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 1,651)

Showing posts 33,001 - 33,020 of45,584
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34967
Apr 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
Blue Skies, that's the promise, we'll keep the atmosphere clean and bright. You don't want civilization to collapse after the poles melt and the seas rise.
Don't worry how we'll fix it, it doesn't matter.
Really!

Who are you fooling? Nobody other than yourself.
Christine

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34968
Apr 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
If you are an Al Gore disciple then I suggest you watch his movie a 100 times. What was predicted was the sort of weather that comes annually now which were once in 100 yr event previous. Just because it was called global warming doesn't f...g mean a string of hot summers. That's the BS that was grabbed onto by the non educated & ill informed. Global warming was always about sea temps rising, ice melting causing extreme weather events which include floods, rain, tornado's, snow dumps and yes long periods of drought. That was always the prediction, now what happens with the sceptics is they find a record from 1912 where there was a long period of drought. Then say its all part of a natural cycle, yes that is true but you only want that cycle to hit once in a century not every freaking year. That is the difference between man made climate change and the planet's natural cycle.
NO pissant, the "fad" (much like the hoolahoop) was originally called "Global Warming".

It was then discovered the Globe wasn't warming after all so the "Experts" were forced to change the name of their "Environmental Disaster" to "Climate Change".

You see then whatever happened to the Globe's weather could be blamed on human activity and all kinds of stupid changes could be made to prevent this junk science.

The net result is environmental wackos won't be happy until everyone on the globe is biking around wearing spandex. Once everything is changed to prevent Climate Change and the climate is still changing you wackos will be scratching your heads and finally realize the change is a natural climate cycle caused by non-human forces that man has no control over.

Wackos always must have a cause to protest for/against. Whatever happened to that protest where you camped out in tents, Oh that's right it got too cold never mind. Mindless idiots every one.

“EnvironMENTAList ”

Since: Feb 07

Near Detroit

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34969
Apr 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Climate change believers are small minded climate cowards who like to also rubber neck car accidents and pull fire alarms and were probably beaten up by their younger sisters. You are Reefer Madness clowns for your kids to laugh at.
For you remaining "impressionable" climate blame believers it must make your tiny little fists clench in girly rage at the very thought that climate change could be a total exaggeration leaving our children averting the worst crisis imaginable. Who’s the neocon again here? Stop fear mongering our children and leave the real loving of the planet to the former believers. We are better planet lovers and you remaining doomers are the new neocons of fear mongering for the history books.
Christine

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34970
Apr 7, 2013
 
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
See what I mean, you put holes in your own argument. What about the snow dumps on the east coast, and in Europe. The floods in Australia in the top half while the bottom half burns with wildfires due to the heat. Please don't try and tell us, this is normal. Floods and tornado's every year. Just see what what happens in your state this tornado season & check how many insurance companies will keep insuring your home after being belted year after year. Then you may not be so much of a sceptic!!
Oh sheet here we go..

The Sandy storm destroyed so many homes along the shore.

Ya fool, and one homeowner was interviewed who built her home a little higher up on the lot and had NO DAMAGE. She said all the people on the block called her a fool, just like the little pigs who built their house of straw. The woman with the house built higher had little damage, the others were destroyed.

And then the islands that were destroyed were called "Barrier" island and were never intended to be built on but used as barrier islands to protect NYC.

You phocking stupid NYers went ahead and built on them anyway.

Knock yourself out.

Sorry tornados happen every year in the real world!!

Maybe you should knock off the POT?

Since: Mar 09

Cement, OK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34971
Apr 7, 2013
 
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem with climate change science and telling everyone that the science is settled is one of the greatest letdowns in science. When you freeze the debate and rely on a science that has been settled since 1981, then it really is hard to come out later and say we might have overestimated man's CO2 impact on the climate. The good news is that now more scientists are questioning the impact of AGW and maybe, just maybe a reasonable debate can proceed.
I was reading an interview with Freeman Dyson who was involved with early research on climate change at the Institute for Energy Analysis in Oak Ridge, TN. His research involved scientists from many disciplines and was based on experimentation. The scientists studied such questions as how atmospheric carbon dioxide interacts with plant life and the role of clouds in warming. But he said that approach lost out to the computer-modeling approach favored by climate scientists. And that approach was flawed from the beginning, Dyson said. Dyson said these models included fudge factors and a major fudge factor concerns the role of clouds. The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide on its own is limited. To get to the apocalyptic projections trumpeted by Al Gore and company, the models have to include assumptions that CO2 will cause clouds to form in a way that produces more warming.
Dyson is now called a stupid man by those who don't want to debate the science. This quote seems to sum up the AGW science:
"The essence of science is that it is always willing to abandon a given idea, however fundamental it may seem to be, for a better one; the essence of theology is that it holds its truths to be eternal and immutable."
Not one scientist is debating that the Earth hasn't warmed. The debate is over how much man's contribution is to the warming and the Earth's feedback system and sensitivity. Now that CO2 has continued to skyrocket and the temperatures have stayed flat for the last 17 years, at last, many scientists are starting to question their computer models.
All this from a man who stated,"We are moving rapidly into the post-Darwinian era, when species other than our own will no longer exist, and the rules of Open Source sharing will be extended from the exchange of software to the exchange of genes."

Of course he evidently does not understand how the ecology of the Earth is utterly dependent upon the interrelationships between the species.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34972
Apr 7, 2013
 
kristy wrote:
I was reading an interview with Freeman Dyson who was involved with early research on climate change at the Institute for Energy Analysis in Oak Ridge, TN.
The most credible critic of AGW is somebody who studied it for a year in the 1970s?

No, he wasn't involved in research- the group he was with studied the issue.

What conclusion did they come to?

"These studies led to widespread concern that human activities, notably deforestation and burning of fossil fuels, were contributing to pronounced changes in the global climate."

http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/printmembe...

You need to be a bit less gullible and treat the stuff you read on wattsupwithtwat a bit more sceptically.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34973
Apr 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
See what I mean, you put holes in your own argument. What about the snow dumps on the east coast, and in Europe. The floods in Australia in the top half while the bottom half burns with wildfires due to the heat. Please don't try and tell us, this is normal. Floods and tornado's every year. Just see what what happens in your state this tornado season & check how many insurance companies will keep insuring your home after being belted year after year. Then you may not be so much of a sceptic!!
You are way too funny. Floods and tornadoes aren't normal every year? LOL. Droughts don't happen all around the world every year?

A CRU scientist told us this in the year 2000 in regards to Europe and snow:

According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event". "Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.

And this quote from David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire: "Ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow. Via the internet, they might wonder at polar scenes - or eventually "feel" virtual cold."

Seriously, extreme weather has happened throughout the history of Earth. Take a look at this list and tell me that our current conditions are out of the ordinary:

http://www.c3headlines.com/bad-stuff-happens....
kristy

Oviedo, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34974
Apr 7, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>This is now your new material, huh?
Why did you change your position? Of course, you are clear that you disagree with science. the science that you know nothing of.
You are so dense. This has always been by position.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34975
Apr 7, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
All this from a man who stated,"We are moving rapidly into the post-Darwinian era, when species other than our own will no longer exist, and the rules of Open Source sharing will be extended from the exchange of software to the exchange of genes."
Of course he evidently does not understand how the ecology of the Earth is utterly dependent upon the interrelationships between the species.
Care to elaborate on Dyson's open source sharing and tell me it isn't already starting to happen.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34976
Apr 7, 2013
 
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
You are so dense[name calling]. This has always been by[sic] position.
LIAR.
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem with climate change science and telling everyone that the science is settled is one of the greatest letdowns in science. When you freeze the debate and rely on a science that has been settled since 1981, then it really is hard to come out later and say we might have overestimated man's CO2 impact on the climate. The good news is that now more scientists are questioning the impact of AGW and maybe, just maybe a reasonable debate can proceed.
..
Not one scientist is debating that the Earth hasn't warmed. The debate is over how much man's contribution is to the warming and the Earth's feedback system and sensitivity. Now that CO2 has continued to skyrocket and the temperatures have stayed flat for the last 17 years, at last, many scientists are starting to question their computer models.
This disjointed stuff is your new position but you are too unaware when you copy/paste denier material.

What's not new is your rudeness.

Skyrocket? About ninety million tons of man-made CO2 are emitted into our atmosphere daily. Just the way you like it!

The climate-change payback is in the works but you are unaware of it in your denier position.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34977
Apr 7, 2013
 
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
The most credible critic of AGW is somebody who studied it for a year in the 1970s?
No, he wasn't involved in research- the group he was with studied the issue.
What conclusion did they come to?
"These studies led to widespread concern that human activities, notably deforestation and burning of fossil fuels, were contributing to pronounced changes in the global climate."
http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/printmembe...
You need to be a bit less gullible and treat the stuff you read on wattsupwithtwat a bit more sceptically.
Sorry, didn't get it from WWUT. Just read what the man actually said....."climatologists are no Einstein."

http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2013/04/...
kristy

Oviedo, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34978
Apr 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>LIAR.
<quoted text>This disjointed stuff is your new position but you are too unaware when you copy/paste denier material.
What's not new is your rudeness.
Skyrocket? About ninety million tons of man-made CO2 are emitted into our atmosphere daily. Just the way you like it!
The climate-change payback is in the works but you are unaware of it in your denier position.
My position has ALWAYS been the Earth is warming as we are coming out of an interglacial period, carbon dioxide is increasing, and that the science that needs to be debated is the amount of man's contribution to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere and the effects of increased CO2. My beef has ALWAYS been with the computer models and the exaggerated claims of sea level rise, temperature rise, etc.
Nature advocate

Chatsworth, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34979
Apr 7, 2013
 
High density is not green. Concrete and steel are not green. The potted plant in the lobby doesn't count.

Be green. Low density with plants, parks, rolling hills and streams.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34980
Apr 8, 2013
 
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
My position has ALWAYS been the Earth is warming as we are coming out of an interglacial period, carbon dioxide is increasing, and that the science that needs to be debated is the amount of man's contribution to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere and the effects of increased CO2. My beef has ALWAYS been with the computer models and the exaggerated claims of sea level rise, temperature rise, etc.
Then how do you explain the extreme weather now on a annual basis for pretty much all countries. Is this caused by your so called normal cyclic events or helped along by man ? Considering these events once had a 20 - 50 -100 yr gap in the cycle previously. But the super storms are now an annual event. At what point do you believe it's abnormal, or are you waiting for blue sky to disappear for good ?
Even with the weight of evidence, billions of more ppl to feed and clothe along with all those Chinese and Indians throwing away push bikes to buy more cars or motor bikes along with the power consumption that goes with it. Yet still dismiss man's impact on the planet as neutral.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34981
Apr 8, 2013
 
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, didn't get it from WWUT. Just read what the man actually said....."climatologists are no Einstein."
http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2013/04/...
Betcha reddit on wattsupwithtwat though.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/05/freeman...

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34982
Apr 8, 2013
 
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
My position has ALWAYS been the Earth is warming as we are coming out of an interglacial period, carbon dioxide is increasing, and that the science that needs to be debated is the amount of man's contribution to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere and the effects of increased CO2.
And your education in science is? Zero.

Your training in science is? Zero.

Your experience of science is? Zero?

Your ability to understand science is? Zero.

Your willingness to listen to what scientists are saying is? Zero.

You can have your debate with the other jabbering idiots at wattsupwithtwat.

Meanwhile, every scientific academy on the planet says the Earth is warming, we're responsible, and we need to do something about it.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34983
Apr 8, 2013
 
Deniers deny the following:

Annual natural CO2 increase: 0.0001 ppm.

Annual man-made CO2 increase: 2 ppm.

Got science?

Since: Oct 08

Alpharetta, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34984
Apr 8, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

suns gravity pulls us a tiny bit closer every year, can't be stopped, nothing can be done, don't worry about it for 3 or 4 hundred years.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34985
Apr 8, 2013
 
Trends and variability of seasonal weather regimes

Mathieu Vrac*,
Pradeebane Vaittinada Ayar,
Pascal Yiou

Article first published online: 8 APR 2013

DOI: 10.1002/joc.3700

ABSTRACT

Seasons and seasonality are the main properties of extra-tropical climate that affect ecosystems and society. For example, agriculture, tourism, energy consumption or ecosystem phenology are primarily dependent on seasonality and on the magnitude of the meteorological events associated within each season. Changes in the seasonality of variables like surface temperature during the last decades have been widely investigated but seasonal changes of the weather have received less quantification. This paper redefines the concept of seasonality based on the extra-tropical atmospheric circulation, and on the notion that it can drive the evolution of temperature. We find that summer-like atmospheric conditions have appeared earlier and ended later since 1948. Conversely, the period with winter patterns has reduced over that period. The temperatures associated with weather patterns allow to identify the sources of temperature trends. Copyright © 2013 Royal Meteorological Society

-International Journal of Climatology

“So long to you, Righties”

Since: Jan 12

keep suckin' and whiffin'!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34986
Apr 8, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
What did I lie about? Marcott produced a hockey stick graph, sent out a press release and then retracted the hockey stick without any fanfare. That was at the least deceptive.
What do you call a person who states that I lie about science and the actions of scientists, but has no problem with a scientist such as Michael Mann lying about the actions of fellow scientists? A hypocrite.
Your characterization of the events in question, and of Mann's character, are entirely dishonest. Therefore, you lied. End of story.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 33,001 - 33,020 of45,584
|
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.

44 Users are viewing the Chicago Forum right now

Search the Chicago Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 min Obama The Worst 1,073,074
Abby July 12 9 min Julie 5
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 11 min voice of peace 67,552
Amy July 12 39 min Julie 7
Last word + 2 (Mar '12) 40 min andet1987 409
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 hr Jacques from Ottawa 173,767
St. Vincent DePaul Store Thrift Store Moving to... 2 hr omeomy 3
•••
•••
•••

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 ]
•••