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
32,821 - 32,840 of 45,779 Comments Last updated 2 hrs ago

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34779
Mar 28, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Using fossil fuel helps free ancient carbon back into the atmosphere where it can do some good. Freeing carbon dioxide into the air helps mitigate climate change against global cooling; the well known ice age climate scenario.

We've always adapted to climate change. Don't panic.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34780
Mar 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>PAKAB almost has it right, man made catastrophic global warming alarmism is pseudoscience and climate change mitigation by restricting CO2 emissions or sequestering atmospheric CO2 is a hoax without field experiments. Due diligence, test a product before you buy. Be more careful how you spend your money.
.
<quoted text>But not things where they advise policy, if they tell you there's a way to mitigate a man made problem they better show you man made experimental results. There's a difference between purely observational and when you dear to breach a technology or policy to improve a man made or natural situation. Then you need to produce results instead of theory, get a product off the drawing board, through the lab and into the market.
Climate change mitigation is a big zero when it comes to demonstrations and results.
.
<quoted text>The tests of climate change mitigation are essential to the policy discussion. Don't buy a pig in a poke. Emitting CO2 is too important a freedom to give up for theory and models.
.
<quoted text>Or whether we should increase the effects, that's my plan. I stand for growth, using and producing fossil fuels and emitting carbon. That's to my best welfare and benefit. I really don't understand you, I'm sorry.
I hope carbon dioxide paranoia is a passing fad; I find it tiresome and ugly.
The technology is coming to make it moot. Dive it 5 years and it will be a non story. The trick is going to be to keep the warmers from doing significant damage to the economy till then. It is, after all, about control of the people. Patience and vigilance are the words.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34781
Mar 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Reddy Kilowatt wrote:
<quoted text>
Your bullshit strawman twisting of my post makes it clear you are the one with intentional reading comprehension deficit.
I posted: "Dozens of competing SMRs to choose from, AT VARIOUS STAGES OF THE LICENSING PROCESS."
"Certainly FAR, FAR closer to large-scale production reality than any competing green, renewable, carbon-free, sustainable, low-cost base load generation technology option out there."
NOWHERE did I say there was an SMR presently in commercial operation - that's YOUR bullshit invention - putting words in my mouth.
Where's YOUR green, carbon-free, renewable, sustainable, economically viable technology solution for replacing this nation of 300 million's carbon-fired base load power generation capacity any faster?
Oh - that's right - you don't have any solution. You're proudly part of perpetuating the problem, Mr. "Scientist."
Of course, if you DO have a superior green, carbon-free, renewable, sustainable, economically viable technology solution for replacing this nation of 300 million's carbon-fired base load power generation capacity any faster than a crash program to build SMRs, let's hear it. And please do hurry - we're cooking the planet while you pontificate and posture.
Otherwise, there goes SpaceCase's credibility right back into the horsecrap pile...
It's the way they are. They always have to change the question before they answer it to insure the answer is in line with their ideology.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34782
Mar 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
It would be better if we could do more mining & construction actvities with lower carbon energy. Hopefully it'll be possble in the future.
There are some green(ish) technologies that are already price-competitive with fossil fuels: geothermal, hydropower, wind. And that's without a carbon tax or carbon sequestraion, which will certainly be necessary in the future.
Considerable research is still being done on other forms of hydropower (current, wave, tide, etc). Photovoltaic power is still a ways off, but passive solar heating systems work quite well.
Actually, lots of birds die in collisions with skyscrapers & motor vehicles; it isn't just windmills that kill them. And I HOPE you're not putting much trust in the journalistic standards of the telegraph.co.uk. They often don't "rise" to the level of the National Enquirer.
Lastly, if we could ever mine the Helium-3 in the lunar mare & develop fusion that emitted few neutrons, we'd have barely conceivable amounts of energy available. The reactions without D2O run hotter, though.
That last paragraph will happen in the next twenty years.Eight countries and a couple of corporations are presently planning on moon bases by 2025 to study just that. Best part is everything can be built on the moon. The is enough water on the moon to fill all of the Great Lakes.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34783
Mar 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

PHD wrote:
Maybe it's the natural cycle of climate change. They really don't know.
i remember reading somewhere about people moaning about a glacier melting. When lo and behold they found a mining camp and a whole town that was buried under the ice! Now I just wonder 'How did that get there?'
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34784
Mar 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe you're a donkey. We really don't know.
No maybe we already know your a Dumb ASSumption of your---self. Now big mouth post your peer reviewed published work and defends your Dumb ASSumption you make of your---self.
Reddy Kilowatt

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34785
Mar 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The first car didn't do 235 mph.
The first flight of an airplane was not transcontinental.
The first space mission did not go to Mars.
These things take time. When you grow up, you'll understand.
BS rationalization of continuing to sit on the AGW waaaambulance, thinking well of yourself for spinning pie-in-the-sky pipedreams while doing NOTHING to promptly and effectively attack the root of the problem with the means we have readily available TODAY.

In modern nuclear, and ONLY in modern nuclear, we already have at hand the green, renewable, sustainable, fully-developed, commercial-scale, economically feasible, and fully mature technological means of COMPLETELY ELIMINATING carbon-fueled base-load electric power generation in the US within THIS GENERATION.

Wake up. Get real. Start acting like you believe this actually is the red-lights-and-siren planetary emergency you and your fellow internet hero fake "scientist" AGW jihadis are constantly hand-waving and screaming about.

Time to start walking the talk. You're either part of the solution or you're part of the problem.
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34787
Mar 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Reddy Kilowatt wrote:
<quoted text>
BS rationalization of continuing to sit on the AGW waaaambulance, thinking well of yourself for spinning pie-in-the-sky pipedreams while doing NOTHING to promptly and effectively attack the root of the problem with the means we have readily available TODAY.
In modern nuclear, and ONLY in modern nuclear, we already have at hand the green, renewable, sustainable, fully-developed, commercial-scale, economically feasible, and fully mature technological means of COMPLETELY ELIMINATING carbon-fueled base-load electric power generation in the US within THIS GENERATION.
Wake up. Get real. Start acting like you believe this actually is the red-lights-and-siren planetary emergency you and your fellow internet hero fake "scientist" AGW jihadis are constantly hand-waving and screaming about.
Time to start walking the talk. You're either part of the solution or you're part of the problem.
They are the problem no part of.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34788
Mar 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Reddy Kilowatt wrote:
<quoted text>
BS rationalization of continuing to sit on the AGW waaaambulance, thinking well of yourself for spinning pie-in-the-sky pipedreams while doing NOTHING to promptly and effectively attack the root of the problem with the means we have readily available TODAY.
In modern nuclear, and ONLY in modern nuclear, we already have at hand the green, renewable, sustainable, fully-developed, commercial-scale, economically feasible, and fully mature technological means of COMPLETELY ELIMINATING carbon-fueled base-load electric power generation in the US within THIS GENERATION.
Wake up. Get real. Start acting like you believe this actually is the red-lights-and-siren planetary emergency you and your fellow internet hero fake "scientist" AGW jihadis are constantly hand-waving and screaming about.
Time to start walking the talk. You're either part of the solution or you're part of the problem.
Reddy

As you know, in general I'm pro-nuclear, with some reservations. But in the real world, even today's reactors have lead times of 15-20 years counting the required bureacracy & construction. They cost a lot of money.

The newer reactors like the fast neutron "breeder" types have been operated for a long time, but they haven't been commercialized. Realistically, that'll mean another delay.

People just won't tolerate accidents - they are deathly, perhaps irrationally (coal kills thousands of people annually, after all, but doesn't scare people nearly as much), afraid of them. The extensive safety efforts that cause delays are not going to go away.

Realistically, new nuclear plants are simply not a panacea. Ongoing conservation efforts, & some green energy projects, are much faster & cheaper. New nukes might be a good way of making up for the energy we need when green energy isn't available, but they'll take a while.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34789
Mar 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

gcaveman1 wrote:
In your anal-obsessive rulebook, experiments aren't done by accident, but of course, you're wrong. Nature has been experimenting for eons; it's called evolution. But then, you don't believe in that either. After all, there's no experiment to test it, is there?
There are entire journals of experimental evolutionary science. Add to that the fact that when the progressives wanted to mitigate evolution, they committed genocidal crimes. Mitigation isn't always good for people, ask the African Americans who didn't consent to sterilization.

Nature doesn't experiment, only sentient beings can experiment since it is a goal oriented procedure used to test theory.

.
gcaveman1 wrote:
There was never a purposeful experiment proving that an atomic bomb was possible. They had to acually set one off to test the theory. Don't you get tired of being wrong all the time?
There were plenty of experiments on nuclear chain reactions, then the bomb was again experimentally tested before being used in war.

gcaveman1 sure doesn't have a good grasp on how technology develops and experiments refine theory. Not surprising, if you consider his global warming alarmism. The fear of catastrophic man made climate change is based on emotion, not science.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34790
Mar 28, 2013
 
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>No maybe we already know your a Dumb ASSumption of your---self. Now big mouth post your peer reviewed published work and defends your Dumb ASSumption you make of your---self.
It's out there. Look it up, dear.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34791
Mar 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Reddy Kilowatt wrote:
<quoted text>
BS rationalization of continuing to sit on the AGW waaaambulance, thinking well of yourself for spinning pie-in-the-sky pipedreams while doing NOTHING to promptly and effectively attack the root of the problem with the means we have readily available TODAY.
In modern nuclear, and ONLY in modern nuclear, we already have at hand the green, renewable, sustainable, fully-developed, commercial-scale, economically feasible, and fully mature technological means of COMPLETELY ELIMINATING carbon-fueled base-load electric power generation in the US within THIS GENERATION.
Wake up. Get real. Start acting like you believe this actually is the red-lights-and-siren planetary emergency you and your fellow internet hero fake "scientist" AGW jihadis are constantly hand-waving and screaming about.
Time to start walking the talk. You're either part of the solution or you're part of the problem.
And what are you doing?

nuthin

I have a solar house. I have a solar water heater. Almost all my lightbulbs are curly CFB's. I combine multi-tasking trips to town.

I do what I can. Don't talk about what you don't know; you only demonstrate your terminal ignorance.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34792
Mar 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>There are entire journals of experimental evolutionary science. Add to that the fact that when the progressives wanted to mitigate evolution, they committed genocidal crimes. Mitigation isn't always good for people, ask the African Americans who didn't consent to sterilization.
Nature doesn't experiment, only sentient beings can experiment since it is a goal oriented procedure used to test theory.
.
<quoted text>There were plenty of experiments on nuclear chain reactions, then the bomb was again experimentally tested before being used in war.
gcaveman1 sure doesn't have a good grasp on how technology develops and experiments refine theory. Not surprising, if you consider his global warming alarmism. The fear of catastrophic man made climate change is based on emotion, not science.
There hasn't been an experiment progressing a dinosaur to a bird. That the kind of experiment you want done for global warming.

There wasn't an experiment before the first bomb. They had an idea, a theory, but they didn't know the total power and extent. That's you want with climate warming mitigation.

You funny.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34793
Mar 28, 2013
 
gcaveman1 wrote:
There hasn't been an experiment progressing a dinosaur to a bird.
No, there's been experiments that show the effects of mutation but not an entire phylum evolving from another phylum. We have real world experimental results and we don't need to mitigate evolution.

If gcavman1 wanted to mitigate bird evolution, I'd need to test that mitigation on a smaller scale before supporting the policy.

.
gcaveman1 wrote:
That the kind of experiment you want done for global warming.
We need an experiment that shows the smallest measurable man made climate change, that's not the same as evolving dinosaurs into birds.

.
gcaveman1 wrote:
There wasn't an experiment before the first bomb.
There were thousands of experiments before the first bomb, showing the effects of nuclear chain reaction.

.
gcaveman1 wrote:
They had an idea, a theory, but they didn't know the total power and extent.
Then they experimentally tested the bomb before they used it in the war. They had a good idea of the power, since stayed out of the blast radius while watching the test.

.
gcaveman1 wrote:
That's you want with climate warming mitigation. You funny.
I want to see a compelling test of climate change mitigation before I buy in, show us how much good it might do at what cost. Every other technology is tested before its implemented, you don't take untested drugs. Why less safety when it comes to our planet's climate?
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34794
Mar 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
It's out there. Look it up, dear.
No maybe we already know your a Dumb ASSumption of your---self. Now big mouth post your peer reviewed published work and defends your Dumb ASSumption you make of your---self. Now you look it up.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34796
Mar 29, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>I want to see a compelling test of climate change mitigation before I buy in, show us how much good it might do at what cost. Every other technology is tested before its implemented, you don't take untested drugs. Why less safety when it comes to our planet's climate?
Once AGAIN, the onus is not on climatologists to prove mitigation works, the onus is on YOU to prove it's safe, because you people are the ones who want to change the atmosphere. You want to dump billions, eventually trillions, of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.

If nuclear physicists wanted to release trillions of tons of radioactive material into the atmosphere, would the onus be on the rest of us to prove that not releasing it would be beneficial? Of course not. It'd be on the physicists to prove it was safe.

So get busy & start proving that dumping enormous amounts of carbon into the atmosphere will be safe.

Sorry, Brain_Gone, you lose the argument. It's just that you're selfish, venal, invidious, profligate & sociopathic enough to force your filth on the rest of us.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34797
Mar 29, 2013
 
Ribbet.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34798
Mar 29, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
Once AGAIN, the onus is not on climatologists to prove mitigation works, the onus is on YOU to prove it's safe, because you people are the ones who want to change the atmosphere.
No, the atmosphere always changes, it's like a flowing stream. I'm not the one proposing a carbon tax, I don't have to prove anything is 'safe'. I don't want to mitigate climate change, I've got nothing to prove. I believe man made catastrophic climate change is a mass hysteria - it's up to scientists to prepare, perform, publish and teach about experimental tests for their theories and suppositions.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
You want to dump billions, eventually trillions, of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.
The word 'dump' isn't accurate, carbon dioxide is released or freed into the atmosphere. Dump implies a gravitational effect.

Let's get real, I'll never release, free or "billions, eventually trillions, of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere." That's way beyond my personal abilities. I want everyone to have the right to free CO2 into the air and use as much as they please. I'm not about pricing carbon or favoring a climate tax.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
If nuclear physicists wanted to release trillions of tons of radioactive material into the atmosphere, would the onus be on the rest of us to prove that not releasing it would be beneficial? Of course not.
Trillions of tons of radioactive material, where would they find it all? I'd be skeptical.

Also, CO2 isn't radioactive, poisonous or toxic at atmospheric levels.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
It'd be on the physicists to prove it was safe.
I'm not a scientist, I don't do experimental tests for my living. It's up to scientists to prove the science.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
So get busy & start proving that dumping enormous amounts of carbon into the atmosphere will be safe.
Geological activity changing the atmosphere is more than 4 billion years old. Animal life has existed for and added CO2 to the atmosphere for more than 3.5 billion years ago. I think nature has adapted to carbon dioxide emissions by now.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
Sorry, Brain_Gone, you lose the argument. It's just that you're selfish, venal, invidious, profligate & sociopathic enough to force your filth on the rest of us.
^^^I don't insult other posters, I don't need to use irrational ad homiem arguments because science is on my side.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34799
Mar 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>.
YourTrillions of tons of radioactive material, where would they find it all? I'd be skeptical.
Also, CO2 isn't radioactive, poisonous or toxic at atmospheric levels.
.
<quoted text>I'm not a scientist, I don't do experimental tests for my living. It's up to scientists to prove the science.
.
.
No, you are not a scientist. Your posts inform us of your ignorance.

For example, you don't know that fossil fuels are radioactive, so are their combustion products.

It isn't just the mercury and other toxic elements and their compounds but also, radioactive compounds.

Why are the tall stacks, etc.?
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34800
Mar 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Rising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations not only lead to global warming but also to increased climate variability and extreme weather situations. Within the past decade an exceptionally high number of extreme heat waves occurred around the globe: Record breaking temperatures hit central Western Europe in 2003, causing a large number of fatalities due to heat stress. In South-Eastern Europe dramatic wildfires ravaged in 2007, especially in Greece. Together with huge forest fires, an extraordinary heat wave with record temperatures led to a high and long-lasting air pollution in western Russia in 2010. The drought in 2011-2012 was reported to be one of the most severe ever recorded in the United States, with an economic loss of billions of dollars and heavy crop failures.

Not only severe droughts and heat waves but also extreme precipitation and windstorms can impact the structure, composition, and functioning of terrestrial ecosystems. The importance of extreme climatic events for the carbon balance became clear after the 2003 heat wave in Central and Southern Europe. Triggered by this month-long anomaly, the ecosystems lost as much CO2 as they had absorbed from the atmosphere through the previous four years under normal weather conditions.

Recent evidence also suggests that extreme weather may influence the carbon balance of our terrestrial biosphere such that it accelerates climate change. Co-organizers Dr. Michael Bahn, Associate Professor at University of Innsbruck, and Dr. Markus Reichstein, Max-Planck Director at the Max-Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, Jena, state unanimously:“Several lines of evidence indicate water-cycle extremes, in particular droughts, being a dominant risk for the carbon cycle in large parts of Europe. The largest and most diverse and enduring effects of extreme events are expected in forests.”

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.

26 Users are viewing the Chicago Forum right now

Search the Chicago Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 6 min Tinka 1,079,668
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 13 min voice of peace 67,928
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 1 hr truth 48,894
Presidential library planned for Chicago Chicag... 2 hr joey 3
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 4 hr Milsack 174,600
One kilometre high and counting (Jul '07) 4 hr TW_sugar_daddio 10
Amy 7-24 4 hr loose cannon 19
Abby 7-24 5 hr Pippa 42
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 7 hr Mister Tonka 97,524
•••
•••
•••
•••

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 ]
•••