Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

There are 60655 comments on the Newsday story from Dec 14, 2008, titled Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt.... In it, Newsday reports that:

When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Newsday.

frogmann

Masontown, PA

#32903 Nov 21, 2012
youtube.com/watch... ………old fart or young stinkers
Northie

Spokane, WA

#32904 Nov 21, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
Meanwhile, the bold, "green," solar/wind/whatever low-carbon biking-to-the-store-in-planned -communities future for which the AGW Alarmist crowd so earnestly yearns is already coming through the normal operation of free individual choice, free market economics, technological innovation, and simple old-fashioned conservation. Normal market forces are already driving this transformation...
Is that the kind of romantic salve being passed around in libertarian support groups these days?

No one said the climate mess can be solved only by "statist UN command-and-control". At least, I didn't. In fact, some of the best progress against carbon pollution made to date is due to the advent of fracked gas, without a bureaucrat in sight. The trouble is, it's not enough.

ALL organizations of serious scientific and economic experts on climate now agree that we are headed for very bad shit at the least, or civilization-collapsing catastrophe costing hundreds of trillions at the worst. And there is no way to know whether we'll drop the hammer on an empty chamber or blow our collective head off.

What we do know is that we are cooking the climate, the consequences are far worse than expected, the problem is accelerating, and we're literally risking everything we have and that our grandkids will have.

In light of those stakes, your political opinions and mine are irrelevant--as are transient concerns such as the overbranded "Fiscal Cliff", capital gains tax rates, and the relative religious passions of Baptists or Shiites.

What is, is. After 188 years of study, ALL major national scientific academies and ALL major earth sciences societies are in total agreement that we are cooking the climate, and most are warning of extremely dire consequences if we continue.

So we won't continue, no matter what the world's largest industry persuades you to say about it. My advice: buy a bike and a condo in town. The oil industry will most definitely lose this battle.
PHD

Dundee, MI

#32905 Nov 21, 2012
Northie wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that the kind of romantic salve being passed around in libertarian support groups these days?
No one said the climate mess can be solved only by "statist UN command-and-control". At least, I didn't. In fact, some of the best progress against carbon pollution made to date is due to the advent of fracked gas, without a bureaucrat in sight. The trouble is, it's not enough.
ALL organizations of serious scientific and economic experts on climate now agree that we are headed for very bad shit at the least, or civilization-collapsing catastrophe costing hundreds of trillions at the worst. And there is no way to know whether we'll drop the hammer on an empty chamber or blow our collective head off.
What we do know is that we are cooking the climate, the consequences are far worse than expected, the problem is accelerating, and we're literally risking everything we have and that our grandkids will have.
In light of those stakes, your political opinions and mine are irrelevant--as are transient concerns such as the overbranded "Fiscal Cliff", capital gains tax rates, and the relative religious passions of Baptists or Shiites.
What is, is. After 188 years of study, ALL major national scientific academies and ALL major earth sciences societies are in total agreement that we are cooking the climate, and most are warning of extremely dire consequences if we continue.
So we won't continue, no matter what the world's largest industry persuades you to say about it. My advice: buy a bike and a condo in town. The oil industry will most definitely lose this battle.
Due tell all your experience about fracking. Again no cut and paste show all your own work on that subject. And if you can accomplish an answer we will continue with the remainder of your statement.
Teddy R

Reston, VA

#32907 Nov 22, 2012
Northie wrote:
<quoted text>
... In fact, some of the best progress against carbon pollution made to date is due to the advent of fracked gas, without a bureaucrat in sight.
...
So we won't continue, no matter what the world's largest industry persuades you to say about it.... The oil industry will most definitely lose this battle.
Putting aside the usual tedious neo-Malthusian claptrap, I'd have said I mostly agree with you - but you lost me somewhere around Turn 3 in your rather convoluted post.

Fracking a boon? Yes, it does seem fracking is curiously winning over a slowly-growing fan base among the Greenies. Sure, it's producing more effective progress in carbon reduction than the Euro-socialist carbon tax-and-trade schemes ... but at the cost of what other, more immediate and perhaps permanent, environmental damage? And it's really only carbon Methadone treatment - extending society's addiction to carbon-based fossil fuels ... last I checked, burning CH4 in massive volumes is still going to be releasing bazillions of tonnes of planet-killing CO2 ... albeit in reduced amounts vs. other fossil fuel alternatives (e.g., coal, oil). Just kicking the can down the road a bit further.

You do lift your skirt long enough to reveal your true agenda. It seems this whole "battle" you refer to isn't actually a righteous crusade to avert planet-wide environmental catastrophe for you, but merely the latest trendy flag of convenience under which you can tilt against your favorite windmill - EEEEeevul Big Ooooooiiilllll!!! <sigh> So parochial ... so yesterday ...

Just who do you think we will have to thank for bending the carbon emissions curve down and saving the planet by developing fracked natural gas? Yep - none other than your sworn enemies - BIG OIL.
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/04/16/exxon-...
Thus my difficulty in following your reasoning.

(Happy Thanksgiving, by the way!)

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#32909 Nov 22, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Putting aside the usual tedious neo-Malthusian claptrap, I'd have said I mostly agree with you - but you lost me somewhere around Turn 3 in your rather convoluted post.
Fracking a boon? Yes, it does seem fracking is curiously winning over a slowly-growing fan base among the Greenies. Sure, it's producing more effective progress in carbon reduction than the Euro-socialist carbon tax-and-trade schemes ... but at the cost of what other, more immediate and perhaps permanent, environmental damage? And it's really only carbon Methadone treatment - extending society's addiction to carbon-based fossil fuels ... last I checked, burning CH4 in massive volumes is still going to be releasing bazillions of tonnes of planet-killing CO2 ... albeit in reduced amounts vs. other fossil fuel alternatives (e.g., coal, oil). Just kicking the can down the road a bit further.
You do lift your skirt long enough to reveal your true agenda. It seems this whole "battle" you refer to isn't actually a righteous crusade to avert planet-wide environmental catastrophe for you, but merely the latest trendy flag of convenience under which you can tilt against your favorite windmill - EEEEeevul Big Ooooooiiilllll!!! <sigh> So parochial ... so yesterday ...
Just who do you think we will have to thank for bending the carbon emissions curve down and saving the planet by developing fracked natural gas? Yep - none other than your sworn enemies - BIG OIL.
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/04/16/exxon-...
Thus my difficulty in following your reasoning.
(Happy Thanksgiving, by the way!)
Actually...
http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/Where_the_Sha...
Amused Slew

Saint Paul, MN

#32910 Nov 22, 2012
Sunspot activity is at a 11 year high, natural peak.

"Man" has 100 years of accurate climate records.

Earth is estimated to be 30,000,000 years old, "Man" isn't sure.

And "Man" thinks manmade activity is changing earth climate??

"Man" claiming climate change is occurring are BILLIONAIRS, like Al Gore.

"Man" dumb!
Teddy R

Reston, VA

#32911 Nov 22, 2012
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
Interesting, thanks for linking. Yes - I worked on some of these shale oil projects in the 1980s.
PHD

Dundee, MI

#32912 Nov 23, 2012
Record snow fall forecast for the Northern States this winter. Must be the slow warming that slowed down again.
litesong

Everett, WA

#32914 Nov 23, 2012
phd wrote:
Record snow fall forecast for the Northern States this winter. Must be the slow warming that slowed down again.
The present Arctic sea ice extent is less than any previous year, by your state's entire area+!

Your weather disappointment means nothing at all.

Furthermore(or less), the total Arctic sea ice VOLUME loss from ~1985, amounts to the area of your state piled to a depth of ~40 to 50 meters. Now, that is weather change!

Your weather disappointment really really means nothing at all.
PHD

Dundee, MI

#32915 Nov 23, 2012
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
The present Arctic sea ice extent is less than any previous year, by your state's entire area+!
Your weather disappointment means nothing at all.
Furthermore(or less), the total Arctic sea ice VOLUME loss from ~1985, amounts to the area of your state piled to a depth of ~40 to 50 meters. Now, that is weather change!
Your weather disappointment really really means nothing at all.
Your arctic sea ice extent really really means nothing at all.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#32916 Nov 23, 2012
Emit all the greenhouse gas you can while you live, because you won't when you're dead.
litesong

Everett, WA

#32917 Nov 23, 2012
steenking piddling diddling middling mudling mudslinger brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver wrote:
Emit all the greenhouse gas you can while you live, because you won't when you're dead.
"steenking piddling diddling middling mudling mudslinger brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver" will really give off GHGs, automatically when he is dead.
PHD

Dundee, MI

#32918 Nov 24, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
Emit all the greenhouse gas you can while you live, because you won't when you're dead.
Well than do show us your study proving you don't emit gas when your dead.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#32919 Nov 24, 2012
PHD wrote:
ell than do show us your study proving you don't emit gas when your dead.
Dead: inactive, still, motionless, passive, slack, static, dormant, lifeless, leaden, immobile...
PHD

Dundee, MI

#32920 Nov 24, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Dead: inactive, still, motionless, passive, slack, static, dormant, lifeless, leaden, immobile...
You have issues doing the cut and paste thing your famous for.Do explain the above useless babble thing your doing.
cricket

Orlando, FL

#32921 Nov 26, 2012
those greeedy eeeeeevvillll oil companies
lol.
tell me another fairy tale....like mmcc !!!

who makes more profit from gas & oil?

http://www.youtube.com/embed/ffHS6sthF7M...
PHD

Dundee, MI

#32922 Nov 26, 2012
And the greedy politicians. Yes the global warming is speeding up in their pockets lined with our money.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#32925 Nov 28, 2012
PHD wrote:
You have issues doing the cut and paste thing your famous for.Do explain the above useless babble thing your doing.
The point is, you won't consume fossil fuel when you're dead, you won't emit greenhouse gas for long as you decompose. The point is, you'll conserve forever, you only live now.
litesong

Everett, WA

#32926 Nov 28, 2012
steenking piddling middling mudling mudslinger brian_g stumble butt dumpstser diver wrote:
...... you won't emit greenhouse gas for long as you decompose.
You changed your original statement. But you're still wrong.

Other living biota will use your elements & substances to emit GHGs, as your body used other elements & substances to emit GHGs. Its called the balance of nature.

It is the elements & substances in oil that is being drawn from 8000 feet deep that is ADDING TOO QUICKLY to Earth's biosphere AND that scientists are showing is causing detrimental effects.
Name

Ashtabula, OH

#32927 Nov 28, 2012
Arne Marco wrote:
What we normally forget when talking about the amount of CO2, is the significance it has for the human (and other creatures) health. Above 425 ppm in the atmossphere the healthproblems will become more servere, because the blood will slowly be more acid. This will affect bloodpressure etc.
BTW: President Johnson was informed in 1965 about the dangers in increasing the amount of CO2.
Great info here ; thanks

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.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 2 min Jacques in Orlean... 219,165
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 3 min Ize Found 70,815
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 8 min Realtime 1,402,864
Four letter word game (Dec '11) 41 min Raydot 1,784
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 1 hr SweLL GirL 9,191
Word (Dec '08) 1 hr They cannot kill ... 6,542
Double Word Game (Dec '11) 1 hr They cannot kill ... 2,839
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 3 hr CrunchyBacon 103,111

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages