Who still takes global warming seriou...

Who still takes global warming seriously?

There are 30923 comments on the Farmington Daily Times story from Jan 28, 2010, titled Who still takes global warming seriously?. In it, Farmington Daily Times reports that:

Despite the recent discovery of the e-mails that resulted in "Climate Gate" and the fact this has been one of the coldest and harshest winters in many years, Gov.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Farmington Daily Times.

SpaceBlues

United States

#31628 Mar 16, 2013
Roses are red
Violets are blue
Deniers like lies
Dropping like flies!
SpaceBlues

United States

#31629 Mar 16, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Balance the carbon budget? They can't even balance the state or national budgets, what a crock.
We need a new carbon limit like we need a whole[sick] in the head. A new tax would increase the price of energy, slow our recovery. We need government out of energy markets, now. We need to end mandates, CAFE standards, restrictions and bans on offshore drilling. We need a government policy that actually encourages the production and use of energy.
A "whole" in the head? LOL.

What a crock!

We need to end fossil fuel subsidies.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#31630 Mar 16, 2013
Roses are Yellow in Texas
spacedoutblues runs its crock
Your lies are dropping like flies
Scientific science fiction is your forte.
litesong

Everett, WA

#31631 Mar 16, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
'fetid feces face flip flopper fiend' is supporting its boss (brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver).
True.

'fetid feces face flip flopper fiend' supports 'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver' & its slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pigisms AND its alleged & proud threats. That makes 'fetid feces face flip flopper fiend' a member of the 'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver' slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pigisms AND alleged & proud threats AGW denier ganghood & also makes 'fetid feces face flip flopper fiend' a slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AND alleged & proud threatener.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#31632 Mar 16, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Roses are red
Violets are blue
Deniers like lies
Dropping like flies!
denier bullshit
don't mean anything
just empty words
against a rising tide
the king would turn back the ocean
but couldn't.
if a king couldn't,
how can we?
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#31633 Mar 17, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
True.
'fetid feces face flip flopper fiend' supports 'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver' & its slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pigisms AND its alleged & proud threats. That makes 'fetid feces face flip flopper fiend' a member of the 'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver' slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pigisms AND alleged & proud threats AGW denier ganghood & also makes 'fetid feces face flip flopper fiend' a slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AND alleged & proud threatener.
More diarrheas from the "pinheadlitesout".
The truth struck another nerve causing it another rash.
okiedokie

United States

#31634 Mar 17, 2013
This has turned into nothing but stupidity offered up by the finest dummies this area has to offer. And that's saying something.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#31635 Mar 17, 2013
Well than offer something of interest. Try to keep that scientific science fiction cut and paste useless babble out. The spacedoutblues and the "pinheadlitesout" spread that method daily.
litesong

Everett, WA

#31636 Mar 17, 2013
fetid feces face flip flopper fiend wrote:
...... diarrhea.
'fetid feces face flip flopper fiend' fluffed:
...... would that be the same NASA that made the USA space hitchhikers??
//////////
john wrote:
I believe former president Bush did that.....not NASA. He signed the order to end the shuttle program.
//////////
litesong wrote:
Originally designed to last for 99 missions, it was incredible that they got ~50 flights out of the surviving shuttles. Russia never got people to the moon & never got their shuttle to work properly. No other countries ever did what NASA did.

Obviously,'fetid feces face flip flopper fiend' ain't even weakly patriotic, but it is greatly idiotic.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#31637 Mar 18, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
A "whole" in the head? LOL. What a crock!
Thanks for the spelling tip.

.
SpaceBlues wrote:
We need to end fossil fuel subsidies.
Fossil fuels are taxed, they create billions of dollars in taxes. We need to end ALL subsidies, even those for green energy.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#31638 Mar 18, 2013
#31636

More diarrheas from the “pinheadlitesout”.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#31639 Mar 18, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I've written about why I believe climate change mitigation is a hoax: the complete lack of experimental tests. I have an objective standard for my beliefs, I'll change my mind about climate change mitigation when I see compelling experimental evidence.
What would cause you to change your mind about climate change mitigation? If your beliefs are based on reason instead of emotion, you should be able to answer that question.
Yes, you've spammed endlessly on a subject which isn't even being discussed so as to evade the necessity of discussing the subject at hand - global warming, specifically AGW.

You have no standards, Brainless. You are a troll, and as a troll, obviously you're the "emotional" one - you get excited by trolling and starting conflicts.

How pathetic. Why not give it up?

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#31640 Mar 18, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
If man made greenhouse gas emissions change climate then we are already mitigating climate change against global cooling, the catastrophic ice age scenario. The only difference between that theory and the alarmists; we've actually seen ice ages but nobody has seen catastrophic man made global warming.
Daffy troll Brainless_G puts yet another spin on his favorite offtopic post - not only is it about "mitigation," but we're already "mitigating" something we didn't know we were mitigating!

So now mitigation works and is good, Brainless, is that what you're trying to pretend??

LOL (rolling eyes)

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#31641 Mar 18, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
Yes, you've spammed endlessly on a subject which isn't even being discussed so as to evade the necessity of discussing the subject at hand - global warming, specifically AGW. You have no standards, Brainless. You are a troll, and as a troll, obviously you're the "emotional" one - you get excited by trolling and starting conflicts.
^^^This is mere name-calling, not discussing the issues. I've stated my standards; a compelling experimental test for climate change mitigation.

Why does it bother you that I want to discuss mitigation?

.
tha Professor wrote:
How pathetic. Why not give it up?
Climate always changes, for me the issue is mitigation. Why won't tha Professor answer my question?

Let's try again:

What would cause you to change your mind about climate change mitigation?
SpaceBlues

United States

#31642 Mar 18, 2013
Before the English industrialization, climate variations involved only one degree Celsius temperature zig-zags. Not so with what's happening under man-made global warming.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#31643 Mar 18, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^This is mere name-calling, not discussing the issues. I've stated my standards; a compelling experimental test for climate change mitigation.
Why does it bother you that I want to discuss mitigation?
.
<quoted text>Climate always changes, for me the issue is mitigation. Why won't tha Professor answer my question?
Let's try again:
What would cause you to change your mind about climate change mitigation?
There's nothing wrong with discussing mitigation. However, in the past you've said (many times) that because we haven't done specific mitigation experiments, that makes all of AGW/CC science wrong. That's just nonsense.

What we can do for mitigation is a reasonable discussion. Remember, though, that when you're in a hole, the 1st thing to do is to stop digging. We need to start reducing, & eliminating as much as possible, carbon emissions into the atmosphere. It'll be MUCH easier to not emit it in the 1st place than to try to remove it later.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#31644 Mar 18, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
There's nothing wrong with discussing mitigation. However, in the past you've said (many times) that because we haven't done specific mitigation experiments, that makes all of AGW/CC science wrong. That's just nonsense.
^^^The quote above misstates my position, I've never claimed all anthropogenic global warming and climate change science is wrong.

I've claimed, we haven't done ANY climate change mitigation experiments and that makes climate change mitigation a hoax.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
What we can do for mitigation is a reasonable discussion. Remember, though, that when you're in a hole, the 1st thing to do is to stop digging.
Remember, if you're digging a well, the last thing you want to do is stop digging. Drill here, drill now and explore everywhere.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
We need to start reducing, & eliminating as much as possible, carbon emissions into the atmosphere.
My children emit carbon, so do my pets. I support carbon emissions because when we stop emitting CO2 we die.

Don't beleive me? Then try holding your breath.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
It'll be MUCH easier to not emit it in the 1st place than to try to remove it later.
Plants do a superb job removing CO2 from the air and turning it into food and other goods. The more CO2 in the air, the easier it is for plants to survive and the less water they lose to the air.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#31645 Mar 18, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Plants do a superb job removing CO2 from the air and turning it into food and other goods. The more CO2 in the air, the easier it is for plants to survive and the less water they lose to the air.
CO2 is only one factor in how well plants do.

More CO2 will mean plants do less well.

This can be proved with an experiment.

That's a real experiment, not Brian's phony one.

http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/smartnews/201...

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#31646 Mar 19, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
CO2 is only one factor in how well plants do. More CO2 will mean plants do less well. This can be proved with an experiment. That's a real experiment, not Brian's phony one.[URL deleted]
This link is from Fair Games citation above:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n3/...
The stimulation of plant growth by elevated CO2 concentration has been widely observed. Such fertilization, and associated carbon storage, could dampen future increases in atmospheric CO2 levels and associated climate warming1. However, the CO2 fertilization of plant biomass may be sensitive to nitrogen supply2, 3, 4. Herein we show that in the latest decade of a long-term perennial grassland experiment, low ambient soil nitrogen availability constrained the positive response of plant biomass to elevated CO2, a result not seen in the first years (1998–2000) of the study. From 2001 to 2010, elevated CO2 stimulated plant biomass half as much under ambient as under enriched nitrogen supply, an effect mirrored over this period by more positive effects of elevated CO2 on soil nitrogen supply (net nitrogen mineralization) and plant nitrogen status under enriched than ambient nitrogen supply. The results did not strongly support either the progressive nitrogen limitation hypothesis, or the alternative hypothesis of priming of soil nitrogen release by elevated CO2. As nitrogen limitation to productivity is widespread, persistent nitrogen constraints on terrestrial responses to rising CO2 are probably pervasive. Further incorporation of such interactions into Earth system models is recommended to better predict future CO2 fertilization effects and impacts on the global carbon cycle.
Fair Game's conclusion: "More CO2 will mean plants do less well." is contradicted by the experiment. Climate models do less well without experimental tests and those tests show high hopes of new plant growth sequestering much more atmospheric CO2 is wrong.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#31647 Mar 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>This link is from Fair Games citation above:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n3/...
<quoted text>
Fair Game's conclusion: "More CO2 will mean plants do less well." is contradicted by the experiment. Climate models do less well without experimental tests and those tests show high hopes of new plant growth sequestering much more atmospheric CO2 is wrong.
Read but not understood.

"As nitrogen limitation to productivity is widespread, persistent nitrogen constraints on terrestrial responses to rising CO2 are probably pervasive."

There's not enough Nitrogen for CO2 to fertilize.

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.

Global Warming Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Global Warming Standup Comedy (Apr '07) 14 hr Big Al 5,176
News My Word: Congress must counter Trumpa s damage ... 18 hr No doubt 1
News Hundreds Of Scientists Urge Trump To Pull Out O... Sun Mothra 255
News Climate cycles that could mean we're about to g... Sun VirtualRealityIsN... 28
Global Cooling (Apr '15) May 19 Believe Or Burn 2,449
News Rising sea levels could mean twice as much floo... May 18 Climate Science 1
No News About This Week's UNFCCC Meeeting in Bo... May 18 Where Is My Ticket 2
More from around the web