Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say

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. Full Story

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#34773 Jun 24, 2014
people believe 'peer reviewed' papers without even reading them it seems!

haa haa

http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2014/02/28/a...
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#34774 Jun 24, 2014
Wow.. these deniers are liars. They call opinions peer-reviewed papers, LOL.

I'm still laughing..Why are they here? To lie freely, LOL.

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#34775 Jun 24, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
Wow.. these deniers are liars. They call opinions peer-reviewed papers, LOL.
I'm still laughing..Why are they here? To lie freely, LOL.
you're lying again, chicken little.

how many peer reviewed papers have you ever read? my guess is none.

“Captain Yesterday's the Future”

Since: Oct 10

New New York

#34776 Jun 24, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
I see here another global warming hypocrite... telling tales of the 'evil' CO2, but still puffing out more of it into the atmosphere with each post.
Tell us again about your "settled" "consensus" science.... your last dozen posts didn't quite put the CO2 past the "tipping point", that warmists 'predict'.
If only you had the knowledge to back your silly trolling, or the science to support nonsense like "puffing out more of it into the atmosphere with each post." LOL!

Do you think posts are like talking or something, idiot?

Too much....:)

“Captain Yesterday's the Future”

Since: Oct 10

New New York

#34777 Jun 24, 2014
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>you're lying again, chicken little.
how many peer reviewed papers have you ever read? my guess is none.
Quite funny, since you clearly don't know what "peer reviewed" means, douchebag.

Or what "lying" is, since you're the one doing most of it here...:)

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#34778 Jun 24, 2014
Captain Yesterday wrote:
<quoted text>
Quite funny, since you clearly don't know what "peer reviewed" means, douchebag.
Or what "lying" is, since you're the one doing most of it here...:)
you haven't read any either, huh, mullet?

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#34779 Jun 24, 2014
Captain Yesterday wrote:
<quoted text>
If only you had the knowledge to back your silly trolling, or the science to support nonsense like "puffing out more of it into the atmosphere with each post." LOL!
Do you think posts are like talking or something, idiot?
Too much....:)
posting on an internet forum requires a PC. PC's require electrical power to operate. Electrical consumption emits co2.

Wipe your chin, agnes, you're leaking 'al-jus'.

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#34780 Jun 24, 2014
new york must be combatting climate change. they don't have the 'brightest bulbs' anymore!

bwaahahahahahahaaa
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#34781 Jun 24, 2014
Captain Yesterday wrote:
You're slacking off... only two consecutive posts not worth reading.
1 post removed

“Obama bin Lian”

Since: Oct 07

Aurora, CO

#34783 Jun 24, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>You must be very fat..
Anyway.. put up or shut up. Here is more..
The $10,000 Global Warming Skeptic Challenge!
1. I will award $10,000 of my own money to anyone that can prove, via the scientific method, that man-made global climate change is not occurring;
2. There is no entry fee;
3. You must be 18 years old or older to enter;
4. Entries do not have to be original, they only need to be first;
5. I am the final judge of all entries but will provide my comments on why any entry fails to prove the point.
as stupid as you are dumb, you couldn't come up with anything but a well worn EBT card..........

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#34784 Jun 25, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>You must be very fat..
Anyway.. put up or shut up. Here is more..
The $10,000 Global Warming Skeptic Challenge!
1. I will award $10,000 of my own money to anyone that can prove, via the scientific method, that man-made global climate change is not occurring;
2. There is no entry fee;
3. You must be 18 years old or older to enter;
4. Entries do not have to be original, they only need to be first;
5. I am the final judge of all entries but will provide my comments on why any entry fails to prove the point.
Monckton of BrenchleyJune 20, 2014 at 7:01 AM
There are four reasons why no scientific skeptic will stoop to take up this challenge.

The first is that it offends against the nemo sit iudex in causa sua principle of natural justice, for you have strong opinions on the subject and a direct financial vested interest in not awarding the $10,000, wherefore you are the judge in your own cause. Find a retired and manifestly independent judge to assess the evidence independently and you might get some takers. Otherwise, your offer is nothing more than a childishly theatrical but pointlessly pusillanimous stunt.

Secondly, you will need to formulate as a basis for your challenge a proposition with which scientific skeptics might actually disagree. It has been long demonstrated by experiment that our adding CO2 to the atmosphere will - all other things being equal - be likely to cause some global warming. The proposition as you have currently formulated it is one with which all scientific skeptics would broadly agree (subject to such obvious qualifications as that the rate of global warming has been half the central estimate predicted by the IPCC in 1990 and that in the past decade or two there has been no global warming at all).

Thirdly, the proposition must be formulated with some precision. In any dynamical system in which a variable is observed to change over time, it will be possible (unless the change has been unidirectional throughout the evolution of the system) to find some period during which there has been an increase in the value of that variable and some period during which there has been a decrease. Thus, in the climate object, there has been a decline in global temperature since the Holocene climate optimum, but an increase in global temperature since 1850 (though the warming rate is of course very much slower than that which was observed in Central England and inferred worldwide at the end of the Maunder Minimum). To overcome the obvious problems caused by the unscientific imprecision of the proposition as it is currently formulated, you may like to replace it with something like the IPCC's definition of the imagined "consensus" proposition: i.e., "Most of the global warming since 1950 was manmade".

Fourthly, you must learn not to bracket those who on legitimate and serious scientific and economic grounds question your belief system with Holocaust deniers. In Scotland and in a growing number of other European countries, using such totalitarian hate-speech terms is - rightly - a criminal offense in that it is seen as a shoddy insult to the six million Jews who were murdered by a previous generation of totalitarians. If you want potential challengers to take you seriously, ditch the hate-speech
http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.de/p...
1 post removed

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#34786 Jun 25, 2014
birds of a feather flock together.....even crooks!

http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/designin...
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#34787 Jun 25, 2014
harmonious wrote:
<quoted text>
as stupid as you are dumb, you couldn't come up with anything but a well worn EBT card..........
You have nothing to put up.. then ???
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#34788 Jun 25, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Monckton of BrenchleyJune 20, 2014 at 7:01 AM
There are four reasons why no scientific skeptic will stoop to take up this challenge.
The first is that it offends against the nemo sit iudex in causa sua principle of natural justice, for you have strong opinions on the subject and a direct financial vested interest in not awarding the $10,000, wherefore you are the judge in your own cause. Find a retired and manifestly independent judge to assess the evidence independently and you might get some takers. Otherwise, your offer is nothing more than a childishly theatrical but pointlessly pusillanimous stunt.
Secondly, you will need to formulate as a basis for your challenge a proposition with which scientific skeptics might actually disagree. It has been long demonstrated by experiment that our adding CO2 to the atmosphere will - all other things being equal - be likely to cause some global warming. The proposition as you have currently formulated it is one with which all scientific skeptics would broadly agree (subject to such obvious qualifications as that the rate of global warming has been half the central estimate predicted by the IPCC in 1990 and that in the past decade or two there has been no global warming at all).
Thirdly, the proposition must be formulated with some precision. In any dynamical system in which a variable is observed to change over time, it will be possible (unless the change has been unidirectional throughout the evolution of the system) to find some period during which there has been an increase in the value of that variable and some period during which there has been a decrease. Thus, in the climate object, there has been a decline in global temperature since the Holocene climate optimum, but an increase in global temperature since 1850 (though the warming rate is of course very much slower than that which was observed in Central England and inferred worldwide at the end of the Maunder Minimum). To overcome the obvious problems caused by the unscientific imprecision of the proposition as it is currently formulated, you may like to replace it with something like the IPCC's definition of the imagined "consensus" proposition: i.e., "Most of the global warming since 1950 was manmade".
Fourthly, you must learn not to bracket those who on legitimate and serious scientific and economic grounds question your belief system with Holocaust deniers. In Scotland and in a growing number of other European countries, using such totalitarian hate-speech terms is - rightly - a criminal offense in that it is seen as a shoddy insult to the six million Jews who were murdered by a previous generation of totalitarians. If you want potential challengers to take you seriously, ditch the hate-speech
http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.de/p...
blah blah you are wrong..

"EPA is getting almost everything it wanted in this case," Scalia said. He said the agency wanted to regulate 86 percent of all greenhouse gases emitted from plants nationwide, and it will it be able to regulate 83 percent of the emissions under the ruling. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas said they would go farther and bar all regulation of greenhouse gases under the permitting program.

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#34789 Jun 25, 2014
looks like obama likes to be in bed with "banksters" when it helps fill both their pockets!
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/04...

http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/08/tom-steyer-...

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/white-h...

shouldn't barry be meeting with a scientist??? LOL

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/...

Tom has solar investments to protect......and his boy is going to listen and toe the line!
1 post removed

“Obama bin Lian”

Since: Oct 07

Aurora, CO

#34791 Jun 26, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>
You have nothing to put up.. then ???
When the high priest of AGW fat Al Snore agrees to a debate I'll put up. In the meantime you warble on.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#34792 Jun 27, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
blah blah you are wrong.. "EPA is getting almost everything it wanted in this case," Scalia said. He said the agency wanted to regulate 86 percent of all greenhouse gases emitted from plants nationwide, and it will it be able to regulate 83 percent of the emissions under the ruling. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas said they would go farther and bar all regulation of greenhouse gases under the permitting program.
You ignored the contents of the post. Don't you find this an important criticism of Dr. Keating's challenge?

"Fourthly, you must learn not to bracket those who on legitimate and serious scientific and economic grounds question your belief system with Holocaust deniers. In Scotland and in a growing number of other European countries, using such totalitarian hate-speech terms is - rightly - a criminal offense in that it is seen as a shoddy insult to the six million Jews who were murdered by a previous generation of totalitarians. If you want potential challengers to take you seriously, ditch the hate-speech"
Christopher Monkton
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#34793 Jun 27, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>You ignored the contents of the post. Don't you find this an important criticism of Dr. Keating's challenge?
"Fourthly, you must learn not to bracket those who on legitimate and serious scientific and economic grounds question your belief system with Holocaust deniers. In Scotland and in a growing number of other European countries, using such totalitarian hate-speech terms is - rightly - a criminal offense in that it is seen as a shoddy insult to the six million Jews who were murdered by a previous generation of totalitarians. If you want potential challengers to take you seriously, ditch the hate-speech"
Christopher Monkton
Nonsense.

“The scientific evidence for global warming is overwhelming and no one can prove otherwise,” Keating said.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#34794 Jun 27, 2014
harmonious wrote:
<quoted text>
When the high priest of AGW fat Al Snore agrees to a debate I'll put up. In the meantime you warble on.
“The scientific evidence for global warming is overwhelming and no one can prove otherwise,” Keating said.

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#34795 Jun 27, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>“The scientific evidence for global warming is overwhelming and no one can prove otherwise,” Keating said.
co2 emission have steadily increased during a time where no warming has occurred for almost 2 decades.

http://poorrichardsnews.com/post/87895868138/...

proof that man made emissions do not drive heat.

dismissed.

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
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 5 min dont drink the ko... 46,727
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 5 min NTRPRNR1 262,746
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 5 min Mrs Cleo 55,969
Hillary Clinton Faces Skeptical Iowa Voters 6 min brad 303
UK party leaders promise Scotland new powers 9 min Swedenforever 23
Challenger Grimes' Poll Shows Dead Heat Race Wi... 12 min Zeppelin 18
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 12 min Tony Rome 1,110,075
Obama thanks Congress for vote to aid Syrian re... 26 min brad 86
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 32 min No Surprize 153,829
•••

US Politics People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••