Global warming 'undeniable,' scientis...

Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say

There are 35607 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.

PHD

Cibolo, TX

#24525 Mar 20, 2013
The bush whacked got its clap trapper whacked again and again. You need to revisit 2nd grade English class again you fall short in the discipline. Now if you must prevaricate address the spacedoutblues and the "pinheadlitesout" they can carry a dialogue with you that you may understand.
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#24526 Mar 20, 2013
Phd="If you most lie...."

You make it EZ, to disregard your claptrap.

The next time you address the topic, will be the first. Please seek help
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#24527 Mar 20, 2013
The bush whacked got its clap trapper whacked again and again. You need to revisit 2nd grade English class again. You fall short in that discipline. Now if you must prevaricate address the spacedoutblues and the "pinheadlitesout" they can carry a dialogue with you that you may understand.

Since: Aug 08

Everett, WA

#24528 Mar 20, 2013
PHD2 Reality wrote:
North Pole Weather Today
Mar 19
Mostly sunny and very cold 6° Lo -16°
Wed
Mar 20
Mostly cloudy and very cold 5° Lo -20°
Thu
Mar 21
Partly sunny and very cold 7° Lo -11°
Fri
Mar 22
Cloudy and very cold1 5° Lo 4°
Yes, you must agree that those North Pole temperatures are warmer than normal. Recent average temperatures above the 80th parallel have been -21 to 26 degC. Of course, even these temperatures have been warmer than mid-20th century temperatures. Yeah...... lots of cold is being forced to the south.
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#24529 Mar 20, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Climate doesn't have a thermostat.
Listen up, you cowardly piece of shite:

You forfeited your right to make lame, denier comments when you chose to ignore my response that you cannot refute. Even the typical denier scum will simply disappear for a while when they're placed in a position of admitting they are wrong.

You can resume posting nonsensical denier BS just as soon as you admit that your previous posts was painfully wrong in almost every conceivable way. I suggest that you do as I do and address every point in sequence, quoting as needed to maintain continuity. Of course, that implies that you'll be making a reasoned, supportable argument.

Since we both know that you cannot do so in this case, I'll be generous and allow you to concede with one brief admission. Just one sentence to the effect of "I, Brian G, concede that all significant claims and arguments that I made in my penultimate comment have been successfully refuted and therefore retract them and agree to cease using them or their equivalents in the future, on this thread or any other."

That's what an honest person would do.
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#24530 Mar 20, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>You should try scientific science fiction that would be the only info they can process.
You should try supporting your bare assertions.

You should also try posting or referencing science - any science.

You should try shutting up when you have nothing intelligent to say.
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#24531 Mar 20, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>The bush whacked got its clap trapper whacked again and again. You need to revisit 2nd grade English class again you fall short in the discipline. Now if you must prevaricate address the spacedoutblues and the "pinheadlitesout" they can carry a dialogue with you that you may understand.
No support for your position.

No science, yet again.

I accept your latest concession.
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#24532 Mar 20, 2013
PHD wrote:
The bush whacked got its clap trapper whacked again and again. You need to revisit 2nd grade English class again you fall short in the discipline. Now if you must prevaricate address the spacedoutblues and the "pinheadlitesout" they can carry a dialogue with you that you may understand.
No support for your position.

No science, yet again.

I accept your latest concession.
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#24533 Mar 20, 2013
PHD wrote:
The bush whacked got its clap trapper whacked again and again. You need to revisit 2nd grade English class again. You fall short in that discipline. Now if you must prevaricate address the spacedoutblues and the "pinheadlitesout" they can carry a dialogue with you that you may understand.
No support for your position.

No science, yet again.

I accept your latest concession.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#24534 Mar 20, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Climate doesn't have a thermostat.
.

Yes is does. Climate's main thermostat is carbon dioxide, We know this from studying past climate on the earth, where CO2 level is the most important single factor in determining the earth's temperature.

Richard Alley has said this in his YouTube lectures. I THINK this is one where he says it; if not, I'll keep looking & try to post it:

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#24535 Mar 20, 2013
Oops - wrong vid. This one may be better:

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Since: Nov 11

Westerville, OH

#24536 Mar 20, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Contrary to the propaganda, people nowhere decide on public policy whether in the West nor in the East. Look at the Iraqi war about which now the US majority says it was a mistake. Obviously, the public's decision was suppressed regarding this war.

Nature:[Our] result suggests that public divisions over climate change stem not from the public’s incomprehension of science but from a distinctive conflict of interest: between the personal interest individuals have in forming beliefs in line with those held by others with whom they share close ties and the collective one they all share in making use of the best available science to promote common welfare.

Thanks for your comment, HSL.
Libya deaths?

Oh! Libya was fine but Iraq was not, right?

Egypt? Are you defending Obama or attacking Bush? Or both?

Since: Nov 11

Westerville, OH

#24537 Mar 20, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, 24/7. Some threads here are relatively old, going back to 2010, or even 2008. Way back then, the deniers were saying the same things - even some of the SAME PEOPLE as today. Realists & deniers are not likely to agree any time soon. The deniers know just enough science to convince themselves they're right, no matter how many scientific facts we give them.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n10...

As the effects of AGW/CC become more & more obvious, some deniers may come around, but the oil monied interests will fight tooth & nail. So far they've been remarkably successful in confusing the public. No doubt some of their paid agents are here.
If GW alarmist is right, why they lie in the hacked emails?

Some day alarmist will realize that the world is not ending on Dec 2012, nor by hunger on 2000 as Liberal predicted and that Global warning is a Hoax!

Since: Nov 11

Westerville, OH

#24538 Mar 20, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Hi folks, this goes on 24/7. Deniers come here to post the same. Here's todays's crop on this page:

Denier1 posted: "So if my point and yours are both proven wrong by different scientists, you will only pick the ones that refutes mine as the final authority!

That is how we know GW is a HOAX!

Denier2 posted: "There's no experimental record of any man made climate change, that's why its a hoax."

As you can see, they are not science-based. When we ask questions, they repeat the same or ask another question. Because they are without basis.
No amount of facts will stop you alarmists!!!

We use common sense! The sun is hot and shining down on earth 24 hours a day every day and volcano emit CO2 in large amounts!

You alarmists call CO2 a poison while we know it is needed by plants to give us food for life!

Question: How did you go from Global warming to CO2 must be taxed?

Answer: Via the socialist agenda!

We know what you are up to, you do not fool us anymore!

Since: Nov 11

Westerville, OH

#24539 Mar 20, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>Remember, Jose, a revenue-neutral carbon tax removes ZERO money from the economy & adds ZERO money to government. The chances that "liberals can play more golf" is ZERO.

A carbon tax simply distributes money from high to low carbon emitters. It's the best way to begin to save human lives & civilization - assuming it's stiff enough.

BTW, NOBODY spent more time on the golf course than Ike. Yet he was a great president.
Ike used to defend Obama, WOW!!!

A carbon tax simply gets passed to the consumer, idiot!!!

Hey, HomoSapiensLaptopicus:
If carbon taxes are "revenue-neutral" then where did Al Gore got his $100 millions? From the air?

Show us how a "revenue-neutral" scam made a person rich, please!

Al Gore could become world's first carbon billionaire
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/64911...

Maurice Strong, Al Gore
Creators of carbon credit scheme cashing in on it

By Judi McLeod Tuesday, March 13, 2007
There's an elephant in global warming's living room that few in the mainstream media want to talk about: the creators of the carbon credit scheme are the ones cashing in on it.

The two cherub like choirboys singing loudest in the Holier Than Thou Global Warming Cathedral are Maurice Strong and Al Gore.

This duo has done more than anyone else to advance the alarmism of man-made global warming.

With little media monitoring, both Strong and Gore are cashing in on the lucrative cottage industry known as man-made global warming.

Strong is on the board of directors of the Chicago Climate Exchange, Wikipedia-described as "the world's first and North America's only legally binding greenhouse gas emission registry reduction system for emission sources and offset projects in North America and Brazil."

Gore buys his carbon off-sets from himself--the Generation Investment Management LLP, "an independent, private, owner-managed partnership established in 2004 with offices in London and Washington, D.C." of which he is both chairman and founding partner.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover0313...
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#24541 Mar 20, 2013
martinezjosei wrote:
<quoted text>
Libya deaths?
Oh! Libya was fine but Iraq was not, right?
Egypt? Are you defending Obama or attacking Bush? Or both?
Nice job of ignoring all the meat and potatoes while obsessing over the after dinner mint.

Why not back up and respond to the FACTS that have been revealed by several SCIENTIFIC studies regarding the irrational reasons that your ilk deny climate science? Hmmm?
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#24542 Mar 20, 2013
martinezjosei wrote:
<quoted text>
If GW alarmist is right, why they lie in the hacked emails?
All you've done here is illustrate his point! We have posted repeatedly in reference to the multiple reviews of that matter that found no wrong doing whatsoever. The claims of lies were laughable concoctions and revealed as such ten minutes after the claims were made.

ONLY the denier crowd, which either avoids non-nutter sources entirely or knee jerk dismisses them as "part of the conspiracy", still hasn't got the memo years later!

WHAT EFFIN' RETARDS!!!
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#24543 Mar 20, 2013
martinezjosei wrote:
<quoted text> The sun is hot and shining down on earth 24 hours a day every day and volcano emit CO2 in large amounts!
But the sun is NOT shining brighter SAYS SCIENCE.

And for the tenth time!:

Humans are emitting ~100X as much CO2 as volcanism!

Read the effin' posts. You might learn something, nutter.
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#24544 Mar 20, 2013
martinezjosei wrote:
<quoted text>You alarmists call CO2 a poison while we know it is needed by plants to give us food for life!
Dumbass denier argument #3 that will not die. O2 is necessary for life but too much is potentially fatal.(I'm a diver)

Thanks for only making retarded, easily refuted (because they were refuted so long ago and so many times); of shows that you have no valid arguments.

Appreciate it. Thanks again.
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#24545 Mar 20, 2013
martinezjosei wrote:
<quoted text>
A carbon tax simply gets passed to the consumer, idiot!!!.
...

Creators of carbon credit scheme cashing in on it.
1) No science in your post.

2) Why shouldn't the consumer see the external costs reflected in the price so that the market can drive the development of better technology? That's just a good old market-based solution.

3) Why can't you see the biilions being made by those who fund denial?

4)

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.

Barack Obama Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min Grey Ghost 1,460,307
News The Latest: President Obama orders flags lowere... 4 min Geezer 3
News The 'Fake News' Con: A Case Study 16 min Twizzler937 33
News Obama orders investigation into election hackin... 32 min Giggle1101 6
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 58 min positronium 404,354
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 hr Dr Guru 231,200
News Massive annual defense policy bill passes U.S. ... 1 hr Lick6432 22
More from around the web