Global warming 'undeniable,' scientis...

Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say

There are 35524 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.

Kyle

Columbia City, IN

#28617 Aug 3, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>but....but....but you don't understand!!! the sun doesn't offer a revenue stream to big government and political huxsters, so it can't be held responsible. nor can water vapor...or methane. deforestation, though leveling, can't be the culprit either (not enough money to feed the pig). only a minor trace gas can be identified from fossil fuels as the culprit!!! now that kind of taxation has some mileage for these clowns!!!
But....but....but you are willfully refusing to acknowledge the FACTS that make your implied claims of other causation ANTISCIENCE and DECEPTION, ftard. As I've oft posted (and was assiduously ignored by denier scumbags) the PATTERN of warming is 100% consistent with GHE causation, thereby making your claim that it might be the sun willful peddling of disinformation. Your invoking of the "trace gas" LIE has been addressed many times as well. Besides the FACT that you've previously admitted that it's CO2 keeping Earth from being an ice ball, you're ignoring the FACT that water vapor is a dependent variable - dependent upon temperature - as I've personally explained in detail. As for methane or the effects of land use? You're simply being a science denier as the effects of all of these have been and continue to be studied by SCIENTISTS who KNOW S#*T and who have concluded that YOU'RE WRONG by a very wide margin.

So why do you post thusly anyway?

Rhetorical question. Because you're anti-science
Kyle

Columbia City, IN

#28618 Aug 3, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>i'm still in the batters box, son. get serious!!! pick up a mitt and get in the game, dumbmutt.
ROTFLMAO!

What did I just say, LOSER?:

"Now, show us again what a dishonest weasel you are by failing to address any of it, by repeating a non sequitur - again, or spouting lies that have been revealed as such a million times"

I accept your OBVIOUS concession on all three points. An HONEST person would now cease to repeat what they've conceded.

But then you're not any more honest - or any less - than the scum sucking shills of the denial industry.

Oh, that's another oft made point that denier scum assiduously ignore, even as they repeat the asinine, ridiculously improbable, global conspiracy theory of scientists and governments that makes creationist conspiracy theories look almost sane by comparison.

You're not even trying anymore, denier scum. You're content to just blatantly ignore refutations; you're not even bothering to generate the usual dishonest smoke screens and non sequitur rants.

Does anyone think you're NOT obviously displaying every sign of extreme dogmatic thinking and that any remaking scrap of credibility is imploding?

ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>i'm still in the batters box, son. get serious!!! pick up a mitt and get in the game, dumbmutt.
Kyle

Columbia City, IN

#28619 Aug 3, 2013
never believed wrote:
what a bunch of sheep all you believers are ...It's the sun stupid...get it ....if you don't believe me then explain why the other planets also had a rise in temp? We sure don't live there...lol al gore sure couldn't answer the question and left the podium
Well! That would be a powerful argument if it weren't complete BS that has been refuted by numerous means. See my previous comments inre the pattern of warming; I tire of repeating myself for each new know nothing that spouts this denier lie. It's a daily occurrence.
Kyle

Columbia City, IN

#28620 Aug 3, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>you people act like your argument is won and settled.....
Because it is "settled". There is no serious scientific argument against the consensus and that's what counts - the SCIENCE. It's only not "settled" in public opinion because of the efforts of the denialist industry and an incompetent popular media.

ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>......but none of you can seem to answer the question, "what will man made co2 mitigation in our country do to benefit the global climate?" when you have a definitive answer on that.....the science will be settled.
And you REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE FALLACIOUS NATURE OF THIS "ARGUMENT", you comically poor debater!

Explain to us how ANYTHING regarding arguments about mitigation can IN ANY WAY - even theoretically - have ANY EFFECT on the validity of the science that concludes that human CO2 emissions are responsible for current and impending destructive climate effects.

Again, knowing full well that you're far too intellectually dishonest to answer (that and because there's no possible answer), this was a rhetorical question.

I'm summary, the one argument that you always fall back on is blatantly illogical. As an argument against the scientific consensus inre what is happening and why, it's breathtakingly stupid.

Yet you've made it hundreds of times.

There are only two possibilities. Either you're dumber than a sack of hammers or you're a pathological liar that's perfectly willing to pretend to be dumber than a sack of hammers.

Which is it?
Kyle

Columbia City, IN

#28621 Aug 3, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>based on the posts i read here and on other threads....i would think a republican endorsement would make you more skeptical of climate change than to settle the matter for a free thinker like myself. just saying.
Don't you dare equate your dogmatism with free thinking. That's a most egregious lie.
As for your dismissal of the science, scientists, national science academies - all based on a brain dead conspiracy theory about demonic 'librulls'- and now including conservatives as well? Thanks for illustrating yet again that science denial is merely a subtype of conspiracism. One of the universal attributes of conspiracy theories is that any and all information that is counter to the CT is dismissed as being rooted in the conspiracy.
Thus, wingnut here writes off the conclusions of non-science denying conservatives (which is most conservatives outside of the US) in that classic, circularly reasoned, impenetrable fortress of willful ignorance.
Kyle

Columbia City, IN

#28622 Aug 3, 2013
Sunny wrote:
<quoted text>Rite you better watch out this KYLE guy is one mean umpire STIKE ONE,TWO,THREE AND YOUR OUT.
Real scary guy ya know got the world right by the you know what.
Thanks for not letting me down:

"Now, show us again what a dishonest weasel you are by failing to address any of it, by repeating a non sequitur - again, or spouting lies that have been revealed as such a million times."

Your concessions are getting to be so transparent.

Concession accepted.

“Come Home America!”

Since: Nov 11

Claymont, Delaware 19809

#28623 Aug 4, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>LOL....what a 'comfortable lie" and typical response from a left wing ideologue. attack the messenger while ignoring the message. you people are so transparent.
ohhhhhh. it's only the scientist who agree with your agenda who are to be so trusted!!!! got it!!! thanks for your 'scientific observation', gourd head.
"Yesterday 20 over-zealous Republicans in the United States House of Representatives voted to subpoena health data from Harvard University that the Republicans already have, data from EPA that the Republicans already know EPA does not have, and patient data from the American Cancer Society that legitimate researchers already can obtain by vowing to keep it confidential.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans do not know it yet, but these Republicans just voted to allow disclosure of their most confidential medical data and personal identities without requiring protection of this sensitive information.

This is all in service of a desperate political campaign against long-established science showing a clear causal association between fine soot pollution (PM2.5) and premature death. The politicians' ultimate agenda is to attack clean air health safeguards projected to save tens of thousands of lives and avoid hundreds of thousands of asthma attacks and heart attacks annually. " http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/jwalke/stop...
Kyle

United States

#28624 Aug 4, 2013
OK, denier scum. You regulars need to address the refutations of your BS in your very next posts. No repetitions of the BS without acknowledging them. Anything less is tantamount to an admission that the facts aren't on your side and you're engaged in willful ignorance.

Deniers routinely deny any of the science, even when doing so is self contradictory. You scumbags are no exceptions. Sometimes you claim non GHG causation. You might address the patterns of warming that only the greenhouse effect can explain - four different patterns.

The above mentioned patterns have compounding effects, resulting in a 10.7deg mid-winter increase at a Canadian Arctic weather station. Pretty effing hard to get that by subtle data manipulation. Explain how the sun (even if it's output were rising) would selectively warm most somewhere when the sun never rises.

Other times you claim it's not warming. Usually by invoking the laughable global conspiracy theory. See above. See Muller's Koch brothers sponsored meta study of temperature records that found MORE warming when the corrected data from problematic weather stations were omitted. See the short term, highly reliable temperature data that showed 1998 to be the warmest on record at the time, only to be eclipsed twice since then. See the precise, far less noisy, ocean temperature data that shows a massive recent increase down to hundreds of feet deep that represents 93.4% of the total global heat gain.

You know, just ANYTHING that's actually a fact based and rational argument.

Or just STFU and stop embarrassing yourselves. I'd suggest that you might admit your errors and accept the objective facts, but monkeys will fly out of your butt before you'll develop that level of intellectual integrity.
EXPERT

United States

#28625 Aug 4, 2013
Kyle wrote:
OK, denier scum. You regulars need to address the refutations of your BS in your very next posts. No repetitions of the BS without acknowledging them. Anything less is tantamount to an admission that the facts aren't on your side and you're engaged in willful ignorance.
Deniers routinely deny any of the science, even when doing so is self contradictory. You scumbags are no exceptions. Sometimes you claim non GHG causation. You might address the patterns of warming that only the greenhouse effect can explain - four different patterns.
The above mentioned patterns have compounding effects, resulting in a 10.7deg mid-winter increase at a Canadian Arctic weather station. Pretty effing hard to get that by subtle data manipulation. Explain how the sun (even if it's output were rising) would selectively warm most somewhere when the sun never rises.
Other times you claim it's not warming. Usually by invoking the laughable global conspiracy theory. See above. See Muller's Koch brothers sponsored meta study of temperature records that found MORE warming when the corrected data from problematic weather stations were omitted. See the short term, highly reliable temperature data that showed 1998 to be the warmest on record at the time, only to be eclipsed twice since then. See the precise, far less noisy, ocean temperature data that shows a massive recent increase down to hundreds of feet deep that represents 93.4% of the total global heat gain.
You know, just ANYTHING that's actually a fact based and rational argument.
Or just STFU and stop embarrassing yourselves. I'd suggest that you might admit your errors and accept the objective facts, but monkeys will fly out of your butt before you'll develop that level of intellectual integrity.
Let's dance...

So is your position that the Earth is fine tuned to support life and if the climate average increases then life will not be able to adapt to that change?

Or do you hold the position that natural selection, random mutations and adaptation determine the evolution of life?
1 post removed
The Integral

Hilo, HI

#28627 Aug 4, 2013
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's dance...
So is your position that the Earth is fine tuned to support life and if the climate average increases then life will not be able to adapt to that change?
Or do you hold the position that natural selection, random mutations and adaptation determine the evolution of life?
Extinction is actually a natural and common phenomenon – of the roughly 4 billion species estimated to have evolved on Earth, some 99% are gone. In the past, the extinction rate has been balanced by the evolution of new species, but the current, human-caused extinction is happening so fast that evolution cannot keep pace. Barnosky estimates that the current rate is 1,000 times the natural rate, putting it easily on a par with the so-called “big 5” mass extinction events.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v471/n73...
Kyle

Columbia City, IN

#28628 Aug 4, 2013
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's dance...
So is your position that the Earth is fine tuned to support life and if the climate average increases then life will not be able to adapt to that change?
Or do you hold the position that natural selection, random mutations and adaptation determine the evolution of life?
Yes, let's dance, simpleton. My position is that your infantile false dichotomy makes you an EXPERT in making sophomoric, fallacious arguments. You may be that stupid but I'm certainly not.
1 post removed
Kyle

Columbia City, IN

#28630 Aug 4, 2013
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's dance...
So is your position that the Earth is fine tuned to support life and if the climate average increases then life will not be able to adapt to that change?
Or do you hold the position that natural selection, random mutations and adaptation determine the evolution of life?
Your turn to do a jig, fnugget. Is your position that if anything survives anywhere, life will be just hunky dory? Do you think that CO2 concentration rising 100+ times faster than any time in the 800,000 yr historical record, desertification of crop lands, inundation of land currently supporting 100's of miilions, the death of the fish nurseries in dissolved corral reefs and drowned mangrove forests, all in mere decades, will be so smoothly compensated by hyper-evolution that 7+ billion will continue to live and eat without a major hitch? Hmmm?
Angered American

Rochester, MN

#28631 Aug 4, 2013
Global warming? LOL!!!
SpaceBlues

United States

#28632 Aug 4, 2013
Angered American wrote:
Global warming? LOL!!!
What's so funny?

That "current extinction rates are higher than would be expected from the fossil record?"[ibid]
Angered American

Rochester, MN

#28633 Aug 4, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>What's so funny?
That "current extinction rates are higher than would be expected from the fossil record?"[ibid]
only and I mean only "The Victim Culture" by into this Global Warming.

its the same folks that sold their soles for The Next Ice Age theory in the mid 1980's
Kyle

Columbia City, IN

#28634 Aug 4, 2013
Angered American wrote:
<quoted text>only and I mean only "The Victim Culture" by into this Global Warming.
Not only. You forgot about those who understand science, the scientific method, and aren't lunatic conspiracy theorists.
Angered American wrote:
<quoted text>its the same folks that sold their soles for The Next Ice Age theory in the mid 1980's
BINGO!

This is so effin' repetitive. Listen up ftard, because this has been covered endlessly:

* It was NOT the same people, and ...

*... even if it were, they would be correcting their positions based upon the latest data, which is a good thing. It's what scientists do - while dogmatic thinkers like you deny, deny, deny.

* There was no scientific consensus; there was a couple of popular media pieces.

* The climate science literature at the time had many papers concluding GW for every one speculating about POTENTIAL cooling.

* The science of GW is very old - as in 150 yrs old. It has advanced, slowly at first, but exponentially later. The first POTUS briefed on the matter was Eisenhower. The pop culture ice age story came and went in a flash.
Kyle

Columbia City, IN

#28635 Aug 4, 2013
Angered American wrote:
Global warming? LOL!!!
Dunning-Krueger conspiracy theorist science denier? ROTFLMAO!!!
Kyle

Columbia City, IN

#28636 Aug 4, 2013
The Integral wrote:
<quoted text>
Now I know where the climate change deniers get their information. Global Depot. What a bunch of biased articles. Rancourt is a tenured professor that was kicked off of the campus. He also believes that ozone depletion was a hoax. What a nut case.
I watched that entire video. Here's a brief analyis:

100% bare assertions without any supporting argument whatsoever, including many dismissals of the science as a (laughably improbable) conspiracy theory.

0% scientific arguments; not one data point; not so much as a passing reference to a single argument for why a single finding of climate science is wrong.

In summary, it's political polemics from a guy who happens to be a scientist. It's about as close to being science as my s#*t is to being chocolate pudding.

You denier scum are such hopeless buffoons. Can't you produce anything remotely rational? And if not, why don't you STFU?
SpaceBlues

United States

#28637 Aug 4, 2013
Kyle, a clarification for you, "The Integral" is not a denier.
Angered American

Rochester, MN

#28638 Aug 4, 2013
Oh look folks the little indoctrinated Obama loons from the far left are out spoon feeding their tax and regulate agenda once again.

Sorry Millions arent buying what they are selling.

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.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min Nostrilis Waxmoron 1,395,818
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 3 min Rogue Scholar 05 216,887
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 4 min Prep-for-Dep 388,258
News Dueling groups to rally at Confederate landmark 4 min Don Barros Serrano 2,089
News Trump's 'unlimited' wealth may not be enough to... 5 min barefoot2626 66
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 6 min who cares 13,121
News Clinton scores prized endorsement from Gov. Jer... 7 min RiccardoFire 35
News Hillary Clinton wavers on Second Amendment righ... 13 min barefoot2626 1,215
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... 42 min Chilli J 3,507
News News 28 Mins Ago 'Not the America we want': Oba... 1 hr Denny CranesPlace 340
More from around the web