Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 60205 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.

chisholm

Columbus, OH

#37708 Aug 8, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
"P.S. You thought there would be room only for your lies. You were WRONG."
Hee-hee... you're doubling down, I see.
It's been a while since I've broken sentences down, but let's give it a try, shall we?
Removing all the modifiers, here's you're basic statement:
>>You thought there would be room.
A simple statement. Could mean anything.
But let's add to it:
>>You thought there would be room only....
"only"? Use of that word here adds emphasis to "room", as in 'more room'. So you're acknowledging a bigger room.
>>You thought there would be room only for your lies.
A 'bigger room' for what? Lies. But taken in conjunction with 'only' you're saying that more lies are possible in the room. Whose lies? Not mine, you've alleged those already exist. So who else?
Why 'you', course. You're the only person left in the conversation.
>>You thought there would be room only for your lies. You were WRONG.
And as if you didn't already trip yourself up, you now admit that the alleged lies in a room are actually part of a larger room stocked with your lies.
Lesson over.
'nuf said
.... except LOL
Trivializing others' answers by using fake grammatical "analysis" like this is simply another form of trolling, something you appear adept at.

I haven't seen you on this board, but I've seen your posts elsewhere, you seem the typical Conservative troll. Not all of them are also Climate Deniers, but evidently you are. All Al Gore's fault, laugh at hockey sticks, e-mail coverups, all the usual jazz?

That'll really make this thread more meaningful.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#37709 Aug 8, 2013
chisholm wrote:
<quoted text>
The conjunction of a 'Wattsupwiththat' front with an 'It'sallAl'sFault' system inevitably causes showers of Denier myth, derision, and jeers.
What you'll never see in fallout from such an event is much in the way of facts, however.:)
<sigh>
Somewhere in your babble you're trying to make a point, but no doubt you've lost the context of the discussion at hand and are having the same typical reflex reaction as mentioned above.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#37710 Aug 8, 2013
chisholm wrote:
<quoted text>
Trivializing others' answers by using fake grammatical "analysis" like this is simply another form of trolling, something you appear adept at.
I haven't seen you on this board, but I've seen your posts elsewhere, you seem the typical Conservative troll. Not all of them are also Climate Deniers, but evidently you are. All Al Gore's fault, laugh at hockey sticks, e-mail coverups, all the usual jazz?
That'll really make this thread more meaningful.
This thread has been around for a long time. Go back a ways and you'll find Space Blues tying to play trump cards with all kinds of word games.

Do go back and find those, then you'll have some context, and perhaps see that you've jumped the gun on your criticisms.
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#37711 Aug 8, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
<sigh>
Somewhere in your babble you're trying to make a point, but no doubt you've lost the context of the discussion at hand and are having the same typical reflex reaction as mentioned above.
This is how Chisholm saw your post:

Blah blah blah WUWT blah blah blah blah Gore blah blah blah blah blah.....
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#37712 Aug 8, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
This is how Chisholm saw your post:
Blah blah blah WUWT blah blah blah blah Gore blah blah blah blah blah.....
Now that is funny.

Reminds me of this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sluggerotoole/15...

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#37713 Aug 8, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you even read what Mothra posted?
Sure because I have read it 1000 times before, in the meantime you keep posting about counter claims that some flat earth scientist made suggesting we all should keep waiting about addressing climate change because the results are not in yet. If you were making ANY other choice in life based on researching information that you claim to encourage your children to do. Then I'd say 97% in favour of one choice is pretty much a slam dunk don't you think ??
dont drink the koolaid

Minneapolis, MN

#37714 Aug 8, 2013
chisholm wrote:
<quoted text>
Never saw your alleged "Pew Research paper," and I'm getting bored with your absurd conspiracy theories anyway.
The IMF and World Bank would have nothing to do with regulation of greenhouse gases and pollution, the only thing they might be concerned in is carbon trading, which I oppose as a means to control warming.
FYI
Sometimes the evidence is hard to see... But not on this occasion.
Makes one wonder if evidence is important to true believers
dont drink the koolaid

Minneapolis, MN

#37715 Aug 8, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Then I'd say 97% in favour of one choice is pretty much a slam dunk don't you think ??
Nope... That would not be very scientific now would it?

Since: Aug 13

Hilo, HI

#37716 Aug 8, 2013
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
Sometimes the evidence is hard to see... But not on this occasion.
Makes one wonder if evidence is important to true believers
I am curious as to how you can look at the following web sites:

http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understa...

http://www.ametsoc.org/2012stateoftheclimate....

and say that there is no evidence of AGW. I am looking forward to your response.
SpaceBlues

Dallas, TX

#37717 Aug 8, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
"P.S. You thought there would be room only for your lies. You were WRONG."
Hee-hee... you're doubling down, I see.
It's been a while since I've broken sentences down, but let's give it a try, shall we?
Removing all the modifiers, here's you're basic statement:
>>You thought there would be room.
A simple statement. Could mean anything.
But let's add to it:
>>You thought there would be room only....
"only"? Use of that word here adds emphasis to "room", as in 'more room'. So you're acknowledging a bigger room.
>>You thought there would be room only for your lies.
A 'bigger room' for what? Lies. But taken in conjunction with 'only' you're saying that more lies are possible in the room. Whose lies? Not mine, you've alleged those already exist. So who else?
Why 'you', course. You're the only person left in the conversation.
>>You thought there would be room only for your lies. You were WRONG.
And as if you didn't already trip yourself up, you now admit that the alleged lies in a room are actually part of a larger room stocked with your lies.
Lesson over.
'nuf said
.... except LOL
hahaha you should study together with my other sentence. Otherwise you are taking words out of context.

You are the liar. I would never call myself one because I am not a liar.

You are a well-documented liar as a denier. The whole world knows you are a liar.

Oh remember AGW is real; humans are responsible. Yet deniers such as yourself are taking sides with the fossil fuels interests against the science and scientists.

You are decadent to the core.

Since: Aug 13

Hilo, HI

#37718 Aug 8, 2013
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope... That would not be very scientific now would it?
I keep looking at your comment to try and figure out what kind of logic you are using.

Are you saying that the 3% are correct and that the 97% are incorrect?

I am looking forward to your response.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#37719 Aug 8, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
A contributor at WUWT attended that same Gore "training". His notes:
a) This was a super-liberal “kum-bay-ya” crowd as I predicted. I kept many of my opinions to myself. The event truly did have a “religious cult programming” feel to it, similar to an Amway meeting I attended years ago – carefully timed applause, audience call & response etc. Very bizarre.
b) Al Gore himself went through the entire slide show that we are supposed to use as his “Climate Leaders.” Quite honestly, there is nothing new here, EXCEPT that there is no trace of the “hockey stick” graph that was so central to “An Inconvenient Truth”!! Amazing, considering how central that was to their arguments!
c) Instead, Al lumps data together year-by-year or decade-by-decade to show an ever increasing rise in temps. He poo-pooed measurement inaccuracies, specifically mentioning UHI effects and saying that the scientists determined these were insignificant.
d) A couple graphs stood out – one showed the documented rise in temperature PRECEDES the rise in CO2 which he brushed aside as “typical variation.” The only hockey stick was one that projected atmospheric CO2 over time, jumping up drastically in coming years. I didn’t have time to write units down, but it was a big jump. It could be a realistic rise with China & India bringing new coal plants online, I’d have to check any citations.
e) Al’s presentation was heavy on his new concept of “dirty weather,” see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/14/24-h...
To summarize, I didn’t see anything new or ground-breaking in this mess. Most slides were BS, typical “this is due to climate, not weather” type stuff we kick around on WUWT all the time. Hurricane Sandy, torrential rains in Pakistan etc.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/02/notes-f...
No hockey stick? Temperature rises precede CO2 as “typical variation”?
No wonder the warmists are trying to part company.
So, your info comes from a "contributor at WUWT". So that's second or third hand news, and from a "contributor at WUWT", too, meaning we know it's ssooooo unbiased.

Here's what this eyewitness saw:

a) The only thing bizarre is this guys take on a rather ordinary conference.

b) The hockey stick graph was mentioned and shown, but not dwelled upon, because the results of that graph have been duplicated so many times that it is indisputable. It's no longer Mann's graph; it is representative of all the climate research that has been conducted.

c) Don't know what this guy is talking about, and I doubt he does either.

d) See c) above.

e) Yes, dirty weather is a new phrase, as opposed to climate change, which is not.

There were new slides and the latest information in the scientific literature. There were speakers on the health, business, and faith aspects of climate change. There were lessons in psychology and communication in the climate debate. The conference was informative and well-structured. Someone who belongs to the WUWT club would obviously see it differently.

And nothing, not peer-review arguments, not investing strategies, not even Al Gore or denialism changes the fact that the Earth is warming, we are causing it, and we can do something about it...if we act.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#37721 Aug 8, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>hahaha you should study together with my other sentence.

[irrelevant blather omitted]
<crickets>

Not worth much a read, less a reply.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#37722 Aug 8, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
So, your info comes from a "contributor at WUWT". So that's second or third hand news, and from a "contributor at WUWT", too, meaning we know it's ssooooo unbiased.
Here's what this eyewitness saw:
a) The only thing bizarre is this guys take on a rather ordinary conference.
b) The hockey stick graph was mentioned and shown, but not dwelled upon, because the results of that graph have been duplicated so many times that it is indisputable. It's no longer Mann's graph; it is representative of all the climate research that has been conducted.
c) Don't know what this guy is talking about, and I doubt he does either.
d) See c) above.
e) Yes, dirty weather is a new phrase, as opposed to climate change, which is not.
There were new slides and the latest information in the scientific literature. There were speakers on the health, business, and faith aspects of climate change. There were lessons in psychology and communication in the climate debate. The conference was informative and well-structured. Someone who belongs to the WUWT club would obviously see it differently.
And nothing, not peer-review arguments, not investing strategies, not even Al Gore or denialism changes the fact that the Earth is warming, we are causing it, and we can do something about it...if we act.
Based on your reply, I'd say he nailed the "religious cult programming".

Change the channel.

<click>
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#37723 Aug 8, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>a) The only thing bizarre is this guys take on a rather ordinary conference.
Before you said it was a "GREAT" conference, now it's "rather ordinary"?

Did you buzz wear off?

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#37724 Aug 9, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
This is how Chisholm saw your post:
Blah blah blah WUWT blah blah blah blah Gore blah blah blah blah blah.....
That's exactly how anyone with any sense sees mothball's posts.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#37725 Aug 9, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
That's exactly how anyone with any sense sees mothball's posts.
pssst... quit taking posting lessons from litesong
dont drink the koolaid

Eden Prairie, MN

#37727 Aug 9, 2013
Anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
I am curious as to how you can look at the following web sites:
http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understa...
http://www.ametsoc.org/2012stateoftheclimate....
and say that there is no evidence of AGW. I am looking forward to your response.
Yes, The Northern hemisphere is getting warmer. "The end of weak La Niña,(unprecedented) Arctic warmth influenced 2012 climate conditions"

So it must be AGW?

Correct answer: Of course not.

As the (unprecedented) glaciers receded from central Minnesota and Wisconsin the Northern Hemisphere got warmer.

So it must have been AGW?

Correct answer: Of course not.

Oh, and there was not one reference to an "Anthropogenic" driver of CC in the first link you offered.
dont drink the koolaid

Eden Prairie, MN

#37728 Aug 9, 2013
Anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
I keep looking at your comment to try and figure out what kind of logic you are using.
Are you saying that the 3% are correct and that the 97% are incorrect?
I am looking forward to your response.
"In questions of science; the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individuall"
-Galileo Galilei
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#37729 Aug 9, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Now that is funny.
Reminds me of this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sluggerotoole/15...
LOL. Instead of a cute dumb dog like Ginger, I would say they are more like Pavlov pit bulls. Instead of a bell, it's key words, and instead of salivating, they attack.

There are few main key words that really get them in attack mode and those would be Fox, Beck, Rush, Watts, Christianity, and any scientist who is a skeptic. But usually they are the ones who bring up these key words to deflect so they don't have to address the debate.

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, our next President (Nov '08) 9 min Nostrilis Waxmoron 1,396,594
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 2 hr Dr Guru 217,148
Who's this Fauxcahontas? 2 hr ABigWigWamWelcome 34
Paul Weston from 12Tribe Films. 2 hr STARfukinGOODSTUFF 9
True BRILLIANCE and so correct. 2 hr STARfukinWigWam 9
News 15 Wounded In Tuesday Shootings Across Chicago 6 hr Crack is wack 2
last post wins! (Dec '10) 8 hr Retired SOF 2,162
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 12 hr CrunchyBacon 102,571

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages