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

Full story: Newsday 47,494
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Full Story
chisholm

Columbus, OH

#37553 Jul 31, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>People have been exhaling CO2 ten thousand times longer than we've been burning oil for energy. Chis doesn't get to define relevancy; we're all here to argue the issues.
Yes, that's the kind of post I was talking about. Here's the definition:

fat·u·ous
/&#712;faCHo&#862;o &#601;s/Adjective

: complacently or inanely foolish : silly <a fatuous remark>

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#37554 Jul 31, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
OMG....did you really just post that? The temperatures in the Arctic have been 80 degrees F? I don't know where you get your information, but you need to find better sources or at least check your sources. The temperatures in the Arctic haven't gone above 35 degrees F and as of today, the Arctic is at freezing 32 F, way earlier than usual. For it to have been 80 F, that would be 300 Kelvin and the graph for the Arctic temperatures only goes to 280.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Out come the big clown feet again.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#37555 Jul 31, 2013
chisholm wrote:
<quoted text>
So, only you can be contentious...when someone gets contentious with you in turn, they're to be denounced as a "hypocrite" and as "contentious" themselves?
LOL..excellent. This is clearly what you want, not debate. You're just a Denier with a taste for arguing minutiae, IOW.
Thanks..:)
.

I really don't care if you are contentious or if I'm contentious or if anyone else is. You were the one who was so concerned about my statement about warming resuming being contentious. I've never lectured anyone about whether their posts are debate or contentiousness. It seems funny to me that if you have posted here for any length of time you would have realized everyone here likes to argue, so not sure why a quote from NOAA gets me singled out as the one not wanting a debate.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#37556 Jul 31, 2013
Not the first time. A trypical denier of topix variety.

Not debate-worthy.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#37557 Jul 31, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>People have been exhaling CO2 ten thousand times longer than we've been burning oil for energy. Chis doesn't get to define relevancy; we're all here to argue the issues.
Not you. Your reasons are questionable.

For years and years, you do the same denial without an atom of learning.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#37559 Jul 31, 2013
Coal is King wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. The minimalist government, low taxes, low spending, free market model that I advocate BUILT America. We had great industries, working people worked, and there were jobs for them to do. The socialist welfare-nanny state, nationalize, regulate, subsidize every hare brained scheme that some quack dreams up that you advocate has been DESTROYING it since 1932.
There is a common theme that runs through history, and one of those themes "ignorance is bliss" like history repeats itself over and over. Science has always had to deal with ignorance right through out the ages. Wise people learn from it, the ignorant repeat it.
A one time when the Earth was viewed as the centre of the universe and all the planets passed in a heavenly perfect circle around it. A hundred years would pass before that view was proved to be wrong, in the meantime those who discovered and promoted an orbit around the sun like Galileo were imprisoned by the church. A couple hundred years on Hubble discovers the universe is expanding against the popular conception that it was static. Climate science is no different, only this time we haven't got 200 yrs to say we made a big mistake. It's too late then, but it's the same sort of ignorance that holds back man's progress. Refusing to believe facts discovered because it conflicts with religious beliefs or threatens a lifestyle. For those who crave to live in that static past and can't move on. Well it's people like the coal king & the denier crowd who are stuck in that twilight zone not as they would have you believe those socialist scientists!

Since: Mar 09

Penrose, CO

#37560 Jul 31, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a common theme that runs through history, and one of those themes "ignorance is bliss" like history repeats itself over and over. Science has always had to deal with ignorance right through out the ages. Wise people learn from it, the ignorant repeat it.
A one time when the Earth was viewed as the centre of the universe and all the planets passed in a heavenly perfect circle around it. A hundred years would pass before that view was proved to be wrong, in the meantime those who discovered and promoted an orbit around the sun like Galileo were imprisoned by the church. A couple hundred years on Hubble discovers the universe is expanding against the popular conception that it was static. Climate science is no different, only this time we haven't got 200 yrs to say we made a big mistake. It's too late then, but it's the same sort of ignorance that holds back man's progress. Refusing to believe facts discovered because it conflicts with religious beliefs or threatens a lifestyle. For those who crave to live in that static past and can't move on. Well it's people like the coal king & the denier crowd who are stuck in that twilight zone not as they would have you believe those socialist scientists!
Simple answers are for simple people. The world is becoming very complex. There are very few simple answers. No matter how the conservatives want the simple answers of yesterday, they just are not going to happen. There will be more government regulations and taxes will always be necessary. There will be increasing problems due to pollution and spreading resources among more and more people. We need to understand that if our income is more than $35,000 a year, we are in the top one (1) percent of income earners in the world. There is no way the earth's resources could support an average income of that magnitude.

Even in the USA today, we see technology replacing workers. That along with jobs going to illegals and offshore, how are the multitudes here going to keep their lifestyles? As the income gap increases, the civil unrest will increase. We must become realistic about the problems facing us and work to reduce their impact as much as possible.

It is time to get real about pollution, resources, global warming, income gaps,jobs for the masses. It is time to put away the partisan dreams of yesterday year and face the realities of today and tomorrow. Those are the facts, folks.

kristy

Oviedo, FL

#37562 Aug 1, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a common theme that runs through history, and one of those themes "ignorance is bliss" like history repeats itself over and over. Science has always had to deal with ignorance right through out the ages. Wise people learn from it, the ignorant repeat it.
A one time when the Earth was viewed as the centre of the universe and all the planets passed in a heavenly perfect circle around it. A hundred years would pass before that view was proved to be wrong, in the meantime those who discovered and promoted an orbit around the sun like Galileo were imprisoned by the church. A couple hundred years on Hubble discovers the universe is expanding against the popular conception that it was static. Climate science is no different, only this time we haven't got 200 yrs to say we made a big mistake. It's too late then, but it's the same sort of ignorance that holds back man's progress. Refusing to believe facts discovered because it conflicts with religious beliefs or threatens a lifestyle. For those who crave to live in that static past and can't move on. Well it's people like the coal king & the denier crowd who are stuck in that twilight zone not as they would have you believe those socialist scientists!
There is also the saying: Insanity, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. According the UN, in order to combat global warming, we have to redistribute wealth to countries such as Africa. We have seen over and over again how the IMF and World Bank loan large sums of money to African governments only to see that money used corruptly. But yet, the IMF and World Bank continue to do this. So how does this help lower the temperatures of the Earth?
chisholm

Columbus, OH

#37563 Aug 1, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
There is also the saying: Insanity, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. According the UN, in order to combat global warming, we have to redistribute wealth to countries such as Africa. We have seen over and over again how the IMF and World Bank loan large sums of money to African governments only to see that money used corruptly. But yet, the IMF and World Bank continue to do this. So how does this help lower the temperatures of the Earth?
So, the U.N. has combatted global warming many times in the past this way, and failed to curb global warming? Could you cite those past attempts, since you assert that this alleged "repetition" is evidence of their "insanity?"

I've yet to hear anyone claim that "redistribution of wealth" would combat global warming, either. Or what the IMF or World Bank (notorious exploiters of the third world, BTW) have to do with climate control.

Indeed, how DOES all this lower the Earth's temperature? I'd love to hear.:)

Since: Mar 09

Penrose, CO

#37564 Aug 1, 2013
chisholm wrote:
<quoted text>
So, the U.N. has combatted global warming many times in the past this way, and failed to curb global warming? Could you cite those past attempts, since you assert that this alleged "repetition" is evidence of their "insanity?"
I've yet to hear anyone claim that "redistribution of wealth" would combat global warming, either. Or what the IMF or World Bank (notorious exploiters of the third world, BTW) have to do with climate control.
Indeed, how DOES all this lower the Earth's temperature? I'd love to hear.:)
Typical "I got mine" modern RW response. Global warming is not about redistributing wealth. No matter what Rush or the rest of the industrial shills say say. Rush is losing sponsors and air-wave carriers as more and more catch on to his radical propaganda.
litesong

Monroe, WA

#37565 Aug 1, 2013
krusty wrote:
The temperatures in the Arctic haven't gone above 35 degrees F and as of today, the Arctic is at freezing 32 F.....
You're talking average Arctic temperatures above the 80th parallel. I mentioned some places in the Arctic(defined as north of the Arctic Circle). You knew what I said, but are a contentious fool.
//////////
In mid-July 2013, places in the Arctic went above 80degF:

Siberian temperatures above the Arctic Circle are high, 29degC(84 degF) & temperature on the Siberian Arctic Ocean itself is 26degC(79degF). Early morning Canadian temperatures bridging the Arctic Circle are 15degC(59degF).
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#37567 Aug 1, 2013
chisholm wrote:
<quoted text>
So, the U.N. has combatted global warming many times in the past this way, and failed to curb global warming? Could you cite those past attempts, since you assert that this alleged "repetition" is evidence of their "insanity?"
I've yet to hear anyone claim that "redistribution of wealth" would combat global warming, either. Or what the IMF or World Bank (notorious exploiters of the third world, BTW) have to do with climate control.
Indeed, how DOES all this lower the Earth's temperature? I'd love to hear.:)
By 1974, many scientists were predicting global cooling. The IFIAS met in Bonn Germany in 1974 and put out this statement: "The facts of present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failures within a decade, If national and international policies do not take these near ceratin failures into account they will result in mass deaths by starvation and probably in anarchy and violence that could exact a still more terrible toll. It would be irresponsible in those circumstances to continue passively in our present condition of helplessness without food reserves or alternative technologies to produce food and without adequate means to redistribute food from the more favored nations or more favored groups within nations to the less favored in time of urgent need"

The World Bank and the UN have been in partnership since 1944 and through the World Bank and IMF they devised their plan to “help the poor and save them from starvation.” Since that time, the IMF and the World Bank have been taking money from industrialized countries and loaning it to developing countries. Over the 30 years of doing so, the IMF and the World Bank have increased famine and have increased the poverty rate and increased the debt that each country owes to unimaginable amounts. The IMF and the World Bank dictate to sovereign nations how they should run their economy and their food supplies. They take away power from the local governments and transfer the power to the banks and their crony businesses. This is not the free market, this is crony capitalism.

Here in the US the Federal Reserve dictates our money and economic policy. The Federal government is taking control away from the states and mandating that states take on more debt than they can handle thus increasing our poverty rates, food stamp rates, unemployment rates and of course our debt, which is unimaginable at over 59 trillion.

So along comes global warming and again, we have to do something to fix it, NOW, and it is the same plan as for the scare of global cooling, funnel money from developed countries to developing countries to avoid the calamities of climate change.

Continued next post.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#37568 Aug 1, 2013
Continuation of post:

Here is an interview with Ottmor Edenhofer who was co-chair of the IPCC's Working Group III, and was a lead author of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007. This interview was conducted in 2010 by Germany's NZZ Online Sunday. In this interview, he states exactly that this is redistribution and globalization.

(NZZ AM SONNTAG): The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies.

(OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.

(NZZ): That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.

(EDENHOFER): Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet - and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.

(NZZ): De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.

If we are to learn anything from history, it is that central power does not work and that sovereign nations and states know better how to handle their economy and money than big centralized authorities. So it is really strange to me that you realize that the World Bank and the IMF are corrupt and yet you cheerlead for them every day on this thread, because the UN’s answer to climate change is giving the World Bank and the IMF total control.

http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-releas...


kristy

Oviedo, FL

#37569 Aug 1, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Typical "I got mine" modern RW response. Global warming is not about redistributing wealth. No matter what Rush or the rest of the industrial shills say say. Rush is losing sponsors and air-wave carriers as more and more catch on to his radical propaganda.
Keep chasing squirrels. You need to start charging Rush and Beck for living rent free in your head.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#37570 Aug 1, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
You're talking average Arctic temperatures above the 80th parallel. I mentioned some places in the Arctic(defined as north of the Arctic Circle). You knew what I said, but are a contentious fool.
//////////
In mid-July 2013, places in the Arctic went above 80degF:
Siberian temperatures above the Arctic Circle are high, 29degC(84 degF) & temperature on the Siberian Arctic Ocean itself is 26degC(79degF). Early morning Canadian temperatures bridging the Arctic Circle are 15degC(59degF).
Now how am I supposed to know what you mean. But stop conflating weather with climate.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#37571 Aug 1, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Now how am I supposed to know what you mean. But stop conflating weather with climate.
LOL.

Another nonscience post. Not debate-worthy.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#37572 Aug 1, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
There is also the saying: Insanity, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. According the UN, in order to combat global warming, we have to redistribute wealth to countries such as Africa. We have seen over and over again how the IMF and World Bank loan large sums of money to African governments only to see that money used corruptly. But yet, the IMF and World Bank continue to do this. So how does this help lower the temperatures of the Earth?
Let's not mince words here, Foreign aid is only a drop in the ocean compared to the capitalism "globalisation machine". With a highly connected world and better logistics any Corporate empire can take advantage of third world Labor & resources to improve their bottom line. But don't think for a minute that climate concerns factor into their business model, for most it doesn't even appear on the list. So those same global forces undermine any work done trying to combat pollution and addressing clean energy concerns. One is working against the other, but in a conservative mind, it's always the handouts that are the problem not the profit makers. This is one of those complex problems of the modern world that conservatives just ignore thinking of the quick fixes of yesterday as a cure!
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#37573 Aug 1, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's not mince words here, Foreign aid is only a drop in the ocean compared to the capitalism "globalisation machine". With a highly connected world and better logistics any Corporate empire can take advantage of third world Labor & resources to improve their bottom line. But don't think for a minute that climate concerns factor into their business model, for most it doesn't even appear on the list. So those same global forces undermine any work done trying to combat pollution and addressing clean energy concerns. One is working against the other, but in a conservative mind, it's always the handouts that are the problem not the profit makers. This is one of those complex problems of the modern world that conservatives just ignore thinking of the quick fixes of yesterday as a cure!
Did you fall off the wagon again?

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#37574 Aug 1, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Did you fall off the wagon again?
Nope, you either mis-read the post or I'd love you to explain to me where I am wrong in my observation of foreign aid for environment friendly projects competing with forces working against it.
Meaning there is not much gained building a huge solar array panel in some foreign entity while they are digging a huge coal mine 10 miles up the road.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#37575 Aug 1, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, you either mis-read the post or I'd love you to explain to me where I am wrong in my observation of foreign aid for environment friendly projects competing with forces working against it.
Meaning there is not much gained building a huge solar array panel in some foreign entity while they are digging a huge coal mine 10 miles up the road.
Thanks for your civil reply to a post I did not post.

Alas it was posted maliciously .. by somebody else whom I don't even know.

This is the second time today.

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
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 4 min WelbyMD 179,330
A young black kid asks his mother, "Mama what's... 25 min Funny But True 10
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 42 min shinningelectr0n 1,126,127
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 51 min La Carmencita 70,068
Rediscovering Lost Photos From a Long-Ago West End 1 hr Great view 3
Song Titles Only (group/artist in parenthesis m... (Mar '10) 3 hr RJS 7,822
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 5 hr Yumpin Yimminy 68,646
Chicago Dating
Find my Match

Chicago Jobs

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 ]