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

Full story: Newsday

When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore.
Comments
32,661 - 32,680 of 45,913 Comments Last updated 12 hrs ago

“EnvironMENTAList ”

Since: Feb 07

Near Detroit

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34609
Mar 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

We canít love a planet with fear any longer!

Remaining climate blame believers need to sign up to be willing to be charged with uttering CO2 death threats to our children when free and open courts prove that climate change is not a real crisis, just a tragic exaggeration fueled by irresponsible belief.

None of you selfish fear mongers would still be shooting your mouths off like this condemning our children to your greenhouse gas ovens if this were a real civilized society.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34610
Mar 17, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Denierfest posters above are WRONG.
Huff

Crossville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34611
Mar 17, 2013
 
Haha

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34612
Mar 17, 2013
 
cricket wrote:
<quoted text>
and to tax everyone into poverty to stop the fictitious mmcc/cc and transferring billions to the UN & armed forces (who are a major polluter) for more war, and continuing the billions in the transfer of wealth from all the regular hard working joes to the mega rich will surely help and change the weather.(rofl) Right?
I don't care what his or anyone elses title says- he's an idiot. Regurgitating what he's been told. Just like the religious ardent mmcc/cc believers here on Topix do,
A revenue-neutral carbon tax removes ZERO money from the economy & adds ZERO money to the government. It's arrantly absurd to claim it would tax us into poverty, or take money from rich countries & give it to poor countries.

A properly designed tax would take money from heavy carbon emitters & give it to low carbon emitters. It would hurt fossil fuel industries but help non-carbon-emitting energy sources to exactly the same extent.

It would be a difficult adjustment, but ultimately would benefit people. Removing ALL subsidies from the fossil fuel industries, & instituting a proper carbon tax, would mean no more need for subsidies to renewable energy industries, no need to try to select a successful Solyndra (which is not easy for government to do). The market, finally free & reflective of reality, could decide.

Of course telling the richest industry in the world that it should prepare to go virtually out of existence is extremely problematic at best. There has been, & will be, a tremendous amount of money spent to try to prevent the transition away from fossil fuels. So far they've been remarkably successful in confusing the public about AGW/CC & the necessity of reducing the burning of fossil fuels.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34613
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
A revenue-neutral carbon tax removes ZERO money from the economy & adds ZERO money to the government. It's arrantly absurd to claim it would tax us into poverty, or take money from rich countries & give it to poor countries.
A properly designed tax would take money from heavy carbon emitters & give it to low carbon emitters. It would hurt fossil fuel industries but help non-carbon-emitting energy sources to exactly the same extent.
It would be a difficult adjustment, but ultimately would benefit people. Removing ALL subsidies from the fossil fuel industries, & instituting a proper carbon tax, would mean no more need for subsidies to renewable energy industries, no need to try to select a successful Solyndra (which is not easy for government to do). The market, finally free & reflective of reality, could decide.
Of course telling the richest industry in the world that it should prepare to go virtually out of existence is extremely problematic at best. There has been, & will be, a tremendous amount of money spent to try to prevent the transition away from fossil fuels. So far they've been remarkably successful in confusing the public about AGW/CC & the necessity of reducing the burning of fossil fuels.
Good Grief!!! The fact that he actually believes this garbage is the scary part.
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34614
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

He must have an investment in it. No one could be that naive. Well you do have the spacedoutblues and the "pinheadlitesout that qualify.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34615
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

flack wrote:
<quoted text> Good Grief!!! The fact that he actually believes this garbage is the scary part.
Everything I said was absolutely correct. You, of course, wouldn't understand that. Try learning some science instead of political equine excrement from denier sources.

Why don't you try listening to James Hansen? After all, he was ABSOLUTELY CORRECT in 1981 about what would happen subsequently. We've seen exactly what he predicted then - years before others had caught on, a decade before the IPCC was even formed.

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

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hans...
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34616
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

WOW more scientific science fiction from the HOMO. Hay you link is not functioning.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34617
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

PHD wrote:
WOW more scientific science fiction from the HOMO. Hay you link is not functioning.
Gee, PHD, did you bother to listen to Dr Hansen's talk? Did you bother to read (or just look at) the Science article from 1981?

Surprise! Measured temperatures have been close to what Hansen et all predicted more than 30 years ago. In fact, measured temps have been a bit HIGHER than they predicted back then, or at least on the high end of their predicted range.

My links work FINE, BTW. You may have to have Flash player (not sure) for YouTube & Adobe Reader to see the pdf article. They're available for free & are not harmful.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34618
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

not true at all just cycles

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34619
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

in my opinion

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34620
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

but its hard to tell

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34621
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

who knows

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34622
Mar 18, 2013
 
i know

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34623
Mar 18, 2013
 
just an oopinion dont worry about it
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34624
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

fetid feces face flip flopper fiend wrote:
Hay(sic) you(sic) link is not functioning.
Sixx werds...... too mispelings.......'bout nermol fer "fetid feces face flip flopper fiend".

Link not functioning........'bout nermol fer "fetid feces face flip flopper fiend".
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34625
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Sixx werds...... too mispelings.......'bout nermol fer "fetid feces face flip flopper fiend".
Link not functioning........'bout nermol fer "fetid feces face flip flopper fiend".
More useless diarrhea from the "pinheadlitesout".
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34626
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Gee, PHD, did you bother to listen to Dr Hansen's talk? Did you bother to read (or just look at) the Science article from 1981?
Surprise! Measured temperatures have been
"close to"
what Hansen et all "predicted" more than 30 years ago. In fact, measured temps have been a bit HIGHER than they
"predicted"
back then, or at least on the high end of their
"predicted range".
My links work FINE, BTW. You may have to have Flash player (not sure) for YouTube & Adobe Reader to see the pdf article. They're available for free & are not harmful.
Well if I was interested in scientific science fiction your link may have worked. YYour own words make it scientific science fiction. Just before the super bowl game I predicted one team would win.

Since: Aug 07

SFV

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34627
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

PHD wrote:
<quoted text>More useless diarrhea from the "pinheadlitesout".
Top paid ad when you Google "global warming facts" is by Chevron. You may have a PHD so maybe facts aren't daunting and confusing to you. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/...
Is National Geographic leftist? Arguing with you functioning retards is pointless. You live with either your heads in the sand or up your own ass. I can take a rock and show it to you. You can touch it and hold it. Feel its heft. I can then take the rock and smash your toes with it and say "that was a rock" and you will still say "no it wasn't." Same idiots that believe we are not in just the heginning of major climate change and that combustion engines /humans are major factors are the same ones that debate evolution and sex ed and the moron list goes on. Evolve or die. Better yet just hurry up and die off.
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34628
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

dekajed wrote:
<quoted text>
Top paid ad when you Google "global warming facts" is by Chevron. You may have a PHD so maybe facts aren't daunting and confusing to you. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/...
Is National Geographic leftist? Arguing with you functioning retards is pointless. You live with either your heads in the sand or up your own ass. I can take a rock and show it to you. You can touch it and hold it. Feel its heft. I can then take the rock and smash your toes with it and say "that was a rock" and you will still say "no it wasn't." Same idiots that believe we are not in just the heginning of major climate change and that combustion engines /humans are major factors are the same ones that debate evolution and sex ed and the moron list goes on. Evolve or die. Better yet just hurry up and die off.
You really really need to seek some mental help. Well one thing for sure I am functioning more than anyone could say for you. Have you always been a less-on or did you mutate into one?
Can you prove it was a rock?

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

33 Users are viewing the Chicago Forum right now

Search the Chicago Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min YYYY GUY 1,085,017
Song Titles Only (group/artist in parenthesis m... (Mar '10) 13 min _Zoey_ 7,705
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 17 min shauna 175,262
IL Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Illinois ... (Oct '10) 32 min obama 6,593
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 1 hr andet1987 4,579
Last word + 2 (Mar '12) 1 hr andet1987 488
Music Artists A to Z 1 hr _Zoey_ 265
Ask Amy 8-1-14 4 hr Shari23 19
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 16 hr PEllen 97,587
•••
•••
•••
•••

Chicago Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••