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 (Page 1,643)

Showing posts 32,841 - 32,860 of45,435
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34801
Mar 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Brain has called in reinforcements....
np.

B_gone does not even admit the fossil fuel radioactivity. Public is not fooled by him!
Teddy R

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34802
Mar 29, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Scientific consensus:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features...

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34803
Mar 29, 2013
 
BOO!
Tricia McMillen

Chicago, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34804
Mar 29, 2013
 
RedheadwGlasses wrote:
BOO!
Oh, there you are. Come along home , dear . I have some milk nd oreos for you and you can watch Garfield Goose if you like.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34805
Mar 29, 2013
 
Teddy R wrote:
Climate scientists are discussing why surface temperatures haven't been increasing quite so rapidly recently, but the people determined not to take action on AGW are deliberately misunderstanding and misinterpreting the discussion, as this link proves.

Climate science says the slow-down may be an indication of lower sensitivity, or it may be an indication of natural variability. As we have evidence that natural variability (more heat entering the deep ocean, more volcanic activity causing cooling), the lower sensitivity argument may be a bit premature.

Those determined not to take action on AGW see only one side of the discussion- the side that supports what they already want to do of course.

The idea of consensus over climate sensitivity is a straw man- it's something still subject to scientific debate- but the misinterpretation of the debate is very real.

The Economist's article is halfway decent.

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-tec...

With a few flaws.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/hausfather-ec...

The Australian's article is agenda driven distortion.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34806
Mar 29, 2013
 
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>A bunch of equine excrement.
Actually, Brain_Gone, EVERYTHING you say is wrong. Just remember that. I hope it's worth your progeny's deep derision to get a few shekels now.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34807
Mar 29, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

SpaceBlues wrote:
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.?
I'm discussing CO2, that's not toxic or radioactive in the air. The sun provides us with the radiation we need and CO2 helps hold in the warmth we need to survive.

Don't panic, and try to avoid irrational arguments based on ad hominem fallacies.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34808
Mar 29, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
Actually, Brain_Gone, EVERYTHING you say is wrong. Just remember that. I hope it's worth your progeny's deep derision to get a few shekels now.
I don't make up fake quotes 'from' my opponents. I believe in truth; this is where we differ.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34809
Mar 29, 2013
 
Brian_G wrote:
I believe in truth.
Sure. You believe in shitting on it.
litesong

Lake Stevens, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34810
Mar 29, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

SpaceBlues wrote:
Why are the tall stacks........?
Because industry, conservatives, re-pubic-lick-uns & dimwits think that dilution is the solution to pollution...... & if they can send the evidence far away, they can't be proven to be at fault for deaths, disease, & hurt.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34811
Mar 29, 2013
 
Tricia McMillen wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, there you are. Come along home , dear . I have some milk nd oreos for you and you can watch Garfield Goose if you like.
I don't like milk and Oreos aren't really my thing. haven't heard of Garfield Goose. But I AM having a Captain Morgan and Sierra Mist, just smoked a bowl, and am going to go game while I watch Family Guy.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34812
Mar 29, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Fair Game wrote:
Sure. You believe in shitting on it.
Posting a false quote from an opponent isn't truth.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34813
Mar 29, 2013
 
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I don't make up fake quotes 'from' my opponents. I believe in truth; this is where we differ.
No, Brain_Gone, you believe in oil-money-encrusted lies. Let's look at the numbers of paper since 1991 that reject GW:

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/...

The consensus is clear, & some 97% of publishing climatologists agree. These are people who tend to be so obstreperous you couldn't get them to agree that it's Friday.

1. The earth is warming.
2. This warming is principally caused by humans, mainly because of burning fossil fuels.
3. This warming represents a potential major danger to human civilization.

These are scientific facts, BG, based on more than 150 years of science. I'm sorry for you that these things are true, but they are. Scientific facts are true no matter how many times you repeat that they're not.

Any progress on working out your proof that your changing of the atmosphere is safe? We're waiting with baited breath.
litesong

Lake Stevens, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34814
Mar 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

gcaveman1 wrote:
That the kind of experiment you want done for global warming.
No.'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver' is just delaying, so its employers can rake in the most money.'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver' just works for its 2-bit wages, & won't get any 100 million dollar bonus, stock options or retirement packages that is being distributed to the upper crust paper shufflers & people shovers.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34815
Mar 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>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.
.
<quoted text>We need an experiment that shows the smallest measurable man made climate change, that's not the same as evolving dinosaurs into birds.
.
<quoted text>There were thousands of experiments before the first bomb, showing the effects of nuclear chain reaction.
.
<quoted text>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.
.
<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?
There were thousands of experiments before the first bomb, showing the effects of nuclear chain reaction.

How many cities were blown up?

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.

How many cities were blown up before they finally did the REAL experiment?

Everything was theory until that first explosion in the desert.
Global warming is just as valid a theory but you won't believe it even when the ice all melts in your ex-Nazi neighborhood.
litesong

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34816
Mar 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

gcaveman1 wrote:
..... in your('brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver') ex-Nazi neighborhood.
How dare you say that 'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver' hangs on in Germany for neo-Nazi affiliations?

Very accurately, I'd say.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34817
Mar 29, 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. Now you look it up.
Look this up........'!
litesong

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34818
Mar 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver wrote:
I believe in truth......
"brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver" believes in slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pigisms & 4 alleged & 4 proud threats. "brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver" believes its errors of 1million TIMES, 1000 TIMES, 3000 TIMES & 73 million TIMES were accurate.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34819
Mar 29, 2013
 
RedheadwGlasses wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't like milk and Oreos aren't really my thing. haven't heard of Garfield Goose. But I AM having a Captain Morgan and Sierra Mist, just smoked a bowl, and am going to go game while I watch Family Guy.
Except for the milk and Oreos part..........sounds like a plan....
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34820
Mar 29, 2013
 
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>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.?
But B_gone posted to another poster:
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Posting a false quote from an opponent isn't truth.
You can't handle the truth. Proof is in your response to my post above:
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I'm discussing CO2, that's not toxic or radioactive in the air. The sun provides us with the radiation we need and CO2 helps hold in the warmth we need to survive.
Don't panic, and try to avoid irrational arguments based on ad hominem fallacies.
NONRESPONSIVE. LIAR.

REPEAT with me: Fossil fuels and their combustion products are radioactive.

What are the tall atacks for?

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 32,841 - 32,860 of45,435
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
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.

35 Users are viewing the Chicago Forum right now

Search the Chicago Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min TheIndependentMajority 1,071,191
Monkey’s body is matched with African-American ... 9 min Clothes for spooks 1
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 12 min wojar 173,501
Four Dead in Bridgeview Head-On Collision 26 min Rahm Jizzbucket Emanuel 65
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 43 min former res 68,102
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 47 min ScarletandOlive 97,411
Black boys are more likely to be tried as adult... 54 min bensley reality 1
•••
•••
•••
•••

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 ]
•••