Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Customer Service | Contact Us | Routes Available | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS

Top scientists say they are 95 percent certain that global warming is a real, man-made threat. Do you agree?

  1. Yes
  2. No
  3. 95% certain that I agree
sort: oldest | newest




Oct-01-13 11:39 AM

Christopher S. Bretherton, an atmospheric researcher at the University of Washington, said Lindzen is "feeding upon an audience that wants to hear a certain message, and wants to hear it put forth by people with enough scientific reputation that it can be sustained for a while, even if it’s wrong science. I don’t think it’s intellectually honest at all." Kerry A. Emanuel, another M.I.T. scientist, said of Lindzen's views "Even if there were no political implications, it just seems deeply unprofessional and irresponsible to look at this and say, ‘We’re sure it’s not a problem.’ It’s a special kind of risk, because it’s a risk to the collective civilization."[60]"

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Oct-01-13 11:37 AM

What if the good Dr.'s views are not correct? What would "he" say about that? ""If I’m right, we’ll have saved money. If I’m wrong, we’ll know it in 50 years and can do something". That is what he said..hmmmm . does that mean that in 50 years we can correct the problem? No, we probably could not. So, does anyone else have an opinion on The good Dr.? ==

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-30-13 9:38 PM

"I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to (the) level of hilarious incoherence," Dr. Richard Lindzen told Climate Depot, a global warming skeptic news site. "They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase."

In 2012, Dr. Lindzen said, "You have politicians who are being told if they question this, they are anti-science. We are trying to tell them, no, questioning is never anti-science."

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-26-13 8:17 PM

Veritas, I'm generally not concerned about agrees/disagrees and how they make me "feel."

What I said was that I provided another comment to the other 50+ on this "dumb" poll and THAT felt great. EOS

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-26-13 12:42 PM

Sure, 50+ comments on any "dumb" poll question can be enough, but I thought we were actually TALKING about science, politics, global warming aka climate change, and the various viewpoints of these issues.

There. I just added another comment to this "dumb" poll question.

Felt great.

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-26-13 11:16 AM

Just two that came up with a "climate change cloud cover" google search...

livescience . com/15293-climate-change-cloud-cover

This author is not convinced that "cloud cover" research debunks climate change theory.

meteora . . pdf

This presentation of date was being prepared for publication. Two "opinions" from the piece: "there is not yet enough information to attribute the cloud trends to anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming" and "cloud changes since 1952 have had a net cooling effect on the Earth."

Like I said, they're all punting. Big Time.

This entire issue of climate change has huge political motivations within it. When the politics are removed, like we won't be facing higher taxes, I'll reconsider looking at the science.

Until then, it's a two-headed monster, politics & science, not traditional science.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-26-13 10:53 AM

Matt, if I only knew who "those people" were, I might be on board...


3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-26-13 10:28 AM


3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-25-13 8:51 PM

Notsocenterfield, based on your theories, you think fossil fuel prices will come down? You just said it was all about the dollar.

Anyway, we all now coal fired power plants killed the dinosaurs and melted the glacier that was on top of my yard. Also, do some research on your weather, weather goes in cycles and is no worse now than it was during the droughts of the 30's and hurricanes and tornadoes of the 50's, 60's and 70's. Remember Hurricane Hazel in 1954 for example? How about the Tornado Super outbreak of April 3 and 4 1974 with (confirmed) 37 F1, 31 F2, 35 F3, 23 F4 and 7 F4 tornadoes in 48 hours. Tell me how it is different now?

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-25-13 6:07 PM

"Top scientists say . . ."

More shameless BS from the MDN.

This isn't a newspaper -- it's a megaphone for the lunatic talking points of the far right nutjobs.

4 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-25-13 6:00 PM

I'm 95% certain that skepticism isn't the same thing as being contrarian.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-25-13 5:32 PM

Surprise, surprise, loco. But, it is hard to open a closed mind. So sorry for you.

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-25-13 5:07 PM

95% certainty equals total consensus and I'm a dummy not to accept it? I thought skepticism was an appropriate practice, but obviously not with the climate change theory.

Well, thanks for your opinions, people, but my opinion stays the same as when I started.

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-25-13 4:55 PM

Gosh, whistle, if anyone has their wedgie on, it is you. I only presented facts and explanations from those facts. You, instead, provide a paragraph of attack and put downs. Wow, talk about upset. Just because you cannot defend your comments with intellectual rhetoric is not my fault. You keep it up and you will be down there with dusty and BDGI for lacking credibility and integrity. Now, your second paragraph is exactly what we are talking about. For well over 100 years, we are polluting the atmosphere with by-products of fossil fuel consumption. But, you don't think that will affect the climate... Poor you. I think the money end of it is proving you wrong already. Look at the demand for electricity from coal... Going down and natural gas is replacing coal as a cheaper alternative. As alternative energy builds, it will put pressure on the fossil fuels to come down in price. But, being a righty, you could not comprehend that concept.

0 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-25-13 3:39 PM

Oh, an one more thing, whistler. You story about banning coal plants is incorrect and the EPA did not say they were trying to do that. We have heard this same garbage from the Big oil companies about refineries over the last 30 years. Oh, we can't build refineries because of the excessive rules??? Bull. ND currently has two refineries under construction and another one being started. Well, MDU could build but Big Oil couldn't?? Same thing for the Coal industry. The rules apply to new construction and they can build them but they whine and whine. What does it get them... Bleeding hearts from the right and misleading statements in order to boost their profit margin. Ya see, it still comes back to the green.

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-25-13 3:38 PM

"...not on proven, consistent scientific results, but on a changing theory?"

Obviously, you're a layperson. Theories can change, but only as the evidence warrants. (Look up 'peer review'.) What the evidence overwhelmingly suggests is a warming trend, and one that closely correlates with human-caused 'greenhouse gas' emissions. At any rate, 95% is about as consistent and proven as can be reasonably admitted by any honest, objective person. Within the scientific community, there is no controversy surrounding this subject (see 'consensus'). Any pretense to a division of opinion has been grossly misrepresented in the mainstream, both by the wealthy dinosaurs that would put today's dollar over society's discernible future and by a media oligarchy that earns its living by raising controversy and creating drama for the consumption of morons.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-25-13 3:31 PM

Gosh, BDGI, you seem to have a thing about "Stupid, dumb, imbeciles" as well as many other non-intellectual descriptions as well. You seem to be inadequate in many areas and have to resort to this type of juvenile behavior. As with all of your posts, you know very little about factual conversations and a whole lot about hatred and ridicule.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-25-13 2:56 PM

"Theory is theory because it changes; that's what theory is."

So legislation to tax people for a 95% certain "real, man-made threat" should be written, based not on proven, consistent scientific results, but on a changing theory?

Oh boy...

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-25-13 2:24 PM

Awesome Matt: accuse others of playing silly two-party games, and then give us your solution which just happens to be right out of the right-wing, libertarian playbook. I see how you're above such things...

And Loco: if you're going to criticize how theory changes, perhaps you should spend some time trying to grasp how science works. Theory is theory because it changes; that's what theory is.

6 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-25-13 2:15 PM

Sorry, still not convinced...

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-25-13 2:02 PM

Gee, Matt, that sounds like privatization of the operation. That served us well with USIS in their security checks with Snowden and others. Yep, just privatize it and there will be no money , or special interests involved. Like I said before, which side would you rather make mistakes on, the side that will probably have irreversible damage to the environment or the side that won't.

4 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-25-13 1:51 PM

Research a little more Loco, on what actually is climate change? The warming of the oceans is a part of that change. Increased water temperatures causes increased evaporation. Increased evaporation put more moisture in the air that leads to bigger and more violent changes in weather. We have been experiencing that all over the globe from hurricanes, to flooding, to extreme drought. Yes, the ocean is absorbing the heat and that is a part of the problem. The heat.

3 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-25-13 1:41 PM

Sep-25-13 1:33 PM

Great post, Matt.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-25-13 1:41 PM

Now, lets whistle in the dark some more, shall we? Your quotes are very miss-leading and certainly spit out what you want it to be. Since the new regulations are on NEW plants, their effect on current pollution from existing plants is not going to change. Thus, the quote. But, changing the rules on existing plans WILL change the carbon impact. You also fail to separate the EPA from the Institute for Energy Research. Which quotes are from where. THe entire drift of the quotes you have provided are coal industry slanted and the Institute is run by former Enron and Exxon personnel. Most of their previous research has been anti EPA no matter what the subject matter. What would you expect them to say? Again, back to the quote. Stopping new plants from polluting certainly will keep more pollution from occurring but will not change the old plants from polluting. Again, lets just twist things up and make up a story to fit your needs. Typical Winger.

2 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-25-13 1:39 PM

Considering inexpensive, clean-energy alternatives as consumers is one thing.

Accepting global warming (aka climate change) at full face value, while facing more gov't taxation to "curb" it, is quite another.

phys . org/news/2013-07-british-scientists-explanations-global

After reading this article, I think they're punting big time.

Climate change "science" is inexact. Why should I believe the "experts" when they're making changes to their theory all the time?

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 44 comments Show More Comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web