Expert: We must act fast on warming

Expert: We must act fast on warming

There are 28465 comments on the Kansas.com story from Sep 24, 2008, titled Expert: We must act fast on warming. In it, Kansas.com reports that:

Droughts, melting ice caps and glaciers, rising sea levels and mass extinctions will all be a reality unless the U.S. and the world cut back on carbon emissions dramatically, said James Hansen, director of ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Kansas.com.

gretterweed

Pittsburgh, PA

#27028 Jul 18, 2013
youtube.com/watch...
Amazing Global Warming 88 degrees today
njifgh

Pittsburgh, PA

#27029 Jul 19, 2013

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#27030 Jul 19, 2013
ok so let's look , depending on who's ( study ) you read man made g h g make up between 1 and 10 percent of the atmosphere so we'll go in the middle and say 5 %. so this will mean that the other 95 % is made up of normal and natural earth cycle events . so we need to figure out a way to stop all solar activity from reaching earth and heating up the atmosphere , stop all wave action on the seas , river and lakes , stop any type of volcanic activity and finally kill off all plant and animal life , then all forms of ghg will be removed ,and earth will be just another lifeless mud ball floating in space . really how can anyone with a lick of common sense believe that a pesky 5 % is responsible for someday making the planet bust into flames ! one degree in one hundred years / 5 %!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#27031 Jul 19, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>See if you find this annoying too, lol.
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/0...
at 81 i don't have or let much annoy me . even you warmers amuse me i find all of you hard to believe that you can in your hearts and minds believe this drivel . oh wait i forgot we have already established that warmers have NO COMMON SENSE - mind !

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#27032 Jul 20, 2013
We've seen extreme weather events but atmospheric experiments testing the efficacy of climate change mitigation don't exist. Politicians willing to demagog climate are a dime a dozen too.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#27033 Jul 20, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
We've seen extreme weather events but atmospheric experiments testing the efficacy of climate change mitigation don't exist. Politicians willing to demagog climate are a dime a dozen too.
i agree we have the best politicians and ( climate ) scientist taxpayer - special interest money can buy !
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#27034 Jul 20, 2013
home in lincoln county wrote:
ok so let's look , depending on who's ( study ) you read man made g h g make up between 1 and 10 percent of the atmosphere so we'll go in the middle and say 5 %. so this will mean that the other 95 % is made up of normal and natural earth cycle events . so we need to figure out a way to stop all solar activity from reaching earth and heating up the atmosphere , stop all wave action on the seas , river and lakes , stop any type of volcanic activity and finally kill off all plant and animal life , then all forms of ghg will be removed ,and earth will be just another lifeless mud ball floating in space . really how can anyone with a lick of common sense believe that a pesky 5 % is responsible for someday making the planet bust into flames ! one degree in one hundred years / 5 %!
With 90 micrograms of LSD, you'd be trippin' far worse than you are.

There are radioactive substances toxic at the billionths-of-a-gram level.

Heard of deaths from spider bites? But spiders are so small!
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#27035 Jul 20, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
We've seen extreme weather events but atmospheric experiments testing the efficacy of climate change mitigation don't exist. Politicians willing to demagog climate are a dime a dozen too.
So are denier shills who let it slip that mitigation works.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#27036 Jul 21, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
So are denier shills who let it slip that mitigation works.
Climate change mitigation doesn't work, it's never been experimentally tested and shown to cause even the smallest global climate change. No publication of a real world experiment for AGW theory in a peer reviewed scientific journal.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#27037 Jul 21, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Climate change mitigation doesn't work, it's never been experimentally tested and shown to cause even the smallest global climate change. No publication of a real world experiment for AGW theory in a peer reviewed scientific journal.
But you slipped up and told the truth when you said our emissions were mitigating against the next ice age.

You've been told that, for your precious experiment to be conducted, you would need several control Earths and several experimental Earths. These Earths would need to be very similar, if not identical. Therefore, every time you vomit out your useless meme, you demonstrate how abysmally ignorant you, and the idea, are.

Go ahead, thrill us with more of your scientific acumen.
B as in B S as in S

Eden Prairie, MN

#27038 Jul 21, 2013
@ 400+ppm, CO2 is a poison because it is a greenhouse gas?
H2O is a greenhouse gas so it too is poison...(After all, someone on this thread once suggested I try breathing underwater)

The single strongest argument against this religion of CAGW is made by your own proponents...'Food'(CO2) and 'Water'(H2O) are, according to believers, Poison.

Rational thought appears extinct south of the Mason Dixon Line.
B as in B S as in S

Eden Prairie, MN

#27039 Jul 21, 2013
Perhaps there is something to this man made climate disruption' thing after all.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#27040 Jul 21, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
But you slipped up and told the truth when you said our emissions were mitigating against the next ice age.
That was based on an assumption, gcaveman1 conveniently forgets to include. If AGW theory is true then we are already mitigating against catastrophic global cooling with our increased CO2 emissions. Only experiments can test if that's true and provide quantitative data.

.
gcaveman1 wrote:
You've been told that, for your precious experiment to be conducted, you would need several control Earths and several experimental Earths. These Earths would need to be very similar, if not identical.
.
gcaveman1 wrote:
Therefore, every time you vomit out your useless meme, you demonstrate how abysmally ignorant you, and the idea, are.
^^^This is ad hominem, it doesn't change the central truth of the Scientific Method; testing theory experimentally.

.
gcaveman1 wrote:
Go ahead, thrill us with more of your scientific acumen.
There are single subject experimental paradigms for situations like treating rare diseases, individual sport training and individual behavioral disorder treatments. Instead of using more than one subject, the treatment is started, stopped and reversed randomly over time the dependent variable is observed to find a signal from those random changes to the independent variable.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#27041 Jul 21, 2013
B as in B S as in S wrote:
@ 400+ppm, CO2 is a poison because it is a greenhouse gas?
H2O is a greenhouse gas so it too is poison...(After all, someone on this thread once suggested I try breathing underwater)
The single strongest argument against this religion of CAGW is made by your own proponents...'Food'(CO2) and 'Water'(H2O) are, according to believers, Poison.
Rational thought appears extinct south of the Mason Dixon Line.
You almost had it!

It's that "too much" thing! In effect, water is poison if you breathe too much of it.

Not too familiar with rational thought yourself, I see. Or logic. You start with an entirely false assumption and that's where you end up wrong.

Greenhouse gases...not poison.

Too much greenhouse gas can have the effect of poison.

I know some of your fellow Minnesotans are embarrassed by you.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#27042 Jul 21, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>That was based on an assumption, gcaveman1 conveniently forgets to include. If AGW theory is true then we are already mitigating against catastrophic global cooling with our increased CO2 emissions. Only experiments can test if that's true and provide quantitative data.
.
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>^^^This is ad hominem, it doesn't change the central truth of the Scientific Method; testing theory experimentally.
.
<quoted text>There are single subject experimental paradigms for situations like treating rare diseases, individual sport training and individual behavioral disorder treatments. Instead of using more than one subject, the treatment is started, stopped and reversed randomly over time the dependent variable is observed to find a signal from those random changes to the independent variable.
It's not ad hominem when the claim has been thoroughly torn apart and yet you still insist on it. What choice do we have? You keep acting stupid. The experiment idea has crashed and burned. There's nothing else to do but attack the stupid idiot that keeps dragging it back up.

We ask how you would do the experiment, and you reply that's not your job. You're just a layman, you say. Well, why don't you lay off the experiment bullshit since you're just a layman?

So a single subject experimental paradigm for for climate change would be to stop pumping greenhouse gases into the air since we have already seen, and experimented with, what adding them will do.
B as in B S as in S

Eden Prairie, MN

#27043 Jul 22, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You almost had it!
It's that "too much" thing! In effect, water is poison if you breathe too much of it.
Not too familiar with rational thought yourself, I see. Or logic. You start with an entirely false assumption and that's where you end up wrong.
Greenhouse gases...not poison.
Too much greenhouse gas can have the effect of poison.
I know some of your fellow Minnesotans are embarrassed by you.
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You almost had it!
It's that "too much" thing! In effect, water is poison if you breathe too much of it.
Not too familiar with rational thought yourself, I see. Or logic. You start with an entirely false assumption and that's where you end up wrong.
Greenhouse gases...not poison.
Too much greenhouse gas can have the effect of poison.
I know some of your fellow Minnesotans are embarrassed by you.
We can agree that it was you that invoked (as you so correctly stated): the "entirely false assumption" that equated CO2 to "POISON".
We COULD also agree as to what level of Co2 concentration is (to quote YOU) "Too much" for your and my health and the rest of Mankind's since this is the issue currently of topic we are discussing.
But alas, such will likely not be the case as history clearly points to typical patterns of CAGW ADVOCATES reverting to ad hominem, logical fallacies and/or changing the subject.

Allow me to demonstrate Mr. gcaveman1:

Numourous scientific tests conducted over many decades have demonstrated that CO2 levels of 2000ppm and higher ARE NOT toxic to Man. Also, for 100's of millions of years negative feedbacks have prevented atmospheric water from becoming toxic to land animals. So you see, Food and Water will NOT likely become poisonous on this planet. This means more CO2 and H2O in the air is a good thing... Up to a point.

So what is this point of "Too much"?
I submit to the CAGW Doomsayers that ~ 2400 ppm is BELOW the "Too much" threshold. And as to water in the air... We all know it is a non problem... Unless you know something no one else knows.

Now kind sir, we await your insults or your intellect. Which you choose will determine the strength of your arguments.

May peace be with those who keep "The Faith",
BBSS

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#27044 Jul 22, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
It's not ad hominem when the claim has been thoroughly torn apart and yet you still insist on it.
Not everyone believes in pseudoscience:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/ameri...

.
gcaveman1 wrote:
What choice do we have? You keep acting stupid. The experiment idea has crashed and burned. There's nothing else to do but attack the stupid idiot that keeps dragging it back up.
The Scientific Method defines good science, not consensus.

.
gcaveman1 wrote:
We ask how you would do the experiment, and you reply that's not your job. You're just a layman, you say. Well, why don't you lay off the experiment bullshit since you're just a layman?
You don't have to be a scientist to promote the scientific method.

.
gcaveman1 wrote:
So a single subject experimental paradigm for for climate change would be to stop pumping greenhouse gases into the air since we have already seen, and experimented with, what adding them will do.
We've never experimented with adding CO2 to the air with our fossil fuel use; there was no control. Now, if you wanted to burn a known large amount of fossil fuel to measure the increase in atmospheric CO2, go for it.

Such an experiment hasn't been published in any peer reviewed journal.
SpaceBlues

United States

#27045 Jul 22, 2013
The most annoying thing is a denier slaughtering science.

It was done before. Why do the ignorant dare what they don't know? Why don't they try open heart surgery while they are still delusional in science matters?
SpaceBlues

United States

#27046 Jul 22, 2013
Q: What is a double bs'er called?

A: BBSS.

Good grief!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#27047 Jul 23, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
With 90 micrograms of LSD, you'd be trippin' far worse than you are.
There are radioactive substances toxic at the billionths-of-a-gram level.
Heard of deaths from spider bites? But spiders are so small!
tons and tons of manmade pollution , how many above ground nuke test in the 50's and 60's , volcanic ash , other natural earth and solar activity. all of it circulating around the planet only since the planet was born except for the first two and we're still here , no flaming planet no cities under water and warmers have no common sense !

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.

Alternative Energy Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Mark Ruffalo is 'disgusted' with Trump's monume... 5 hr Solarman 3
News Tax bill boosts oil, gas drilling a " and renew... 21 hr CodeTalker 15
News PSC Solar Hearing Has 'Mic-Drop Moment' Dec 15 Concave 17
News Solar Power Rate Debate Draws Crowd to PSC Dec 14 Concave 2
News Renewable energy is surging. The Republican tax... Dec 14 Concave 7
News Nebraska's largest solar farm is up and running Dec 12 Solarman 1
News Japanese solar firm to take on Tesla in roof ti... Dec 12 Solarman 1
More from around the web