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

Full story: Newsday 46,800
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Full Story

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#37987 Aug 15, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>try to get bigger still.
The plan is to identify the climate hoax for what it is....just another form of taxation and income redistribution.
People with financial stakes in the hoax like Gore, Henson, GE, insurance companies, and many politicians just to name a few.
People who believe in limited government, free markets, personal choices and freedoms will fight it and eventually win. The clock is ticking on the scam.
No such thing as "free market". Personal choices and freedoms depend upon governments.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#37988 Aug 15, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
So, tell me, what will this bigger government do? What is the plan? Who's behind it? Who's fighting it?
I will just keep posting this until one of you actually reads it.

Interview of Ottma Edenhoffer-UN IPCC official:

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 EDENHOFFER, 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.

(EDENHOFFER): 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.

(EDENHOFFER): 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.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#37989 Aug 15, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
To support a conspiracy theory, you don't need to know. Just rant.
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 EDENHOFFER, 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.

(EDENHOFFER): 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.

(EDENHOFFER): 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.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#37990 Aug 15, 2013
Your iphone uses more energy than a refrigerator:

The average iPhone uses more energy than a midsize refrigerator, says a new paper by Mark Mills, CEO of Digital Power Group, a tech investment advisory. A midsize refrigerator that qualifies for the Environmental Protection Agency's Energy Star rating uses about 322 kW-h a year, while your iPhone uses about 361 kW-h if you stack up wireless connections, data usage, and battery charging.

http://theweek.com/article/index/248273/your-... #

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#37991 Aug 15, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
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 EDENHOFFER, 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.
(EDENHOFFER): 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.
(EDENHOFFER): 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.
Read here and find out a little bit of where he stands.
http://www.postcarbonpathways.net.au/wp-conte...
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#37992 Aug 15, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>try to get bigger still.
The plan is to identify the climate hoax for what it is....just another form of taxation and income redistribution.
People with financial stakes in the hoax like Gore, Henson, GE, insurance companies, and many politicians just to name a few.
People who believe in limited government, free markets, personal choices and freedoms will fight it and eventually win. The clock is ticking on the scam.
That last answer intrigues me. Those people who believe in limited government, free markets, and personal choices and freedoms will fight the "hoax".

Would that be free market companies that collect farm subsidies?

Would that be pro-abortion people and gay people and marijuana smokers, you know, the free choice people?

People who want limited government, like birth control advocates, men who want to marry other men, and pot smokers?

Would that be oil and coal companies, free market companies, that get tax breaks and subsidies?

"many politicians".? I wonder, could you name them? Are they on the verge of taxing you to death or passing a carbon tax?

So sad to see the delusions some people talk themselves into.

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#37993 Aug 15, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
That last answer intrigues me. Those people who believe in limited government, free markets, and personal choices and freedoms will fight the "hoax".
Would that be free market companies that collect farm subsidies?
Would that be pro-abortion people and gay people and marijuana smokers, you know, the free choice people?
People who want limited government, like birth control advocates, men who want to marry other men, and pot smokers?
Would that be oil and coal companies, free market companies, that get tax breaks and subsidies?
"many politicians".? I wonder, could you name them? Are they on the verge of taxing you to death or passing a carbon tax?
So sad to see the delusions some people talk themselves into.
im for a flat tax. Are you?
Last I checked....abortion is a legal right in this country.
Gays are getting married. A gay guy can stick his business anywhere he wants as far as I'm concerned....just as long as it doesn't invade my personal space.
Pot smokers make personal choices to do so even though its still illegal in many areas of the country.
Why do you ask? Do you think this segment of society as a whole wants a useless carbon tax?
Many of the politicians who will benefit are those in under developed countries. Some are here. Barbara boxer would benefit.
I make a good living... I'm not being taxed to the poor house YET. I don't mind paying taxes either.....when those funds are used for a good purpose. A carbon tax serves no good purpose.
It is sad that so many delusional people in this country actually believes a politician can alter climate with a tax.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#37994 Aug 15, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
I will just keep posting this until one of you actually reads it.
Interview of Ottma Edenhoffer-UN IPCC official:
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 EDENHOFFER, 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.
(EDENHOFFER): 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.
(EDENHOFFER): 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.
I read it the first time you posted it.

This is one UN official, giving one opinion. Who knows if he influences policy or if his view is the consensus or majority view.

Unless he is God?
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#37995 Aug 15, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a belief system according to caveman:
"I think my comment on rainfall and the jet stream shows that I believe that these are signs of "dirty" weather. But, that's just MY opinion."
No science involved.
Wrong again, Sherlock. My belief is based on known and emerging science.

"Given that the strength of the jet stream is influenced by the magnitude of the temperature-gradient, it follows that warming of the Arctic could lead to a weakening of the jet stream and a greater tendency to meander as it slows down. As this meandering develops, troughs may be expected to extend further southwards and ridges to push further northwards. However, recent research suggests a greater northwards component to this behaviour (the ridges are pushing further northwards than the troughs are nosing southwards), meaning that in overall terms the Polar jet stream has moved northwards. The wavier state of the jet stream also causes more mixing of warm and cold air in the Northern Hemisphere. More importantly, situations where the eastwards progression of these upper waves becomes sluggish or stalls lead to prolonged weather-conditions of one type or another. Unseasonably cold, wet, hot or dry conditions that last for weeks at a time can be just as destructive as storms: their effects on biodiversity and agriculture can be disastrous, leading variously to reduced crop yields, crop failure, biodiversity loss and wildfires, to name but a few effects."

If this is correct then, it helps to explain the soaking the eastern US has gotten in the past week or so.

Now, you can certainly believe what you want, but know that my OPINION is based upon climate science research.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#37996 Aug 15, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Read here and find out a little bit of where he stands.
http://www.postcarbonpathways.net.au/wp-conte...
The first paragraph has not been proven, so the rest of the paper is a moot point.

John Schellnhuber:“I think we have more or less solved the detection and attribution problem which was the original task for the IPCC. That means: yes, we are obviously observing global warming trends, which have regional variations, of course. And yes, we know with a very high probability, now that human interference is to be blamed for the major part of that change. You can still argue whether it is 80%, 60% or 75%.”

The scientists can’t even figure out what is causing the 16-year pause, none of the temperature predictions have come to pass. The Earth has been warming, but not at a catastrophic level. The seas have risen 390 feet over the past 20,000 years, nothing unusual about the current sea rise.

But yet, these elitists are proposing a global wealth distribution and tying countries into a global governance through the climate change protocols.

Bono who is a huge advocate for African aid, recently did a 180 and realized that aid is a stop gap. He stated this in a speech at Georgetown University:'Aid is just a stopgap. Commerce [and] entrepreneurial capitalism take more people out of poverty than aid. We need Africa to become an economic powerhouse.'

His mind was changed after he read the book African Unchained by native African George Ayittey. The book sets out a blueprint to make Africa self sufficient and able to help themselves instead of depending on perpetual aid.

http://www.africabookclub.com/...

We should let the people of Africa set out their own agenda rather central planners who think they know what’s best. Otherwise Africa will continue to be in chains and these central planners will be the masters, and you root these masters on. Shame.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#37997 Aug 15, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I read it the first time you posted it.
This is one UN official, giving one opinion. Who knows if he influences policy or if his view is the consensus or majority view.
Unless he is God?
Kyoto protocol does exactly what he was saying, so they all agree. The subsequent climate conferences have just been about adjusting the payments since Kyoto. How do you not know this?
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#37998 Aug 15, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>try to get bigger still.
The plan is to identify the climate hoax for what it is....just another form of taxation and income redistribution.
People with financial stakes in the hoax like Gore, Henson, GE, insurance companies, and many politicians just to name a few.
People who believe in limited government, free markets, personal choices and freedoms will fight it and eventually win. The clock is ticking on the scam.
Now, these people, Gore, Henson(trying to say Hanson?), GE, insurance companies, and many politicians; are they coordinating with each other? Do you know of any meetings they or their representatives have had?

Leaving out Gore and Hanson, who are obviously pinko faggot commies, what advantage would GE and the insurance industry have in higher taxes on themselves and their clients? How would sending our tax collections to Africa or SE Asia help their bottom line?
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#37999 Aug 15, 2013
kristy wrote:
Your iphone uses more energy than a refrigerator:
The average iPhone uses more energy than a midsize refrigerator, says a new paper by Mark Mills, CEO of Digital Power Group, a tech investment advisory. A midsize refrigerator that qualifies for the Environmental Protection Agency's Energy Star rating uses about 322 kW-h a year, while your iPhone uses about 361 kW-h if you stack up wireless connections, data usage, and battery charging.
http://theweek.com/article/index/248273/your-... #
I was reading the article with a good deal of skepticism until I came to this line: "the National Mining Association and the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity sponsored Mills' study." At that point, my skepticism about doubled.

I'll be checking that with all the "liberal" fact-checkers.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#38000 Aug 15, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>im for a flat tax. Are you?
Last I checked....abortion is a legal right in this country.
Gays are getting married. A gay guy can stick his business anywhere he wants as far as I'm concerned....just as long as it doesn't invade my personal space.
Pot smokers make personal choices to do so even though its still illegal in many areas of the country.
Why do you ask? Do you think this segment of society as a whole wants a useless carbon tax?
Many of the politicians who will benefit are those in under developed countries. Some are here. Barbara boxer would benefit.
I make a good living... I'm not being taxed to the poor house YET. I don't mind paying taxes either.....when those funds are used for a good purpose. A carbon tax serves no good purpose.
It is sad that so many delusional people in this country actually believes a politician can alter climate with a tax.
Abortion is legal, but under attack constantly, and being restricted many places. Mississippi's solitary abortion clinic only managed to stay open earlier this year because a judge allowed them to continue while they appeal his decision.

Gays are not getting married in any state they want to. While I disagreed with the idea as recently as five years ago, I have come to realize that they have an airtight case under the 14th Amendment. You can look for the Supreme Court, even this Supreme Court, to rule in their favor soon.

There is no good reason for pot to be illegal. It is strictly political. It is bad law, like slavery was bad law, like Prohibition was bad law, like laws against gambling and prostitution are bad laws that have only c4riminalized normally law-abiding citizens without doing a thing to stop the behavior the laws were passed to control. Except that, the drug laws have destroyed lives and filled the prisons to overflowing.

My 11th grade government teacher uttered a phrase I have never forgotten. "The power to tax is the power to destroy." That is its most radical result because taxes can also be used to modify behavior. Look at the recent use of taxes on tobacco products. If we want to cut carbon use and promote alternatives, the best way is to tax it. The only question is if Congress will allow the carbon producers to pass that tax on the consumer, and we should not allow them to.

Alter climate with a tax? Yes, by altering behavior.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#38001 Aug 15, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
The first paragraph has not been proven, so the rest of the paper is a moot point.
...
Sorry, but that is a non argument. Science never proves anything. It simply finds the most plausable reason. The most plausable cause of global warming is CO2 released from burning fossil fuels. Since you do not understand how science works your rants are void.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#38002 Aug 15, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Kyoto protocol does exactly what he was saying, so they all agree. The subsequent climate conferences have just been about adjusting the payments since Kyoto. How do you not know this?
I know about Kyoto. But I'm not a paranoiac like you. So I see it differently, like a sensible person.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#38003 Aug 15, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Abortion is legal, but under attack constantly, and being restricted many places. Mississippi's solitary abortion clinic only managed to stay open earlier this year because a judge allowed them to continue while they appeal his decision.
Gays are not getting married in any state they want to. While I disagreed with the idea as recently as five years ago, I have come to realize that they have an airtight case under the 14th Amendment. You can look for the Supreme Court, even this Supreme Court, to rule in their favor soon.
There is no good reason for pot to be illegal. It is strictly political. It is bad law, like slavery was bad law, like Prohibition was bad law, like laws against gambling and prostitution are bad laws that have only c4riminalized normally law-abiding citizens without doing a thing to stop the behavior the laws were passed to control. Except that, the drug laws have destroyed lives and filled the prisons to overflowing.
My 11th grade government teacher uttered a phrase I have never forgotten. "The power to tax is the power to destroy." That is its most radical result because taxes can also be used to modify behavior. Look at the recent use of taxes on tobacco products. If we want to cut carbon use and promote alternatives, the best way is to tax it. The only question is if Congress will allow the carbon producers to pass that tax on the consumer, and we should not allow them to.
Alter climate with a tax? Yes, by altering behavior.
Agree totally, in this competitive world now, only few ppl will change behaviour on conscience alone. Tax changes everything ppl will go out of their way to avoid it. The same with street drugs and the rest, if it was legalised, taxed and lic the crims would have to go back to robbing banks to survive. Besides the government would benefit from the revenue instead of paying out for enforcement. All behaviour can be changed with a tax, its the simplest way.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#38004 Aug 15, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
No such thing as "free market". Personal choices and freedoms depend upon governments.
And the decisions of business owners. Both are run by the 'ruling elite', which is a plutocracy in effect. The grass roots has been bought off.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#38005 Aug 15, 2013
If climate change has become a political issue, it was only made so by the Extreme Right.

It's their usual "divide and conquer" strategy.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#38006 Aug 15, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
If climate change has become a political issue, it was only made so by the Extreme Right.
It's their usual "divide and conquer" strategy.
True. Is there an antidote to it?

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, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min Teaman 1,110,504
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 hr Jacques from Ottawa 178,180
Chicago abandons plan to name high school after... 2 hr Mr oH 10
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 2 hr JOEL 69,415
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 2 hr mahz 49,895
Word (Dec '08) 2 hr _Zoey_ 4,732
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 2 hr _Zoey_ 4,722
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 3 hr Perry Mason 98,243
•••
•••
•••

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 ]
•••