Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say

Full story: TwinCities.com

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.
Comments
19,641 - 19,660 of 32,458 Comments Last updated 2 hrs ago
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#20659 Aug 9, 2012
Gaius Gracchuss wrote:
<quoted text>
Belief is a good starting place for science (i.e. observations hypothesis, experiment, theory, test/pear review, refine, theory). You see even when you get to the end it is still only a theory. Always subject to change based upon new information. This is what is wrong with the "decided science" crowd. Much of their proof has holes or is just plane wrong and they are not willing to accept any criticism. Everyone who disagrees with them is the pawn of big business etc...
AGW is not a science it is politics and a rather totalitarian brand of politics.
Pear review, yummy.

Clearly, you are as incompetent as your namesake. Listen to the abc of human-induced climate change. It's the excess CO2, GG.

Understand the greenhouse effect, That's science, you'll accept.

Now where does the politics come in? When you open your mouth to deny the science.

WHY do you do that????
Northie

Spokane, WA

#20660 Aug 9, 2012
Gaius Gracchuss wrote:
<quoted text>
Belief is a good starting place for science (i.e. observations hypothesis, experiment, theory, test/pear review, refine, theory). You see even when you get to the end it is still only a theory. Always subject to change based upon new information. This is what is wrong with the "decided science" crowd. Much of their proof has holes or is just plane wrong and they are not willing to accept any criticism. Everyone who disagrees with them is the pawn of big business etc...
AGW is not a science it is politics and a rather totalitarian brand of politics.
Looking forward to "pear review". Hope you don't fly your "plane wrong".

Most of all, I'm gratified to know that politics plays no part whatsoever in your denial of the agreement between all major national scientific academies and 98% of publishing climatologists that we are responsible for cooking the climate.

“Get RIGHT or be left”

Since: Nov 07

www.dreamindemon.com

#20661 Aug 9, 2012
Northie wrote:
<quoted text>
Looking forward to "pear review". Hope you don't fly your "plane wrong".
Most of all, I'm gratified to know that politics plays no part whatsoever in your denial of the agreement between all major national scientific academies and 98% of publishing climatologists that we are responsible for cooking the climate.
Liberal loser troll!

How many names do you post under?

Your SLEWPIDITY is showing!
Seattle Slew

Seattle, WA

#20662 Aug 9, 2012
Hey, 1/2 brain queen jeffy da drunk turd, nice post. Probably your best work... I'm guessing queen jeffy da drunk turd is NO hypocrite, so you'll NEVER vote rethuglican't again, because of BUSHWHACKING, right ??? RIGHT, Queen jeffy da drunk turd ???

Btw- Which do you prefer, queen jeffy da drunk turd, jeffy tinsel, jeffy tard, jeffy thunder thighs, jeffy thumb sucker, jeffy turkey, jeffy twerp....Reality check queen jeffy da turd, PICK IT UP !
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/ ...
Funny, you ONLY mention Bushwhacker to call him a liberal, but Mitt head is worse,,,Mention him a few times, turd...

SO, why does Your piece of Mitt lie so much ???

NOW ANSWER THE SIMPLE QUESTIONS....
Seattle Slew

Seattle, WA

#20663 Aug 9, 2012
Jeff T in MPLS wrote:
<quoted text>
Liberal loser troll!
How many names do you post under?
Your SLEWPIDITY is showing!
Poor queen jeffy da drunk turd------
silly boy ya' self-destroyer. paranoia, they destroy ya'

self-destroyer, wreck your health
destroy friends, destroy yourself
the time device of, self-destruction
lies, confusion, start eruption

(yea, it goes like this, here it goes) paranoia, they destroy ya
(here's to paranoia) paranoia, they destroy ya
(hey hey, here it goes) paranoia, they destroy ya
(and it goes like this)

paranoia, they destroy ya
(and it goes like this)
Transgender Geno

United States

#20664 Aug 9, 2012
Seattle Slew wrote:
<quoted text>Poor queen jeffy da drunk turd------
silly boy ya' self-destroyer. paranoia, they destroy ya'
self-destroyer, wreck your health
destroy friends, destroy yourself
the time device of, self-destruction
lies, confusion, start eruption
(yea, it goes like this, here it goes) paranoia, they destroy ya
(here's to paranoia) paranoia, they destroy ya
(hey hey, here it goes) paranoia, they destroy ya
(and it goes like this)
paranoia, they destroy ya
(and it goes like this)
you're a sexy boy, let's hook up
Smiley Slew

Seattle, WA

#20665 Aug 9, 2012
Sure, meet me at your mom's crib....

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#20668 Aug 10, 2012
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
It was 94 on the 4th of July.
Imagine that.... weather happens.
It is not WEATHER it is CLIMATE. If WEATHER were to remain the same as we have experienced in the past as a species then highs and lows would even out.

It does not matter how foolish and stupid the rightwing will look on broil.
Mothra

Peoria, AZ

#20669 Aug 10, 2012
OregonSUX wrote:
<quoted text>
It is not WEATHER it is CLIMATE. If WEATHER were to remain the same as we have experienced in the past as a species then highs and lows would even out.
It does not matter how foolish and stupid the rightwing will look on broil.
Do keep up nitwit.

My response was to another on "weather".

Duh.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#20670 Aug 10, 2012
OregonSUX wrote:
It is not WEATHER it is CLIMATE. If WEATHER were to remain the same as we have experienced in the past as a species then highs and lows would even out.
Weather varies a lot, climate varies by infinitesimally small increments, but weather and climate are inseperable.
The three main climate zones on planet Earth have been the same for millennia.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#20671 Aug 10, 2012
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>Weather varies a lot, climate varies by infinitesimally small increments, but weather and climate are inseperable.
The three main climate zones on planet Earth have been the same for millennia.
Zones remain but climate has changed.

Since: Jul 12

Troy, IL

#20672 Aug 10, 2012
Northie wrote:
<quoted text>
Looking forward to "pear review". Hope you don't fly your "plane wrong".
Most of all, I'm gratified to know that politics plays no part whatsoever in your denial of the agreement between all major national scientific academies and 98% of publishing climatologists that we are responsible for cooking the climate.
Thanks for pointing out my misspelling I hope it did not confuse you so that you missed the point of my post.

I am also glad that you agree that facts seem to play little part in the AGW argument. As to what any supposed "majority" may say perhaps you should consider that throughout history the "majority" of scientists have often been on the wrong side of fact. It seems that when we humans decide the "right" answer to a question we tend to stick to it in spite logic or fact.

Since: Jul 12

Troy, IL

#20673 Aug 10, 2012
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Zones remain but climate has changed.
Actually climate is always changing; however, AGW is a political myth.
harvey

Columbus, OH

#20674 Aug 10, 2012
Earthdung-0 wrote:
<quoted text>Check this link if you don't believe me:
http://lmgtfy.com/...
Thanks again for your concession, old boy. I do not, and never will do your homework for you. Or for ANY Denier.:)
harvey

Columbus, OH

#20675 Aug 10, 2012
Gaius Gracchuss wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually climate is always changing; however, AGW is a political myth.
Actually, most of the world's climate scientists would completely reject that false claim.

As I do.
harvey

Columbus, OH

#20676 Aug 10, 2012
Gaius Gracchuss wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for pointing out my misspelling I hope it did not confuse you so that you missed the point of my post.
I am also glad that you agree that facts seem to play little part in the AGW argument. As to what any supposed "majority" may say perhaps you should consider that throughout history the "majority" of scientists have often been on the wrong side of fact. It seems that when we humans decide the "right" answer to a question we tend to stick to it in spite logic or fact.
Which particular "facts" are today's climate scientists "on the wrong side" of, would you say, and which "facts" lead you to believe the opposite of what they're telling us?

Usually science catches its own mistakes. The claim "throughout history the "majority" of scientists have often been on the wrong side of fact" is a false one.

Lot of that in your posts, isn't there?:)
harvey

Columbus, OH

#20677 Aug 10, 2012
Gaius Gracchuss wrote:
<quoted text>
Belief is a good starting place for science (i.e. observations hypothesis, experiment, theory, test/pear review, refine, theory). You see even when you get to the end it is still only a theory. Always subject to change based upon new information. This is what is wrong with the "decided science" crowd. Much of their proof has holes or is just plane wrong and they are not willing to accept any criticism. Everyone who disagrees with them is the pawn of big business etc...
AGW is not a science it is politics and a rather totalitarian brand of politics.
"Belief is a good starting place for science"

"pear [sic] review"

"it is still only a theory"

"Much of their proof has holes or is just plane [sic] wrong"

"Everyone who disagrees with them is the pawn of big business"

"AGW is not a science it is politics and a rather totalitarian brand of politics"

DO please get back to us when you can post intelligently and not merely regurgitate a stream of often self-contradictory Denier talking-points, won't you?

There's a good fellow.

Since: Jul 12

Troy, IL

#20678 Aug 10, 2012
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Pear review, yummy.
Clearly, you are as incompetent as your namesake. Listen to the abc of human-induced climate change. It's the excess CO2, GG.
Understand the greenhouse effect, That's science, you'll accept.
Now where does the politics come in? When you open your mouth to deny the science.
WHY do you do that????
You can always tell when a poster has a weak argument when they start off by pointing out another posters grammar or spelling. A rather Juvenal gotcha don't you think?

Actually the CO@ thing just does not fly. First off the computer models don't work (try them in reverse and see what you get). Next, global Temps have fluctuated greatly over the last 2000 years w/o and CO2 influence. Actually instead of warming, the earth appears to be slowly cooling. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/articl...

Since: Jul 12

Troy, IL

#20679 Aug 10, 2012
harvey wrote:
<quoted text>
"Belief is a good starting place for science"
"pear [sic] review"
"it is still only a theory"
"Much of their proof has holes or is just plane [sic] wrong"
"Everyone who disagrees with them is the pawn of big business"
"AGW is not a science it is politics and a rather totalitarian brand of politics"
DO please get back to us when you can post intelligently and not merely regurgitate a stream of often self-contradictory Denier talking-points, won't you?
There's a good fellow.
My My another spelling teacher, how original and how helpful. I do appreciate all of you being so concerned with my spelling errors too bad you are not as concerned with the logic behind the supposed AGW science. As I continue to point out there have been significant variations in Global Temps w/o any CO2 involvement. Also one significant release of CO2 into the atmosphere (Krakatoa) resulted in global cooling not warming. Finally the one reason I am fairly sure that the AGW crowd are incorrect. You spend so much time trying to suppress the views of those with whom you disagree.

No, AGW is much more about pushing a rather totalitarian political agenda and has little to do with any science.

Since: Jul 12

Troy, IL

#20680 Aug 10, 2012
harvey wrote:
<quoted text>
Which particular "facts" are today's climate scientists "on the wrong side" of, would you say, and which "facts" lead you to believe the opposite of what they're telling us?
Usually science catches its own mistakes. The claim "throughout history the "majority" of scientists have often been on the wrong side of fact" is a false one.
Lot of that in your posts, isn't there?:)
It is truly sad what they do not teach you in schools these days. Here try this:

http://reasonableanswers.blogspot.com/2009/01...

http://www.varchive.org/ce/accept.htm

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/As...

http://www.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/projects/proje...

If you should care for other examples of the scientific community being wrong I suggest you read a little history.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

2012 Presidential Election Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 9 min Reality 151,158
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 11 min TSM 1,100,059
Race in America: Why are blacks being seen as r... (Jul '13) 33 min Sangelia 9,792
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 44 min LRS 177,366
Support for U.S. overseas involvement jumps, po... 1 hr lolol 11
Gays celebrate repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell' (Dec '10) 1 hr Wowzers 4,181
Hillary's Got a Millennial Problem 7 hr RustyS 3
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

2012 Presidential Election People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••