Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 63392 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.

SpaceBlues

United States

#36120 May 24, 2013
http://www.washington.edu/news/2013/05/21/the...

“Consider me a skeptic when tea party supporters call upon a conservative tradition to which they have but a slight claim.”
Dont drink the koolaid

Eden Prairie, MN

#36121 May 24, 2013
You really are from TN aren't you?

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#36122 May 24, 2013
Dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, Mr. gcaveman1, many who lack the education to understand the scientific CAGW literature do deny the claims of the "believers" (a great way to describe yourself and others of your faith).
As a heretic of The CAGW belief system, I share SOME of the positions taken by many "deniers". One issue is that the "believers" claim the opinions of some men of letters are elevated to the status of 'fact' and 'truth'.
For example:
*Bill McKibben of 350.org who said we are going to be in big trouble when CO2 hits the 350 mark
*well its now at 400. So the time line for complete disaster in some studies is only 15 yrs away
*U ARE SAVING THE PLANET HERE!
*Once the tipping point is reached there is no going back.
*This is fact
*CO2 will cause more severe weather.
The inconvenient truth is every science academy in the world agrees that the claims made by "the believers" are
NOT "fact" and "Truth".
Scientists explain their work using qualifiers such as "suggests", "could", "likely", "may"', which clearly means they are expressing a collection of opinion. "The believer" then bestows those opinions with the values of "Fact " and "Truth" thus elevating their belief system to a religion... so deny all you want but this IS a religion.! The ones who have made CAGW into a religion are the (using your own word) "believers".
May you and your fellow apostles someday learn that it is wiser to be skeptical of your science and have faith in your religion... Rather then the other way around.
-koolaid
BRAVO!!!! Or BRAVA.....whichever applies.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#36123 May 24, 2013
Dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, Mr. gcaveman1, many who lack the education to understand the scientific CAGW literature do deny the claims of the "believers" (a great way to describe yourself and others of your faith).
As a heretic of The CAGW belief system, I share SOME of the positions taken by many "deniers". One issue is that the "believers" claim the opinions of some men of letters are elevated to the status of 'fact' and 'truth'.
For example:
*Bill McKibben of 350.org who said we are going to be in big trouble when CO2 hits the 350 mark
*well its now at 400. So the time line for complete disaster in some studies is only 15 yrs away
*U ARE SAVING THE PLANET HERE!
*Once the tipping point is reached there is no going back.
*This is fact
*CO2 will cause more severe weather.
The inconvenient truth is every science academy in the world agrees that the claims made by "the believers" are
NOT "fact" and "Truth".
Scientists explain their work using qualifiers such as "suggests", "could", "likely", "may"', which clearly means they are expressing a collection of opinion. "The believer" then bestows those opinions with the values of "Fact " and "Truth" thus elevating their belief system to a religion... so deny all you want but this IS a religion.! The ones who have made CAGW into a religion are the (using your own word) "believers".
May you and your fellow apostles someday learn that it is wiser to be skeptical of your science and have faith in your religion... Rather then the other way around.
-koolaid
More DDK nonscientific humbug..

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#36124 May 24, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
More DDK nonscientific humbug..
doesnt mean its not truthful.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#36125 May 24, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Yet, these deniers can't get over the fact that Al Gore sold something to somebody.
Hypocrites.
"Free-market" Capitalism is a wonderful system ordained of God...unless that evil man Al Gore uses it to make a buck. Then it's "proof" that global warming is "fiction," as I'm sure you know...:)

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#36126 May 24, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>doesnt mean its not truthful.
Um, actually it DOES...

hum·bug
/&#712;h&#601;m&#7 16;b&#601;g/Noun
Deceptive or false talk or behavior.

Verb
Deceive; trick.

Synonyms
noun. cheat - fraud - deception - swindle
verb. cheat - deceive - swindle - trick - dupe - hoodwink

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#36127 May 24, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>no need to read further. zeig heil, proff!
If you weren't a liar, you'd have posted the rest of the comment:

"And they're doing so - raising emissions and fuel economy standards is forcing industry to improve, and it's the ONLY way to make them do so."

Yes, in a democratic society, the elected government CAN make laws which instruct industry what to do and what not to do.

I have some German ancestry but despise Nazis. Don't ever say that to me again, you little flit. Word of warning.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#36129 May 24, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>zeig heil, little brown shirt!
what are you gonna do....call the moderator?
you spread hate and divisiveness all the time on these threads.
hitler split up unity....just like you do.
you're both known liars, too.
Your post has been reported to moderators, you cowardly buttwipe.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#36131 May 24, 2013
Some people have the biggest double standards.

Little people can dish it out, but can't seem to take it in return.

Lol
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#36133 May 24, 2013
Dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
Scientists explain their work using qualifiers such as "suggests", "could", "likely", "may"', which clearly means they are expressing a collection of opinion.
I would 'suggest' that drinking a fifty of J&B scotch and then driving across a busy city would be 'likely' to cause an accident in which innocent lives 'could' be taken. This 'may' be a likely consequence.

By "kookaid's" criteria, this means that the statistical risk of driving drunk is 'just an opinion'.

P.S. I am merely using sarcasm to illustrate just HOW stupid the Kook really is. Can anyone really take him seriously??

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#36134 May 24, 2013
Dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
..........
Scientists explain their work using qualifiers such as "suggests", "could", "likely", "may"', which clearly means they are expressing a collection of opinion. "The believer" then bestows those opinions with the values of "Fact " and "Truth" thus elevating their belief system to a religion... so deny all you want but this IS a religion.! The ones who have made CAGW into a religion are the (using your own word) "believers".
May you and your fellow apostles someday learn that it is wiser to be skeptical of your science and have faith in your religion... Rather then the other way around.
-koolaid
You have seat belts in your car for the "could" & "maybes" you have air bags for the same reason. When risk reaches a certain point beyond zero you take certain measures. At 97% risk I'd say that is about as much "certain" as you can get. And "YOU" talk about it like a religion when the situation is entirely reversed. The mere fact you WANT to believe the 3% is the real religion shows up how you process logic. YOU ARE THE ONES with the real faith not us! Your faith is on the same level as those who worshipped the sun gods or volcanoes.
Retired Farmer

Paducah, KY

#36135 May 24, 2013
Interesting National Geographic article about effects of climate change in Australia.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/...
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#36136 May 25, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
It is incorrect to call those who accept the scientific method
believers. It is more correct to call them 'educated' or 'lacking ignorance'. Only the clueless can 'believe' or 'deny' based on their lack of understanding. Just as any insult MUST be a lie (or it isn't insulting).
That's why I had it in quotation marks, to indicate that it was a label, not necessarily grounded in fact.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#36137 May 25, 2013
Dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, Mr. gcaveman1, many who lack the education to understand the scientific CAGW literature do deny the claims of the "believers" (a great way to describe yourself and others of your faith).
As a heretic of The CAGW belief system, I share SOME of the positions taken by many "deniers". One issue is that the "believers" claim the opinions of some men of letters are elevated to the status of 'fact' and 'truth'.
For example:
*Bill McKibben of 350.org who said we are going to be in big trouble when CO2 hits the 350 mark
*well its now at 400. So the time line for complete disaster in some studies is only 15 yrs away
*U ARE SAVING THE PLANET HERE!
*Once the tipping point is reached there is no going back.
*This is fact
*CO2 will cause more severe weather.
The inconvenient truth is every science academy in the world agrees that the claims made by "the believers" are
NOT "fact" and "Truth".
Scientists explain their work using qualifiers such as "suggests", "could", "likely", "may"', which clearly means they are expressing a collection of opinion. "The believer" then bestows those opinions with the values of "Fact " and "Truth" thus elevating their belief system to a religion... so deny all you want but this IS a religion.! The ones who have made CAGW into a religion are the (using your own word) "believers".
May you and your fellow apostles someday learn that it is wiser to be skeptical of your science and have faith in your religion... Rather then the other way around.
-koolaid
What a crock of shit. As disjointed as your words and logic are, you must be drunk.

The science is so solid as to be all but established fact. There are uncertainties, but there are always uncertainties. They do not negate the conclusions.

I have faith that the researchers have done their work accurately and conscientiously. I don't have a religion.

I put "believers" in quotation marks to imply that it is a label. I prefer "acceptors". I do not use CAGW because I don't yet accept that AGW will be catastrophic to this or to the next generation, though it could be.

And there's quite a bit of difference between your ignorant personal opinion and the scientific opinions of professional scientists.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#36138 May 25, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
You have seat belts in your car for the "could" & "maybes" you have air bags for the same reason. When risk reaches a certain point beyond zero you take certain measures. At 97% risk I'd say that is about as much "certain" as you can get. And "YOU" talk about it like a religion when the situation is entirely reversed. The mere fact you WANT to believe the 3% is the real religion shows up how you process logic. YOU ARE THE ONES with the real faith not us! Your faith is on the same level as those who worshipped the sun gods or volcanoes.
And insurance. The chances that your house will burn down are tiny, but they still do. Does the idiot have fire insurance on his home?

Your chances of being hit by a tornado are about one in 2 million. Does the idiot have a home insurance policy that covers damage from extreme weather?

Yes, they are participants in the denier religion, which counts on talk-show evangelists and Fox Noose, not scientific conclusions.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#36139 May 25, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
And insurance. The chances that your house will burn down are tiny, but they still do. Does the idiot have fire insurance on his home?
Your chances of being hit by a tornado are about one in 2 million. Does the idiot have a home insurance policy that covers damage from extreme weather?
Yes, they are participants in the denier religion, which counts on talk-show evangelists and Fox Noose, not scientific conclusions.
Good point, What you will see next is insurers not going near certain areas unless you want to pay thousands a year or none.

This has happened in other countries where they were flooded 2-3 yrs in a row. Now insurance won't go near or they have premiums up 500% nice lil rise for no climate change at all. Now even insurance companies are building in the risk. But of course not the "Deniers".
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#36140 May 25, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Good point, What you will see next is insurers not going near certain areas unless you want to pay thousands a year or none.
This has happened in other countries where they were flooded 2-3 yrs in a row. Now insurance won't go near or they have premiums up 500% nice lil rise for no climate change at all. Now even insurance companies are building in the risk. But of course not the "Deniers".
Some convincing evidence from the insurance world:

http://www.google.com/url...

One of hundreds of articles detailing how insurance companies, including the biggest in the world, don't consider the political angle of global warming, but rather the bottom line on their balance sheets.

This is evidence as good as any scientific paper. When people and businesses change their actions in response to a particular stimulus, you can be sure it's real.
Dont drink the koolaid

Eden Prairie, MN

#36141 May 25, 2013
Top scientific counterpoint to those who question the dogma of AGW:
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
What a crock of shit. As disjointed as your words and logic are, you must be drunk..
My Dear gcaveman1,
Wow! Clearly, there is no scientific response possible that could address your points. Also, there is no logic or reason to be applied against your arguments. Yup, a statement some... Ney most Mississippians would be proud to call their own. A tip,of the hat to you, sir ;-)
-koolaid
Dont drink the koolaid

Eden Prairie, MN

#36142 May 25, 2013
"Believers" believe that scientific opinion is embraced as 'fact'... or "as solid as to be all but established fact".
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
What a crock of shit. The science is so solid as to be all but established fact.
Sir, your conformation of my statements are, as always, appreciated.

Sincerely,
koolaid

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) 3 min Jacques Ottawa 237,708
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 21 min Susanm 1,497,921
Nancy Pelosi (our demented gal). 1 hr Willie Wackoff 6
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 1 hr TRD 71,396
Four letter word game (Dec '11) 1 hr GEORGIA 2,486
Review: 24hrTrash 2 hr Steve smith 1
Meryl Streep is a worthless know nothing bitch. 3 hr Redred61 18

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages