Global warming 'undeniable,' scientis...

Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say

There are 37425 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.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#24843 Mar 29, 2013
Amused Slew wrote:
<quoted text>
See you!
for what's its worth I enjoyed our conversation.:)
I didn't.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#24844 Mar 29, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>My entire argument is, there have been no trials, tests, experiments, demonstrations or real world atmospheric models of climate change mitigation so we don't know if it will harm more than help or how much it would cost.
Yes. There have been no trials, tests, experiment, demonstrations or real world atmospheric models of climate change done by emitters that prove the changes in the atmosphere they're forcing on the rest of us are safe.

See? I fixed it for you. You're welcome, BTW.
Amused Slew

Minneapolis, MN

#24845 Mar 29, 2013
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features...

20 year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientist puzzled
Amused Slew

Minneapolis, MN

#24846 Mar 29, 2013
Amused Slew wrote:
http://www.theaustralian.com.a u/news/features/twenty-year-hi atus-in-rising-temperatures-ha s-climate-scientists-puzzled/s tory-e6frg6z6-1226609140980
20 year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientist puzzled
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/2157449...
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#24847 Mar 29, 2013
Amused Slew wrote:
http://www.theaustralian.com.a u/news/features/twenty-year-hi atus-in-rising-temperatures-ha s-climate-scientists-puzzled/s tory-e6frg6z6-1226609140980
20 year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientist puzzled
"But it does not mean global warming is a delusion."

The fact is temperatures between 2000 and 2010 are still almost 1C above their level in the first decade of the 20th century.

"The mismatch might mean that for some unexplained reason there has been a temporary lag between more carbon dioxide and higher temperatures in 2000-2010.

"Or it might mean that the 1990s, when temperatures were rising fast, was the anomalous period."

The magazine explores a range of possible explanations including higher emissions of sulphur dioxide, the little understood impact of clouds and the circulation of heat into the deep ocean.

But it also points to an increasing body of research that suggests it may be that climate is responding to higher concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide in ways that had not been properly understood before.

"This possibility, if true, could have profound significance both for climate science and for environmental and social policy," the article says.

There are now a number of studies that predict future temperature rises as a result of man-made carbon dioxide emissions at well below the IPCC best estimate of about 3C over the century.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#24848 Mar 29, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I haven't seen a citation for a peer reviewed experiment on climate change mitigation, have you?
.
<quoted text>I'm not advocating changing the atmosphere, I advocate the freedom to add or remove as much CO2 as you like. There's already plenty of CO2 in the atmosphere, I won't change that.
It's HSL who advocates changing and controlling atmosphere CO2, not I.
.
<quoted text>No, its on scientist to provide compelling experimental evidence; else science fails.
.
<quoted text>I don't call my opponents names because I prefer rationality to childish insults.
I haven't seen any scientific citations showing that the way the emitters want to keep changing the atmosphere is safe, no. Actually, we already know for a FACT that it's expensive & dangerous.

Oh, you LIE. You most assuredly DO want to change the atmosphere. You're already changing it now, as Keeling & others have proven.

On other threads, you've already claimed it would be harmless for CO2 to go to 2000 or 2500 PPM. That would be certain death for many billions of people, & an almost incalculable loss, in the quadrillions of today's dollars (counting the deaths).

NO, I advocate keeping the atmosphere where it is, or better yet, getting CO2 down to <350 PPM. YOU want to change it, for nothing other than your own selfish reasons.

NO, it's incombent upon YOU to PROVE raising CO2 is harmless, because YOU & your ilk are the ones who want to change it. You can deny this a hundred thousand times if you want, but it won't change the FACT that I'm right about this & you're wrong.

When you show you're not worthy of names, people will stop calling you those names. As it is now, your repetitive posts, saying the same thing over & over, despite being refuted multiple times by multiple people, move the needle on the troll-o-meter far into the red zone.

Sorry. You've earned it.
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#24849 Mar 29, 2013
Fake slew, said he'd be trolling these boards a lot more... Funny, how the morons admit their agenda, then whine when they're called out for it.
Amused Slew

Minneapolis, MN

#24850 Mar 29, 2013
Bushwhacker wrote:
Fake slew, said he'd be trolling these boards a lot more... Funny, how the morons admit their agenda, then whine when they're called out for it.
I would hate to live in your world.
I genuinely pity you.

You have issues.
serious issues.
Amused Slew

Minneapolis, MN

#24851 Mar 29, 2013
Bushwhacker wrote:
Fake slew, said he'd be trolling these boards a lot more... Funny, how the morons admit their agenda, then whine when they're called out for it.
When do you NOT call someone out with insults?
Funny how you always seem to disappear when I'm actively on.

Then come back later to throw insults.

I genuinely pity you :(

You have serious issues with your life.

I suspect you will be like this for a long long time.
Quite a sad individual.

Find a genuinely rewarding hobby.
Your life is quite depressing.

And its like watching an alcoholic at a bar everytime I read your writing.

You need an intervention.
PHD2

Minneapolis, MN

#24852 Mar 29, 2013
Amused Slew wrote:
<quoted text>
When do you NOT call someone out with insults?
Funny how you always seem to disappear when I'm actively on.
Then come back later to throw insults.
I genuinely pity you :(
You have serious issues with your life.
I suspect you will be like this for a long long time.
Quite a sad individual.
Find a genuinely rewarding hobby.
Your life is quite depressing.
And its like watching an alcoholic at a bar everytime I read your writing.
You need an intervention.
Amen!

Adam Lanza didn't get the needed attention. Another basement dweller, will Slewer be the NEXT MASS MURDERER?
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#24853 Mar 30, 2013
Kyle wrote:
<quoted text>
You are truly insane. You quote science that unequivocally supports GW and just dismiss it with nothing more than an unjustified characterization. I think there might be one other possibility. If you're not batshite bonkers, you could be a rational acceptor of science attempting to discredit denial to the absolute maximum extent possible.
In which case, you're succeeding in spades. Keep up the good work.
The simple English language confuses you. That would explain why you successfully engineered the bankruptcy of the Auto Ind. Just to help you along the quote "was pointing out scientific science fiction".Yes another reason why you successfully engineered the Auto Ind. into bankruptcy you don't know the difference between real science and scientific science fiction.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#24854 Mar 30, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
You are obviously determined to go to the grave a know-nothing.
Don't worry- you'll make it.
Your the one confused and not knowing.
Sam

Saint Paul, MN

#24855 Mar 30, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>Your the one confused and not knowing.
Almost 25,000 posts on this topic and this is what you've got huh. Good Gawd man give it up.
Sam The Conservative

Saint Paul, MN

#24856 Mar 30, 2013
I looked out my window today and seen it was cold.

Scientists? I don't need no stinkin' scientists.
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#24858 Mar 30, 2013
Sam The Conservative wrote:
I looked out my window today and seen it was cold.
Scientists? I don't need no stinkin' scientists.
Are you a Poe? If not, could you deniers do any more to discredit your position? This is the intellectual equivalent of creatards asking why there are still monkeys.
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#24859 Mar 30, 2013
Sam The Conservative wrote:
I looked out my window today and seen it was cold.
Scientists? I don't need no stinkin' scientists.
A spammer child, in a dolt "body".
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#24860 Mar 30, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Not observations or experiments on "man made greenhouse gas emission", observations on atmospheric "atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12". There was no control for man made emissions, just observation of the effect of all greenhouse gas, from man made and natural sources combined.
WTF difference does it make, you simpering twit?! One more time for the hard of thinking:

HUMAN CO2 OUTPUT IS 100X THE NATURAL RATE.

Who gives a flying eff that a denier moron like yourself thinks they need to act seperately to disentangle their effects. If I thump your skull with a 101 oz. hammer, would you demand proof that the damage was done by 1 oz?

Respond to my rebuttals, denier scum.
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#24861 Mar 30, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>It sure doesn't sound like any controlled and measured man made CO2 emission or capture was used.
Please support your imbecilic interpretation that for science to be valid it must disentangle the identical molecules representing 1% of the total from the other 99%.

Perhaps an analogy will kick-start your remaining neuron:

A biology experiment is undertaken to determine the salinity tolerance of a bacteria. The bacteria flourished with a low level of salt in the aqueous solution. The salt was from a mine near Cleveland and processed to be pure NaCl.

Then, the salinity is increased by a factor of 100, using salt from a mine near Kansas City, similarly refined. The bacteria die. The researchers conclude that its salinity tolerance is <100 times the original level.

Your insane assertion is that the experiment is bad science because the original salt was still present so the effect couldn't be reliably linked to the addded salt.

Defend your insanity or concede.
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#24862 Mar 30, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text> That assumes they ever answer the question.
It's been answered repeatedly. You ignore the answer because it doesn't support your predetermined, unchangeable position. IOW, because you're a denier.
Dont drink the koolaid

Eden Prairie, MN

#24863 Mar 30, 2013
CO2 is good.
CO2 is food.
CO2 is dangerously low.
1200ppm is the goal for a healthy planet.

http://nujournal.net/core.pdf

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
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 6 hr Fuggleton 11,565
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 21 hr It s Weather Not ... 63,974
News Global warming made Paris floods far more likel... (Jun '16) Thu Fuggleton 155
global warming keeps on keeping on Thu Edwardo 6
News Islands Seek International Funding for Hurrican... Thu CO2 Equals Life 1
News Climate Crazies Finally Admit 'We Were Wrong Ab... Thu Too Funny 2
News Al Gore warns that Trump is ignoring weather ap... Thu Talkin Bout Perverts 223
More from around the web