Global warming 'undeniable,' scientis...

Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say

There are 35848 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.

Mothra

Tempe, AZ

#33872 May 17, 2014
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Don Easterbrook? Easterbrook has a history of being wrong on global warming.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Easterbr...
As if an argument about someone else's past performance is a measure.

I know, I know... warmists never hold themselves accountable to anything... but do so for skeptics.

If it weren't for doubles standards, warmists would have none.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#33873 May 17, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
As if an argument about someone else's past performance is a measure.
In science, the success or failure of predictions is a prime measure of the validity of a theory.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Pred...

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#33874 May 17, 2014
DonPanic wrote:
<quoted text>
First try not to waste 30% world produced food as now would be a real challenge
.
more food would go to waste without fossil fuels.

Since: Dec 06

Charlie's

#33875 May 17, 2014
harmonious wrote:
severe drought caused by who or what? Us?
Severe droughts are natural. Amplification of drought effects is man-made: USA lost 280 millions forest acres, 25% of the US forest cover.
As you don't know because Forbes is your scientific news paper, recent "CLOUD" CERN experiments show that biologic molecules released by forests trigger the clouds formation.
This added to harsh agricultural practices amplified severe drough effects.

Since: Dec 06

Charlie's

#33876 May 17, 2014
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
more food would go to waste without fossil fuels.
These 30% being bought food going to trash, fossil fuels have already been used for production, transformation, transportation and refrigeration
Mothra

Tempe, AZ

#33877 May 17, 2014
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
In science, the success or failure of predictions is a prime measure of the validity of a theory.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Pred...
LOL

Says the theorists who are wrong... over and over and over and over....

Love them double standards you have.(and no, I didn't read the SKS link. No reason to give them a 'hit' on their pathetic website, nor the appearance they're credible.)

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#33878 May 17, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL
Says the theorists who are wrong... over and over and over and over....
Lol indeed.

If you won't look at the evidence, you won't know who is wrong.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Pred...
LIbEralS

Saint Paul, MN

#33879 May 17, 2014
DonPanic wrote:
<quoted text>
Severe droughts are natural. Amplification of drought effects is man-made: USA lost 280 millions forest acres, 25% of the US forest cover.
As you don't know because Forbes is your scientific news paper, recent "CLOUD" CERN experiments show that biologic molecules released by forests trigger the clouds formation.
This added to harsh agricultural practices amplified severe drough effects.
I agree with your " Amplification" theory. Case in point would be California where they would rather the fires blaze on than allow fire breaks through endangered mouse habitat.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#33880 May 17, 2014
DonPanic wrote:
I have no power on oil price, go sing your fossile energy bluegrass to somebody else....
Climate change mitigators want to increase the price of fossil fuel for everyone. Haven't you been paying attention?

If man made greenhouse gas changes climate then we are already mitigating climate change to prevent natuarl global cooling, the well known and documented ice age climate scenario.

Do you know the difference between the ice age scenario and man made catastrophic climate disruption? We've actually witnessed the effects of ice age but nobody has seen a man made climate catastrophe.
Beth

Minneapolis, MN

#33881 May 17, 2014
California is desert. When a natural drought occurs the area naturally returns to desert. Droughts occur on a regular basis in nature. When man plants houses on desert hills covered with brush they burn.

Deal with it.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#33882 May 17, 2014
DonPanic wrote:
<quoted text>
These 30% being bought food going to trash, fossil fuels have already been used for production, transformation, transportation and refrigeration
so, are you complaining about wastefulness? if so, i agree that frugality is a good character trait!! that's why i oppose a government carbon tax.....it's a big waste of money for nothing in return.
litesong

Everett, WA

#33883 May 17, 2014
Beth wrote:
a natural drought......
Sleazy slimy steenking toxic topix AGW denier liars say, "natural drought"...... "natural heats"..... "natural rain pourings"......"natu ral sea rise". Its all natural, specially the ice age that we have been in for ten years.....sleazy slimy steenking toxic topix AGW denier liars say.
Beth

Minneapolis, MN

#33884 May 17, 2014
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Sleazy slimy steenking toxic topix AGW denier liars say, "natural drought"...... "natural heats"..... "natural rain pourings"......"natu ral sea rise". Its all natural, specially the ice age that we have been in for ten years.....sleazy slimy steenking toxic topix AGW denier liars say.
Anti nature freek.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#33885 May 17, 2014
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Sleazy slimy steenking toxic topix AGW denier liars say, "natural drought"...... "natural heats"..... "natural rain pourings"......"natu ral sea rise". Its all natural, specially the ice age that we have been in for ten years.....sleazy slimy steenking toxic topix AGW denier liars say.
is it natural for a grown adult man to wander in the woods with a pellet gun and murder innocent birds before stabbing them to death with a pocket knife?

you think that honors nature, son?
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#33886 May 17, 2014
Beth wrote:
<quoted text>
Remember how long 200 years is. 200 years ago there were NO automobiles, NO airplanes, NO electricity, NO computers, NO light bulbs, NO oil burning things, NO NG burning items, NO petro burning ships, not much of anything.
There was a whole planet with resources we can only dream about now. What do you mean not much of anything??
Beth wrote:
<quoted text>
So when you say over the next 200 years the oceans will rise what does that mean to planet earth?
The planet is not at threat. It is about us, our life support system, resources, technology and social stability. In the first point, you talked about these things (and how we built them over 200 years). Now you ignore them??
Beth wrote:
<quoted text>
IMHO in 200 years much will change on good old earth with a good possibility of mankind being exterminated by a meteor hit or sickness.
The meteor is unlikely over that time. Sickness, well perhaps but as a species we are fairly adaptable so I suspect that some will survive even a devastating plague. That does NOT mean that we should ignore the OTHER threats.
Beth wrote:
<quoted text>
In 200 years mankind may continue to exist and posses technology to alter earths atmosphere to make it live able to the maximum degree possible.
Unlikely now. We have dropped the ball on energy resources (not switching to Solar Power Satellites) so we will have a limited energy per capita in the future. It is not very likely that technology will have the resources to 'fix' what we screw up today.
Beth wrote:
<quoted text>
How many inhabited areas of earth are now below sea level? Holland and New Orleans are below sea level and are happy as clams, except when a hurricane hits.
The issue is not those that are below sea level NOW but those that will be below sea level in the next fifty years or so. I.e. New York. The COST of building barriers or of moving whole coastal cities is beyond imagination. We may do it. We may HAVE to do it. But reducing GHG emissions is MUCH cheaper and will at the least, slow the rate of investment needed to something we might deal with. Note that the WAIS collapse will be very slow for many many decades. One mm per year added.. It takes a long time to have an effect so we need to start soon, but at the same time, it is not an immediate threat.
Beth wrote:
<quoted text>
So I have a difficult time understanding why when a chunk of ice ends up the the ocean it takes 200 years for the oceans to rise to the event.
It isn't IN the ocean. The WAIS is grounded. It will take 200 years for it to go INTO the oceans. Clearer?
Mothra

Tempe, AZ

#33887 May 17, 2014
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol indeed.
If you won't look at the evidence, you won't know who is wrong.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Pred...
Indeed.

Such a "crisis" that no warmist is ever held accountable for talking about the "crisis" but not acting as if it is.

btw, where's the hockey stick in your link? Nothing like truncating the end of the world predictions to make warminsts look reasonable, eh?
Beth

Minneapolis, MN

#33888 May 17, 2014
FYI, if you melt snow it converts to 1/12 the amount of water. I.E. if a foot of snow is melted you end up with 1 inch of water. I suspect the "scientists" are calculating the ocean rise based on the thickness of the south pole ice cap that is really snow that has accumulated over a long period of time. So the actual rise in ocean level in 200 years will probably be 1/12 of the projected rise made by "scientists". I.E. there will be NO dangerous rise in the oceans, NONE.

Since: Apr 09

Elmont, Long Island NY

#33889 May 17, 2014
Beth wrote:
FYI, if you melt snow it converts to 1/12 the amount of water. I.E. if a foot of snow is melted you end up with 1 inch of water. I suspect the "scientists" are calculating the ocean rise based on the thickness of the south pole ice cap that is really snow that has accumulated over a long period of time. So the actual rise in ocean level in 200 years will probably be 1/12 of the projected rise made by "scientists". I.E. there will be NO dangerous rise in the oceans, NONE.
Hmmm, don't you think the scientists have already considered that? Gee hard choice here,do I go with people who have advanced degrees, Ph.d's in science or some scietifically illiterate bozo??

oh, and the poles aren't covered by snow, they aree covered by ice. The land mass of the Earth's south pole, in Antarctica, is covered by the Antarctic ice sheet. It covers an area of about 14.6million km² and contains 25–30 million km³ of ice. Around 70% of the fresh water on the Earth is held in this ice sheet.

I think that ading 70% of the Earth's fresh water to the oceans will have some effect on sea levels, not to mention changing the salinity of the oceans
SpaceBlues

Humble, TX

#33890 May 17, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Climate change mitigators want to increase the price of fossil fuel for everyone. Haven't you been paying attention?
If man made greenhouse gas changes climate then we are already mitigating climate change to prevent natuarl global cooling, the well known and documented ice age climate scenario.
Do you know the difference between the ice age scenario and man made catastrophic climate disruption? We've actually witnessed the effects of ice age but nobody has seen a man made climate catastrophe.
Do you want free fossil fuels?

There's no dispute over the first man-made global climate change and its consequences.. except from you. And you don't count in this matter.

Give it up, denier creationist.
Mothra

Tempe, AZ

#33891 May 17, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Do you want free fossil fuels?
There's no dispute over the first man-made global climate change and its consequences.. except from you. And you don't count in this matter.
Give it up, denier creationist.
Do you want to stop being a hypocrite?

Apparently not.

Keep posting. With each one you shoot your own argument in the foot.

And I laugh at you.

LOL

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
Liberals caught planning violence for inauguration 1 hr Space ace 23
Wikileaks: dossier "bogus" 1 hr Space ace 19
Flaming Liberal on ACA healthcare 9 hr Merry Moosmas 1
John Lewis is NOT a civil rights hero! He's a c... 10 hr Zephyrus 3
South Carolina ALS Association Thanks To: Rev. ... 10 hr R Kieth 4
Drop one word....add one word game (Apr '14) 15 hr Chanta53 689
Davy crockett dossier 17 hr Space ace 8

Minneapolis Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Minneapolis Mortgages