#33012 Apr 22, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>They are us; we are the market. We want inexpensive and plentiful energy and fuel; that's why we love coal. We like a market where a vendor asks the highest possible price for his supply and oppose markets where government creates winners and losers.
.
<quoted text>The Greens want a collective society where central control restricts carbon emissions; I want freedom. You may buy the energy and fuel as you please; just don't make it mandatory for everyone else with EPA regulations and higher taxes.
.
<quoted text>I want the market to decide, not Washington.
You don't have the freedom to ruin the planet for future generations, idiot.

Since: Dec 06

Charlie's

#33014 Apr 22, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
They are us; we are the market. We want inexpensive and plentiful energy and fuel; that's why we love coal.
That's pure theory, you wouldn't have a coal furnace at home, it's too filthy.
Brian_G wrote:
We like a market where a vendor asks the highest possible price for his supply and oppose markets where government creates winners and losers.
Don't say "we", just talk for yourself unless you want to be regarded like some kind of totalitarian guy
.
Brian_G wrote:
The Greens want a collective society where central control restricts carbon emissions; I want freedom. You may buy the energy and fuel as you please; just don't make it mandatory for everyone else with EPA regulations and higher taxes.
I want the market to decide, not Washington.
Strangely, when the market produces too high energy prices, peoples ask for statist regulations.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#33015 Apr 22, 2014
frontporchreactionary wrote:
The 'free ' markets are about anarchic power without law or order that favors large , stronger corporations or conglomerates over smaller businesses or individuals(state of war) unless representative government(yours, mine, and others ) acts as the ultimate, non-partisan arbitrator and protector of the Public Interest.
No, when Washington provides favors to crony capitalists in the guise of green energy, like Solyndra's federal loan guarantees putting the taxpayer on the hook because the Democrats and Greens have the power to help their constituents.

In a true free market, every individual is free to choose what to buy and seek a price they can afford. Government run markets have high barriers to entry, to protect the government's friends, high taxes and intrusive regulations.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#33016 Apr 22, 2014
Fair Game wrote:
You don't have the freedom to ruin the planet for future generations, idiot.
Nor do you have the ability to poison the planet with man made CO2 emissions; adding carbon to the atmosphere is like giving Mother Nature too much love.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#33017 Apr 22, 2014
frontporchreactionary wrote:
A carbon tax and carbon limits was first proposed way back in the 1990's by Republican President George H W Bush, a Texas oilman
Weren't paying attention when I was writing about OPEC and those with oil stockpiles favor government regulations and taxes to increase their commodities price? If you can get the government to protect your market by adding to the price, what's not to love about that? Only the consumer gets burned; and rivals locked out by the high costs to entry included by collecting the government's taxes from unhappy customers.

.
frontporchreactionary wrote:
who had the foresight to see the 'writing on the wall', depleting world oil reserves(Peak Oil), deeper dependency on hostile Middle East oil , climate change/global warming as the penultimate threat to our future economic and political stability.
Didn't you just say "Bush lied"? He lost reelection because he raised taxes after promising not to do so. He was wrong about dependency on foreign oil too; with fracking we have more oil and natural gas to add to the world markets. America is no longer dependent on oil from any lone source or region.

Peak oil is a myth and a favorite for market bears. We like presidents who like bull markets. Humans have never run out of any mineral resource.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#33018 Apr 22, 2014
litesong wrote:
litesong wrote:
"lyin' brian" needs to move to populated communist china(always small letters) & deeply breathe the non-regulated airs of communist china(always small letters), drink the non-regulated waters of communist china(always small letters) & farm the eroded & flooded non-regulated earths
here's a novel idea, bird killer!!
since MY country here in the US has regulations for the above mentioned.....why don't YOU go to china and wage war with your pseudoscience to bring about changes? many there may even buy your dead birds for dinner!! chop chop....

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#33019 Apr 22, 2014
DonPanic wrote:
That's pure theory, you wouldn't have a coal furnace at home, it's too filthy.
I'd have a coal stove with a window; coal ash is manageable, coal is energy dense and cheap.

http://www.videointerchange.com/coal_stoves.s...

.
DonPanic wrote:
Don't say "we", just talk for yourself unless you want to be regarded like some kind of totalitarian guy
I write for skeptics; we don't take global warming on faith.

.
DonPanic wrote:
Strangely, when the market produces too high energy prices, peoples ask for statist regulations.
Not so strange; that's how populist politicians work. We need better, and have the opportunity to elect them in November.

“Come Home America!”

Since: Nov 11

Claymont, Delaware 19809

#33020 Apr 22, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Weren't paying attention when I was writing about OPEC and those with oil stockpiles favor government regulations and taxes to increase their commodities price? If you can get the government to protect your market by adding to the price, what's not to love about that? Only the consumer gets burned; and rivals locked out by the high costs to entry included by collecting the government's taxes from unhappy customers.
.
<quoted text>Didn't you just say "Bush lied"? He lost reelection because he raised taxes after promising not to do so. He was wrong about dependency on foreign oil too; with fracking we have more oil and natural gas to add to the world markets. America is no longer dependent on oil from any lone source or region.
Peak oil is a myth and a favorite for market bears. We like presidents who like bull markets. Humans have never run out of any mineral resource.
George H W Bush 'lost reelection ' because he forgot what Bill Clinton always knew that 'It's the economy;stupid'. Fracking wells are not cheap forms of 'new oil" ; they're very expensive to drill and maintain over a very brief period before becoming tapped out. So; drilling deeper into the seams of inner Earth for less quality oil won't get us even half-way to fulfilling even the energy needs of 30 years ago. Fracking is a losing proposition for every one ,but short term, cash flushed risky speculators betting on when the oil crash will come . That's no way to build a stable civil society.
Mothra

Tempe, AZ

#33021 Apr 22, 2014
frontporchreactionary wrote:
<quoted text> George H W Bush 'lost reelection ' because he forgot what Bill Clinton always knew that 'It's the economy;stupid'. Fracking wells are not cheap forms of 'new oil" ; they're very expensive to drill and maintain over a very brief period before becoming tapped out. So; drilling deeper into the seams of inner Earth for less quality oil won't get us even half-way to fulfilling even the energy needs of 30 years ago. Fracking is a losing proposition for every one ,but short term, cash flushed risky speculators betting on when the oil crash will come . That's no way to build a stable civil society.
"That's no way to build a stable civil society"

Hmm... we live in a stable civil society that was built that way.

But warmists always fail when looking at today... they've got a model that shows otherwise years down the road.

“Come Home America!”

Since: Nov 11

Claymont, Delaware 19809

#33022 Apr 22, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
"That's no way to build a stable civil society"
Hmm... we live in a stable civil society that was built that way.
But warmists always fail when looking at today... they've got a model that shows otherwise years down the road.
Historical change isn't a rigid , linear progression . Stable societies have collapsed in the past because of energy depletion crises and our society will collapse if we don't adapt to the new realities of a climate change world of fossil fuel energy resource shortages, ecosystem collapse and species extinctions.
Mothra

Tempe, AZ

#33023 Apr 22, 2014
frontporchreactionary wrote:
<quoted text>Historical change isn't a rigid , linear progression . Stable societies have collapsed in the past because of energy depletion crises and our society will collapse if we don't adapt to the new realities of a climate change world of fossil fuel energy resource shortages, ecosystem collapse and species extinctions.
What "stable societies" have collapsed due to energy depletion? And before you answer, please don't include any where energy concerns were a contributing factor. You make it a primary factor, so give your evidence accordingly.

For bonus points find a stable society that collapsed due in any part to species extinction.

Regardless, you're ignoring that our stable and civil society exists today because of our energy policies, and I''m just having fun poking holes in your absurd gross generalities.

Been talking logic lessons from Oz?

“Come Home America!”

Since: Nov 11

Claymont, Delaware 19809

#33024 Apr 22, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
What "stable societies" have collapsed due to energy depletion? And before you answer, please don't include any where energy concerns were a contributing factor. You make it a primary factor, so give your evidence accordingly.
For bonus points find a stable society that collapsed due in any part to species extinction.
Regardless, you're ignoring that our stable and civil society exists today because of our energy policies, and I''m just having fun poking holes in your absurd gross generalities.
Been talking logic lessons from Oz?
"In contrast [to trees and fish], oil, metals, and coal are not renewable; they don't reproduce, sprout, or have sex to produce baby oil droplets or coal nuggets.”
&#8213; Jared Diamond, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed
Diamond is at pains to stress the objectivity he has brought to bear on a sequence of collapse scenarios that often continue to generate serious controversy, and for the most part (until the final chapter) leaves it up to the reader to draw down any conclusions from these scenarios that may be relevant to our own societies today. This pursuit of objectivity drives him into a depth of detail that on several occasions clearly impedes the narrative line he is seeking to develop. There is only so much about the middens on Easter Island or the soil structures of Greenland that one needs to know to embrace a particular collapse hypothesis.

The diversity of the case studies he uses (both past and present) is extraordinary. Ranging from the highlands of New Guinea to the Pitcairn and Henderson Islands, from Greenland and Iceland to Rwanda and the Maya, from Haiti and the Dominican Republic to the US southwest and China - with many an additional stop-off in between. His starting point and most lovingly elaborated case study is Easter Island ("the clearest example of a society that destroyed itself by overexploiting its own resources"), which he invites the reader to see as a "metaphor, a worst-case scenario for what may lie ahead of us in our own future". Review: Collapse by Jared Diamond http://gu.com/p/xh3ag/tw via @guardian

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#33025 Apr 22, 2014
frontporchreactionary wrote:
<quoted text> "In contrast [to trees and fish], oil, metals, and coal are not renewable; they don't reproduce, sprout, or have sex to produce baby oil droplets or coal nuggets.”
&#8213; Jared Diamond, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed
Diamond is at pains to stress the objectivity he has brought to bear on a sequence of collapse scenarios that often continue to generate serious controversy, and for the most part (until the final chapter) leaves it up to the reader to draw down any conclusions from these scenarios that may be relevant to our own societies today. This pursuit of objectivity drives him into a depth of detail that on several occasions clearly impedes the narrative line he is seeking to develop. There is only so much about the middens on Easter Island or the soil structures of Greenland that one needs to know to embrace a particular collapse hypothesis.
The diversity of the case studies he uses (both past and present) is extraordinary. Ranging from the highlands of New Guinea to the Pitcairn and Henderson Islands, from Greenland and Iceland to Rwanda and the Maya, from Haiti and the Dominican Republic to the US southwest and China - with many an additional stop-off in between. His starting point and most lovingly elaborated case study is Easter Island ("the clearest example of a society that destroyed itself by overexploiting its own resources"), which he invites the reader to see as a "metaphor, a worst-case scenario for what may lie ahead of us in our own future". Review: Collapse by Jared Diamond http://gu.com/p/xh3ag/tw via @guardian
In the case of Easter Island, the major cause for its downfall was the introduction of the Polynesian rat. Like the rats of that time.....will modern liberal rats do the same thing to this once great nation? Hmmmm.
Mothra

Tempe, AZ

#33026 Apr 22, 2014
frontporchreactionary wrote:
<quoted text> "In contrast [to trees and fish], oil, metals, and coal are not renewable; they don't reproduce, sprout, or have sex to produce baby oil droplets or coal nuggets.”
&#8213; Jared Diamond, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed
Diamond is at pains to stress the objectivity he has brought to bear on a sequence of collapse scenarios that often continue to generate serious controversy, and for the most part (until the final chapter) leaves it up to the reader to draw down any conclusions from these scenarios that may be relevant to our own societies today. This pursuit of objectivity drives him into a depth of detail that on several occasions clearly impedes the narrative line he is seeking to develop. There is only so much about the middens on Easter Island or the soil structures of Greenland that one needs to know to embrace a particular collapse hypothesis.
The diversity of the case studies he uses (both past and present) is extraordinary. Ranging from the highlands of New Guinea to the Pitcairn and Henderson Islands, from Greenland and Iceland to Rwanda and the Maya, from Haiti and the Dominican Republic to the US southwest and China - with many an additional stop-off in between. His starting point and most lovingly elaborated case study is Easter Island ("the clearest example of a society that destroyed itself by overexploiting its own resources"), which he invites the reader to see as a "metaphor, a worst-case scenario for what may lie ahead of us in our own future". Review: Collapse by Jared Diamond http://gu.com/p/xh3ag/tw via @guardian
You said, "Stable societies have collapsed in the past because of energy depletion crises",

your link says,

"He admits to having started out on this inquiry assuming it would prove to be straightforward abuse of their physical environment that precipitated their demise. In other words, serial ecocide. It turned out to be a lot more complex, with several equally influential factors involved, such as climate change, the presence of hostile neighbours, any involvement in trade, and a host of different response mechanisms on the part of those facing potential collapse. Each collapse or near-collapse throws up a different balance of those key factors."

I asked, "What "stable societies" have collapsed due to energy depletion? And before you answer, please don't include any where energy concerns were a contributing factor. You make it a primary factor, so give your evidence accordingly."

The result... you fail.

Thanks for playing.

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
SPICER sure is the right guy for the job 2 hr LIbEralS 1
Womans March: 2 hr cowboy chris 1
CNN = Fake News 7 hr LIbEralS 29
Holiday Jan 16 22 hr Jan20 9
Moonman Sat Davycrockett 2
Wikileaks: dossier "bogus" Sat tree hugging hippie 26
Deleted posts Sat Merry Moosmas 3

Minneapolis Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Minneapolis Mortgages