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
35,081 - 35,100 of 46,223 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago
gcaveman1

Laurel, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37360
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

In his latest newsletter, legendary fund manager Jeremy Grantham - who made billions predicting every major stock market bubble of recent decades - warns that cheap resources are history:

"Our global economy, reckless in its use of all resources and natural systems, shows many of the indicators of potential failure that brought down so many civilisations before ours."

Industrial civilisation is currently "completely dependent on the availability of cheap energy." Therefore, resource depletion combined with "the wild cards of rising temperatures, slowly rising sea levels, ocean acidification, and, above all, destabilised weather for farming" could lead to "a rolling collapse of much of civilisation" - unless the world embarks on a "Manhattan project level of commitment" to transition to an alternative energy and agricultural system.
gcaveman1

Laurel, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37365
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

I love it when deniers say "global warming is losing support", "the last remaining global warming believers", "more scientists say climate change is wrong", etc.

It climate denialism that's on its deathbed.

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

Oviedo, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37367
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
I would have to assume by this that when the Atom bomb was invented and you were told "this bomb could destroy a whole city but so far it's only a theory." and then you roll your eyes in disbelief. You would also be one of those "Well lets just try it and see". With climate deniers they are saying exactly the same thing!
Oh please, that is not the exact same thing. It would be more like Bush telling us we HAVE to go war because the consensus says that Iraq has WMD. We have to act now. We have no other way to address this problem. We must do the most extreme and expensive measures.

So now we have president Obama who came right out and lied saying that global warming is accelerating faster, even beyond what was believed 5-10 years ago, and he tells us we must take action now, the most expensive and extreme actions.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37368
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

gcaveman1 wrote:
In his latest newsletter, legendary fund manager Jeremy Grantham - who made billions predicting every major stock market bubble of recent decades - warns that cheap resources are history:
"Our global economy, reckless in its use of all resources and natural systems, shows many of the indicators of potential failure that brought down so many civilisations before ours."
Industrial civilisation is currently "completely dependent on the availability of cheap energy." Therefore, resource depletion combined with "the wild cards of rising temperatures, slowly rising sea levels, ocean acidification, and, above all, destabilised weather for farming" could lead to "a rolling collapse of much of civilisation" - unless the world embarks on a "Manhattan project level of commitment" to transition to an alternative energy and agricultural system.
Just another person who has no faith in science and technology and predicts doom and gloom. Grantham seems to think that no one is researching how to improve crop yields or that no one is researching alternative energies sources. That's nothing new. Here is a little of what was said in the 1960s-1970s:

Paul Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb foretold billions of deaths from starvation, and the collapse of civilisation:“the battle to feed humanity is over”, Ehrlich said.

But yet without a Manhattan project level of commitment, along came the Green Revolution, led by Norman Borlaug, who won the battle that Ehrlich said was lost. Using techniques borrowed from Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics, he bred a new form of wheat. Its shorter stems broke less easily and wasted less energy in growth; it was disease-resistant and yielded more food. Suddenly, the amount of food available from a hectare of land rocketed. Borlaug’s innovation is credited with saving a billion lives – and the nation of India. No wonder he won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work.

Since: Mar 09

Penrose, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37369
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Just another person who has no faith in science and technology and predicts doom and gloom. Grantham seems to think that no one is researching how to improve crop yields or that no one is researching alternative energies sources. That's nothing new. Here is a little of what was said in the 1960s-1970s:
Paul Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb foretold billions of deaths from starvation, and the collapse of civilisation:“the battle to feed humanity is over”, Ehrlich said.
But yet without a Manhattan project level of commitment, along came the Green Revolution, led by Norman Borlaug, who won the battle that Ehrlich said was lost. Using techniques borrowed from Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics, he bred a new form of wheat. Its shorter stems broke less easily and wasted less energy in growth; it was disease-resistant and yielded more food. Suddenly, the amount of food available from a hectare of land rocketed. Borlaug’s innovation is credited with saving a billion lives – and the nation of India. No wonder he won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work.
Like your example of peptic ulcers,you try to project the logic saying that because something new was found to be the cause, there will also be something new to negate AGW. Poor logic. Likewise because mankind was able to greatly improve the food yield previously, we will always be able to do so. Perhaps. Not necessarily the reality. Remember the "green revolution" depended heavily upon fossil organic materials. We are finding that this may not be sustainable forever.

Over population is becoming problematic. We may not be able to sustain it much longer. Resources are diminishing and pollution is mounting. We need to understand that.
riddler

Canyon Country, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37370
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Man, I have never have heard from so many un informed people in my life, what you guys in Chicago live in an echo chamber, mumbling and listening to the same stuff. Fact: the warming of the planet has been on hold for the last 20 yrs. and you act like this is a true science, its all theory stop with the al gore bull its been debunked I like you read and listened but never stayed in the echo chamber and my findings have debunked or put serious questions regarding the man made global warming hysteria, and yes its hysteria...get out the liberal/progressive/wacky environmentalist mentality and research, I know it does not feel good but the truth is truth..peace out! and by the way you can place the worlds entire population into texas living in a single family home comfortably, and feed them as normal, we discard food from our schools daily to feed the world two full meals daily, so that's debunked too see you need to know the truth, homework people!

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37372
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

gcaveman1 wrote:
In his latest newsletter, legendary fund manager Jeremy Grantham - who made billions predicting every major stock market bubble of recent decades - warns that cheap resources are history:
"Our global economy, reckless in its use of all resources and natural systems, shows many of the indicators of potential failure that brought down so many civilisations before ours."
Industrial civilisation is currently "completely dependent on the availability of cheap energy." Therefore, resource depletion combined with "the wild cards of rising temperatures, slowly rising sea levels, ocean acidification, and, above all, destabilised weather for farming" could lead to "a rolling collapse of much of civilisation" - unless the world embarks on a "Manhattan project level of commitment" to transition to an alternative energy and agricultural system.
so....according to your logic we should step it up to unproven, unreliable, and more expensive source of energy.

what will that do to improve the situation now or down the road?

are you an anarchist, son?
gcaveman1

Laurel, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37373
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>so....according to your logic we should step it up to unproven, unreliable, and more expensive source of energy.
what will that do to improve the situation now or down the road?
are you an anarchist, son?
No, that would be even dumber than you. The unreliable and expensive is rapidly becoming the fossil choice. Solar, wind, and other alts are proen, reliable, and getting cheaper every day.

Maybe you should air your beef with legendary fund manager Jeremy Grantham. He might know a thing or two. Maybe even read the piece.

No, I'm the Antichrist.
gcaveman1

Laurel, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37374
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

proven

I have a sticky "v".
gcaveman1

Laurel, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37375
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

In this century, the global average temperature could rise as much as four degrees celsius, leading to floods and other natural disasters that would displace as many as 330 million people, according predictions by the UN Development Programme. So far, however, there is little or no international legal protection for people who are forced to migrate due to natural disasters.

“For most questions, we don’t have a consensus,” says Walter Kälin of the Nansen Initiative, a Norwegian-Swiss outfit. It was established in 2012 with the mission of jumpstarting international dialogue on a coherent and consistent approach to protecting people displaced by the impacts of climate change.

Kälin points out that different sets of rules apply to different refugees. Those who leave their countries are basically protected by human rights law, but refugee law applies only to a very limited extent. For internal refugees, there are the UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement and African Union Convention for the Prevention of Internal Displacement and the Protection of and Assistance to IDPs (internally displaced persons) in Africa.

So far, most climate migration is internal, says Koko Warner of the United Nations University Institute for Environment and Human Security in Bonn. In the future, she expects disasters to cause more cross-border migration however.

According to her, the questions most people ask about global warming are:“How will it affect us? Can we adjust?” Households with money, political influence and protection by various institutions are resilient, she says. If need be, they can plan migration. For poor people, however, moving tends to be one of last options. The reason is that their livelihoods depend on their immediate environment. Warner argues that they are the most vulnerable to climate change, and the least likely to migrate in an organised and pre-meditated manner.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37377
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>Like your example of peptic ulcers,you try to project the logic saying that because something new was found to be the cause, there will also be something new to negate AGW. Poor logic. Likewise because mankind was able to greatly improve the food yield previously, we will always be able to do so. Perhaps. Not necessarily the reality. Remember the "green revolution" depended heavily upon fossil organic materials. We are finding that this may not be sustainable forever.
Over population is becoming problematic. We may not be able to sustain it much longer. Resources are diminishing and pollution is mounting. We need to understand that.
You totally didn't get the analogy. Let me break it down. With PUD there was a CONSENSUS that increased stomach acid was the cause of PUD. In AGW, there is a "CONSENSUS" that CO2 is the main driver of warming. PUD is just one example of where a CONSENSUS does not make something correct. If the scientists had not pursued other causes of PUD, then it would never have been discovered that H. pylori is the source of infection and PUD would never have been treated correctly. Climate science works just the opposite of any science. We have scientists who have papers published showing that solar activity, water vapor, cloud formation, etc. have a larger effect on the climate than CO2. So there is a debate between scientists about CO2 being the main driver of warming no matter how much you don't want that to be true. And since none of the climate models predicted a 16-year lull in warming, obviously there is some rethinking to do. But yet even though there are scientists actively pursuing answers to the climate, they are denigrated by not only people like you, but our president who flat out lied and said global warming is speeding up at an alarming rate and then has the gall he doesn't want to listen to "flat earthers." He just got done lying and he says that? Who is the flat earther? The one who denies the facts and that would be Obama.

This is really about overpopulation like you said. Carbon economies bring people out of poverty and use more energy, so the goal would be to keep up the gloom and doom and tell people in poor countries that they should be happy with their cooking stove and that they should hate the developed countries for making their lives miserable. But some good news for Africa, it looks like their dam is going to start construction in 2015 and it could light up over half of Africa. They could be on their way to becoming a developed country with the ability to gain jobs, decrease diseases, get electricity to their homes so they don't have to cook with cooking stoves, get ventilation in their homes, clean water, etc. The only thing holding back those in developing countries is their inability to get access energy. Their lives will change for the better when they have access to energy. But let's see if the environmentalists will allow that to happen.
B as in B S as in S

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37378
Jul 22, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Arne Marco wrote:
What we normally forget when talking about the amount of CO2, is the significance it has for the human (and other creatures) health. Above 425 ppm in the atmossphere the healthproblems will become more servere, because the blood will slowly be more acid. This will affect bloodpressure etc.
BTW: President Johnson was informed in 1965 about the dangers in increasing the amount of CO2.
Too funny... Note this to be the first comment of the thread... We once again have come full circle with the CAGW hysterics that CO2 in the air is bad for life.

Only 25 more molecules of CO2 and we WILL deal with "severe" health problems.

And years later people are STILL simply embracing this drama like a morning soap opera :-)

Are there any believers reading this who are noticing the slightest dulling of their Sword of Faith?

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37379
Jul 22, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>

No, I'm the Antichrist.
i can believe you actually think that, son! Lol
A myth baking up myths.
SpaceBlues

Pasadena, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37380
Jul 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

B as in B S as in S wrote:
<quoted text>
Too funny... Note this to be the first comment of the thread... We once again have come full circle with the CAGW hysterics that CO2 in the air is bad for life.
Only 25 more molecules of CO2 and we WILL deal with "severe" health problems.
And years later people are STILL simply embracing this drama like a morning soap opera :-)
Are there any believers reading this who are noticing the slightest dulling of their Sword of Faith?
Thank you for your name. We know what to expect from you.

Read #39 and #31 to start learning the facts from:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/05/07/1...

Good luck :-)
kristy

Oviedo, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37381
Jul 22, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Thank you for your name. We know what to expect from you.
Read #39 and #31 to start learning the facts from:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/05/07/1...
Good luck :-)
OMG….the global warming bible from Think Progress. I can see that all of you have been using #3 lately. Then of course #4 ....a consensus in science means that the science is right. I love #9 telling us how hot the globe has been in the last decade, totally leaving out the fact that the hottest year, 2010, is only 0.01 degree C hotter than 2005 making them indistinguishable, and 2009 is so close to 1998, 2003, 2006, and 2007 with a maximum difference of 0.03 C that all 6 years are virtually tied. Then #6 telling us how reliable climate models are even though not one model predicted the 16-year lull in warming.

Then there are the outright lies such as #18 and #34.#18 is regarding hurricanes. According to the IPCC,“there is a low confidence of any detectable changes in tropical cyclone activity to anthropogenic influences.” The data shows hurricanes have not increased in the US in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since at least 1900 and there are no significant trends (up or down) in global tropical cyclones since 1970 or in overall number.

I totally love the distraction of #34. When someone says that polar bears are increasing, you should say how there is uncertainty of polar bear populations and then tell how there will be no sea ice in the future. Polar bear head count: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/...

Then there is always #59. Yes the IPCC made a mistake about the 2035 Himalayan glacier prediction, but not matter, the Himalayan glaciers are decreasing at an alarming rate. But what do they leave out, oh yeah, there are 230 glaciers in the Western Himalayans that are not decreasing. These glaciers are the biggest mid-latitude glaciers in the world and all of them are either holding still or advancing. I guess this is on a need to know basis; wouldn’t want people to have all the updated science information available.

I totally love #63 and #64…When someone says the science isn’t settled, you say science is about narrowing UNCERTAINTY. For example we have a low understanding of the effect of aerosols while we have a high understanding of the warming effect of carbon dioxide. POORLY understood aspects of climate change do not change the fact that a great deal of climate science is understood. Now here’s the kicker,#64…What to say if someone says clouds provide negative feedback. Your answer is….Although the cloud feedback is one of the largest remaining UNCERTAINTIES, evidence is building that the net cloud feeds is LIKELY positive.(So there is UNCERTAINTY whether clouds are negative or positive feedback, but yet the climatologists know exactly what is going on and can predict 200 years out what the temperature rise will be even though they really don’t know how the clouds will affect the temperatures.)
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37382
Jul 22, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Thank you for your name. We know what to expect from you.
Read #39 and #31 to start learning the facts from:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/05/07/1...
Good luck :-)
Not likely to do much good. His mind is too small. I mean he only sees '25 molecules' of CO2 which puts his brain in the micro to nano category.
SpaceBlues

Pasadena, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37383
Jul 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>i can believe you actually think that, son! Lol
A myth baking up myths.
Wow .. do you bake a lot?

Are you a baker from Bakersville? Bon soir, lol.
SpaceBlues

Pasadena, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37384
Jul 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Hey deniers, one of you is a baker .. possibly.

Good grief.

Since: Mar 09

Penrose, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37385
Jul 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
You totally didn't get the analogy. Let me break it down. With PUD there was a CONSENSUS that increased stomach acid was the cause of PUD. In AGW, there is a "CONSENSUS" that CO2 is the main driver of warming. PUD is just one example of where a CONSENSUS does not make something correct. If the scientists had not pursued other causes of PUD, then it would never have been discovered that H. pylori is the source of infection and PUD would never have been treated correctly. Climate science works just the opposite of any science. We have scientists who have papers published showing that solar activity, water vapor, cloud formation, etc. have a larger effect on the climate than CO2. So there is a debate between scientists about CO2 being the main driver of warming no matter how much you don't want that to be true. And since none of the climate models predicted a 16-year lull in warming, obviously there is some rethinking to do. But yet even though there are scientists actively pursuing answers to the climate, they are denigrated by not only people like you, but our president who flat out lied and said global warming is speeding up at an alarming rate and then has the gall he doesn't want to listen to "flat earthers." He just got done lying and he says that? Who is the flat earther? The one who denies the facts and that would be Obama.
This is really about overpopulation like you said. Carbon economies bring people out of poverty and use more energy, so the goal would be to keep up the gloom and doom and tell people in poor countries that they should be happy with their cooking stove and that they should hate the developed countries for making their lives miserable. But some good news for Africa, it looks like their dam is going to start construction in 2015 and it could light up over half of Africa. They could be on their way to becoming a developed country with the ability to gain jobs, decrease diseases, get electricity to their homes so they don't have to cook with cooking stoves, get ventilation in their homes, clean water, etc. The only thing holding back those in developing countries is their inability to get access energy. Their lives will change for the better when they have access to energy. But let's see if the environmentalists will allow that to happen.
I exactly understood what you tried to say. No, past analogies do not give any indication that global warming scientists are incorrect. Also, if you think the third world countries can jump into the fossil fuel world, you are sadly mistaken. The hydro power is renewable but flooding their fertile lands with a dam and also preventing the fertility gained by flooding for the necessary nutrients downstream might not be the best thing for them. Food is more important to them than energy. There is no simple solution. However more efficient cooking stoves would be a great thing for them. They waste fuel in inefficient stoves and also vent harmful smoke and fumes into their living areas today.
B as in B S as in S

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37386
Jul 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
I exactly understood what you tried to say..
That is some of the most twisted and sick thinking I have heard outside of the 'Race' debates.

Really, third world peoples may not benefit from the advantages of a dam's energy and flood mitigation capabilities.... But new cooking stoves??? Now we're talking!

There is a "simple solution" but let us not distract from this opportunity to savory your profundity:

"No, past analogies do not give any indication that global warming scientists are incorrect. Also, if you think the third world countries can jump into the fossil fuel world, you are sadly mistaken. The hydro power is renewable but flooding their fertile lands with a dam and also preventing the fertility gained by flooding for the necessary nutrients downstream might not be the best thing for them. Food is more important to them than energy. There is no simple solution. However more efficient cooking stoves would be a great thing for them. They waste fuel in inefficient stoves and also vent harmful smoke and fumes into their living areas today"
-Patriot AKA Bozo

'

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

Other Recent Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
IL Who do you support for Governor in Illinois in ... (Oct '10) 10 min what it is 3,903
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 10 min LRDII 1,095,386
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 15 min wojar 176,688
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 37 min Here He Goes Again 97,772
Tes tic my phono 2 hr ochoa 1
Amy 8-19 3 hr Kuuipo 13
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 4 hr Jonah1 49,244

Search the Chicago Forum:
•••
•••

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 ]
•••