Global warming 'undeniable,' scientis...

Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say

There are 37127 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.

Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#24700 Mar 26, 2013
Poor Brain Gone, no actual argument, just the irrational greedy rethuglican't marching orders.....

Get a job!!!! With the time you use here, YOUR carbon tax would be paid....

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#24701 Mar 26, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
BTW, our government has been redistributing wealth for decades. What, you've never heard of the estate tax? The progressive income tax? Without ongoing (partial) redistribution, capitalism will collapse – always. Redistribution keeps it vital, keeps new entrepreneurs entering the system, keeps growth alive.
Legitimate taxes fund government; we have to pay for a necessary evil with a necessary evil. We fund our military because we be slaughtered if we don't.

We fund government because we have to that or lose our rights and freedoms. I disagree with all HSL's examples above, progressive taxation is easier and better because it skims from the top. The estate tax doesn't affect the majority, but it takes a bite from the rich who don't build trusts.

I favor progressive taxes to maximize income without discouraging economic activity. I like very low taxes. Our carbon tax rate should be zero.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
Extreme weather events are becoming much more common with warming. PERIOD. AGW/CC will mean more frequent extreme precipitation events. What we've already seen is a 16% increase in "heavy rain events," a 25% increase in "very heavy rain events" and a 36% increase in "extreme" precipitation events (or deluges).
Extreme weather has always happened and it makes a great newscast. They seem more frequent because of the replays and we have more cameras now. Don't panic bout a 16-35%, next season will get better ratings.

We're talking about trends, they are defined by the start and end point of time. Take the long view, climate changes. Try to get a grip, please.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
I'm sorry the facts contradict your convenient political beliefs.
That's OK, we'll disagree. I love freedom, individual rights and our Constitution. I'll be happy to listen to your concern but taxing carbon is overreach. I'm against climate taxes.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
On second thought, you're right – there's no WAY you're smart enough to be a paid shill. That'd be Fun Facts.
I don't believe paid shills; I find them insincere. I want to see an experimental test of climate change mitigation before I go along and I'm not willing to be in the treatment group. In the name of freedom to consent, I'm part of the control group.

Do your prototype climate change mitigation on your own dime; carbon taxes are a bad idea and climate demagoguery is far worse. I don't like politicians and self proclaimed scientist pitching new taxes and energy schemes. I want to see real science, not con hoaxes promising to stop "more frequent extreme precipitation events" and sea level rise. Get real.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#24703 Mar 26, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Scientists use mathematical models.. all models are first tested in a process called Hindcasting. The models used to predict future global warming can accurately map past climate changes. If they get the past right, there is no reason to think their predictions would be wrong. Testing models against the existing instrumental record suggested CO2 must cause global warming, because the models could not simulate what had already happened unless the extra CO2 was added to the model. All other known forcings are adequate in explaining temperature variations prior to the rise in temperature over the last thirty years, while none of them are capable of explaining the rise in the past thirty years. CO2 does explain that rise, and explains it completely without any need for additional, as yet unknown forcings.[URL deleted]
Mathematical models are defined by their input, they say what you program them to say. There's never been a model tested by increasing or decreasing man made greenhouse gas and generating any measurable change in the global climate; as if our carbon output is too insignificant to measure in terms of temperature. No real world models that mitigate climate change, no physical models that tell the same story.

Models use forcing that program a specific output, i.e. more CO2 in the atmosphere more global warming. Mathematical models are like a tautology. I mean that metaphorically.

Experimental tests, trials, field demonstrations and physical models with real world value add to science; computer models of anthropogenic climate change are more like video games.
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#24704 Mar 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't believe paid shills; I find them insincere. I
You want something for noting and you'll refuse to listen, if it's not what you want to hear... Be honest Brain Gone, you're simply a greedy child.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#24705 Mar 26, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
haha I agree with Fair Game: Lindzen's work hasn't stood up to the test of time- the evidence is against him. Which is why is is one of a handful of climate scientists who don't believe AGW is a threat. Lomborg is discredited and not even a scientist.[URL deleted] Also: Lindzen has given up any attempt to convince the scientific community and pitches straight to blogs now. Lomborg has always been a demagogue and the 30000 scientists petition is a fraud.[URL deleted]
I don't have to defame my policy opponents or make them watch hours of multimedia; the fact remains. There's a dissenting view of climate change mitigation, many disagreements on most effective tax or subsidy schemes. It's like sharks smelling blood in the water. They all want a cut.

I'm not buying in, many scientists don't believe we're doomed to catastrophic man made climate change, mass extinctions from climate change or in climate change mitigation through carbon taxes. A significant number of economists don't join the consensus either.

Lomborg says its cheaper to save lives without climate change mitigation, adapting to climate change is less expensive in the long run. Lindzen says factors other than man made carbon dioxide drives climate change. I agree with them.

The Oregon Petition lists thousands of scientists willing to petition the government against Kyoto protocol climate policy; I'm with them.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#24706 Mar 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Legitimate taxes fund government; we have to pay for a necessary evil with a necessary evil. We fund our military because we be slaughtered if we don't.
We fund government because we have to that or lose our rights and freedoms. I disagree with all HSL's examples above, progressive taxation is easier and better because it skims from the top. The estate tax doesn't affect the majority, but it takes a bite from the rich who don't build trusts.
I favor progressive taxes to maximize income without discouraging economic activity. I like very low taxes. Our carbon tax rate should be zero.
.
<quoted text>Extreme weather has always happened and it makes a great newscast. They seem more frequent because of the replays and we have more cameras now. Don't panic bout a 16-35%, next season will get better ratings.
We're talking about trends, they are defined by the start and end point of time. Take the long view, climate changes. Try to get a grip, please.
.
<quoted text>That's OK, we'll disagree. I love freedom, individual rights and our Constitution. I'll be happy to listen to your concern but taxing carbon is overreach. I'm against climate taxes.
.
<quoted text>I don't believe paid shills; I find them insincere. I want to see an experimental test of climate change mitigation before I go along and I'm not willing to be in the treatment group. In the name of freedom to consent, I'm part of the control group.
Do your prototype climate change mitigation on your own dime; carbon taxes are a bad idea and climate demagoguery is far worse. I don't like politicians and self proclaimed scientist pitching new taxes and energy schemes. I want to see real science, not con hoaxes promising to stop "more frequent extreme precipitation events" and sea level rise. Get real.
Still having trouble with the economics, eh? If you think reducing carbon emissions will be expensive, you have NO CLUE. Just wait till you see the costs of not reducing them.

A revenue neutral carbon tax means NO money is taken from the people. It costs the people as a whole NOTHING; its overall rate is indeed ZERO. When will you get that thru your thick skull?

You also don't get who is impeding on whose freedoms. YOU & your bosses are the ones who are changing the atmosphere & want to change it even more. You are impinging on the freedoms of the rest of us. Sorry, but your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose.

You don't GET to change the atmosphere of the earth for your putrid, selfish, venal reasons. You & your psychopathic bosses don't care about the rest of us, though.

Why don't YOU prove that rising CO2 WON'T hurt us? That is the only rational experiment. YOU'RE the ones who want to change things, foist your toxic waste on the rest of us, so YOU need to prove it won't harm us.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#24707 Mar 26, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
...Actually, temperatures turned out to be somewhat higher than Hansen predicted in 1981 (more than THIRTY YEARS ago), but they're reasonably close. Lindzen isn't even in the same universe. Only an ideologically blind &/or psychotic fool would trust him over Hansen.
Hansen accepted half a million in prize money from the Heinz Trust administered by Secretary of State Kerry's wife, back when Kerry was running for President. Then Hansen endorsed Kerry. And all that time, Hansen was pocketing a salary from the taxpayers for impartial science. He's a crony of Al Gore's climate mitigation schemes, a hoaxer of the highest order. He warned of flooding Manhattan highways from sea level rise back in '81, it hasn't come to pass.

I'd take Lindzen over Hansen any day!
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#24708 Mar 26, 2013
You want something for nothing and you'll refuse to listen, if it's not what you want to hear... Be honest Brain Gone, you're simply a greedy child.
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#24709 Mar 26, 2013
You agree, with people who say what you'd like to hear. Too bad, it's a minority of wing nutter frauds....

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#24710 Mar 26, 2013
There's billions to be made in climate change mitigation, the subsidies, endowments, grants, taxes and incentives are corrupting our government and our scientists.

Be a free people, live with your climate or move. Don't let climate demagogs sell you a bill of goods, demand to see experimental results up front. Don't let them tax your carbon, our children are carbon, so are our wives and pets.

Not until you've seen a trial, test, demonstration or compelling experiment for climate change mitigation; the science and technology aren't up to the hype.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#24711 Mar 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I don't have to defame my policy opponents or make them watch hours of multimedia; the fact remains. There's a dissenting view of climate change mitigation, many disagreements on most effective tax or subsidy schemes. It's like sharks smelling blood in the water. They all want a cut.
I'm not buying in, many scientists don't believe we're doomed to catastrophic man made climate change, mass extinctions from climate change or in climate change mitigation through carbon taxes. A significant number of economists don't join the consensus either.
Lomborg says its cheaper to save lives without climate change mitigation, adapting to climate change is less expensive in the long run. Lindzen says factors other than man made carbon dioxide drives climate change. I agree with them.
The Oregon Petition lists thousands of scientists willing to petition the government against Kyoto protocol climate policy; I'm with them.
Sure, Brain_Gone. Let sea level rise. It won't cost ANYTHING to move Boston, New York, Washington & all the other coastal cities 50 miles (or whatever) inland. Of course we won't know where to put them because sea level rise will be dynamic. It could average 5-10 meters per century for several centuries.

The NYC metro area alone is worth what -$20 trillion? Nah, that's nothing, easy to pay for.

Again, you & your ilk are forcing this on the rest of us, forcing us to accept ever-higher CO2 levels. You're obligated to PROVE it'll be harmless BEFORE you do it.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#24712 Mar 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Hansen accepted half a million in prize money from the Heinz Trust administered by Secretary of State Kerry's wife, back when Kerry was running for President. Then Hansen endorsed Kerry. And all that time, Hansen was pocketing a salary from the taxpayers for impartial science. He's a crony of Al Gore's climate mitigation schemes, a hoaxer of the highest order. He warned of flooding Manhattan highways from sea level rise back in '81, it hasn't come to pass.
I'd take Lindzen over Hansen any day!
You are truly a psychotic, politically blind fool. I already proved to you that Hansen was accurate 30 years ago, but Lindzen has been WAY off. But don't let the facts get in the way of your preconceived notions.

Of course, like ALL LYING DENIERS, you refer to Hansen's statement that the West Side Highway would be awash while conveniently omitting his caveat: ASSUMING CO2 LEVELS HAD DOUBLED (i.e. to 560 PPM). When CO2 levels have doubled, there is no question that Manhattan will be under water. Lower Manhattan flooded during Sandy even with current sea level.

You, your bosses, Lindzen & your lying cadre of deniers are the true hoaxters. James Hansen is an honest, foresightful scientist who has done absolutely fantastic work.

Once AGAIN: YOU are the ones who want to impinge on the freedoms of the rest of us by raising atmospheric CO2. You are indeed obligated to prove it won't be harmful before you do it.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#24713 Mar 26, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
Still having trouble with the economics, eh? If you think reducing carbon emissions will be expensive, you have NO CLUE. Just wait till you see the costs of not reducing them.
Exactly, we have "NO CLUE" because there is NO EXPERIMENTAL DATA. If we had a sample, trial, test, demonstration or compelling experiment for climate change mitigation, then we'd have an idea of the costs and benefits; until then there is only hysteria and irrationality.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
A revenue neutral carbon tax means NO money is taken from the people. It costs the people as a whole NOTHING; its overall rate is indeed ZERO. When will you get that thru your thick skull?
A zero tax rate costs the people as a whole [and as individuals], "NOTHING".

Having no carbon tax is like a 0% carbon tax only it saves on paper filing away the figures. It saves on tax professionals and tax assessors.

A zero tax rate, no tax at all, is the best form of neutral revenue tax for the individual.

Every higher tax rate takes freedom, assets and time away from the individual. I hate all taxes that aren't designed to fund vital government necessities like defense and the interest payments on our debt.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
You also don't get who is impeding on whose freedoms. YOU & your bosses are the ones who are changing the atmosphere & want to change it even more. You are impinging on the freedoms of the rest of us. Sorry, but your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose.
Everyone who exhales is changing the atmosphere, emitting greenhouse gases. Anyone who turns on a light switch, uses the bathroom and prepares breakfast is as culpable as the energy executive who helped provide that fossil fuel to light the way, warm our homes, heat our water, cook and store our food. We all take vacations spreading CO2. We all exercise and work hard emitting as much as we can to increase productivity.

We are all culpable, we are all responsible. Emitting carbon dioxide is healthy and fun. It's as if I planned this economy, we need fossil fuel for its energy and utility. I invest in carbon because it brings a good return. Government may try to kill it but it will never die. This has all gone before. They fear fire, technology and growth; I love those things. We just have different goals, we disagree.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
You don't GET to change the atmosphere of the earth for your putrid, selfish, venal reasons. You & your psychopathic bosses don't care about the rest of us, though.
Speaking of venal, did you know we emit more carbon when we orgasm than when we're aroused? Did you know that's more than when we rest? Emitting CO2 isn't evil; please come to your senses.

Have you ever ridden a Jet Ski, flown in a passenger plane, kept your home warm throughout the dead of winter or driven a car? The bosses, customers, suppliers, shippers, employees and passengers depend on fossil fuel, it works.

Alternate energy, green energy, solar, wind and biofuel don't work, at lest not when forced by government. They're expensive, ethanol starves the poor, solar shades the Earth and wind chops our flying friends. Excessive spending, borrowing, taxing and regulation are bad, get it?

Emit as much CO2 as you please, I love it. The other fossil fuel byproducts must be controlled, but CO2 is good for Mother Nature and our well being.

.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#24714 Mar 26, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
Why don't YOU prove that rising CO2 WON'T hurt us? That is the only rational experiment.
OK, animals evolved from vegetables ergo emitting CO2 is as vital as our plant brethren absorbing CO2. Do you know there are more people eating carbohydrates and sequestering carbon dioxide now than ever before in history? More books, magazines, plastics, lumber, livestock and pets keeping our carbon emissions safe and secure? If they die or burn, carbon escapes back to the atmosphere; until then we just keep on living.

Emitting CO2 has never hurt us, unless you've got a bag over your head. Don't do that! Be proud to add to the atmosphere, CO2 is plum goodness.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
YOU'RE the ones who want to change things, foist your toxic waste on the rest of us, so YOU need to prove it won't harm us.
CO2 isn't toxic, else beer and sparkling wine would lose their premium, carbon dioxide is the bubbles in your drink. Share the love, don't be a hater.

I don't understand HSL, that's why we disagree on climate change mitigation. I disagree with his arguments, I hope you'll understand why.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#24715 Mar 26, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
Sure, Brain_Gone. Let sea level rise. It won't cost ANYTHING to move Boston, New York, Washington & all the other coastal cities 50 miles (or whatever) inland.
Let sea levels rise? You think I have a say in that? That's brainless.

Its also brainless if you think I'm going to pay for you to move from your seaside condo, apartment, or beachhouse; it's not as if you paid me to shovel snow off my walkways and drive. What are you, nuts?

It will cost me nothing; I live inland. Nobody forced you to buy a house so you can listen to the surf instead of the traffic. You live in a coastal city, that's you're look out. I hope you can swim or learn to float.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
Of course we won't know where to put them because sea level rise will be dynamic. It could average 5-10 meters per century for several centuries.
Or centimeters, that's the long term trend, who knows? Flash flood, tsunami, tidal wave, life's a beach. I feel your fear.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
The NYC metro area alone is worth what -$20 trillion? Nah, that's nothing, easy to pay for.
Again, you & your ilk are forcing this on the rest of us, forcing us to accept ever-higher CO2 levels. You're obligated to PROVE it'll be harmless BEFORE you do it.
The more people, the more CO2, we are carbon. I like CO2 rise from human activity, I think that's good. HSL would rather natural causes, an extinction event, geological activity or ocean air circulation take the prize.

This is where we differ.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#24716 Mar 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Exactly, we have "NO CLUE" because there is NO EXPERIMENTAL DATA.
We have o.b.s.e.r.v.a.t.i.o.n.a.l data.

Lorius 1990 examined Vostok ice core data and calculates a range of 3 to 4°C.
Hoffert 1992 reconstructs two paleoclimate records (one colder, one warmer) to yield a range 1.4 to 3.2°C.
Hansen 1993 looks at the last 20,000 years when the last ice age ended and empirically calculates a climate sensitivity of 3 ± 1°C.
Gregory 2002 used observations of ocean heat uptake to calculate a minimum climate sensitivity of 1.5.
Chylek 2007 examines the period from the Last Glacial Maximum to Holocene transition. They calculate a climate sensitivy range of 1.3°C and 2.3°C.
Tung 2007 performs statistical analysis on 20th century temperature response to the solar cycle to calculate a range 2.3 to 4.1°C.
Bender 2010 looks at the climate response to the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption to constrain climate sensitivity to 1.7 to 4.1°C.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensi...

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#24717 Mar 26, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
...Once AGAIN: YOU are the ones who want to impinge on the freedoms of the rest of us by raising atmospheric CO2. You are indeed obligated to prove it won't be harmful before you do it.
No. I'm not advocating climate change mitigation. I don't think we should act on fear of man made catastrophic global climate change. I have nothing to prove or to teach. I'm obliged to do or say nothing. I'm innocent until proven guilty.

We all have the right to emit CO2, fly our gets spreading carbon dioxide, set a fire in the fireplace or turn up the heat. I don't have to justify myself.

If you have ten kids, bless you. If you have ten cats, seek help. Let's get real. Your comic book collection is sequestered CO2, that diploma holds carbon locked away from the air. Be careful what you burn, I recommend fossil fuels.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#24718 Mar 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
This is where we differ.
No, where you differ is (s)he is a rational human being; you are a sociopathic troll.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#24719 Mar 26, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
...You, your bosses, Lindzen & your lying cadre of deniers are the true hoaxters. James Hansen is an honest, foresightful scientist who has done absolutely fantastic work...
"A Summary of James E. Hansen’s NASA Ethics File

By Christopher Horner

NASA records released to resolve litigation filed by the American Tradition Institute reveal that Dr. James E. Hansen, an astronomer, received approximately $1.6 million in outside, direct cash income in the past five years for work related to — and, according to his benefactors, often expressly for — his public service as a global warming activist within NASA.

This does not include six-figure income over that period in travel expenses to fly around the world to receive money from outside interests. As specifically detailed below, Hansen failed to report tens of thousands of dollars in global travel provided to him by outside parties — including to London, Paris, Rome, Oslo, Tokyo, the Austrian Alps, Bilbao, California, Australia and elsewhere, often business or first-class and also often paying for his wife as well — to receive honoraria to speak about the topic of his taxpayer-funded employment, or get cash awards for his activism and even for his past testimony and other work for NASA."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/18/dr-jame...
There are billions to be made supporting climate change mitigation.
SpaceBlues

United States

#24721 Mar 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I don't have to defame my policy opponents or make them watch hours of multimedia; ..
Really, liar. On this page .. you did it again.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>"A Summary of James E. Hansen’s NASA Ethics File

By Christopher Horner.
LIAR.

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 Longtime GOP Texas Gov. Perry wins another term (Nov '10) 31 min Truth is might 24,371
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 39 min Quirky 1,565,661
News How should an angry liberal celebrate the Fourt... 2 hr Mnbvc 559
News Can Trump pardon anyone? Himself? Can he fire M... 2 hr Palin s Turkey Th... 62
News Senate GOP gets new pressure from Trump on heal... 3 hr Palin s Turkey Th... 3
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 3 hr Dr Guru 242,273
News Dear Trump Voters: The 1950's Aren't Coming Back 4 hr Maxxx_Payne 510
More from around the web