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 (Page 1,787)

Showing posts 35,721 - 35,740 of45,444
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38025
Aug 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Bullshit.
There was no political element until deniers started opposing climate science.
Correct! pre 9/11 and pre GFC 2008 climate was very much on the radar of both parties, almost in sync. But as soon as the bills started coming in post IRAQ & GFC the climate message was suddenly another unnecessary expense we can all do without. Then suddenly climate science became a target like taxes with the right. Both of which we can't survive without. Yet read Kristy's posts, straight out of Fox/ Rush copy book, "unnecessary" red tape holding back business. I have never heard such crap in all my life. This is what Reagan did in the 80's remember got rid of the red tape so business can flourish. Well flourish it did, built a house of straw on fraud, exactly the same as what the deniers are doing now.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38026
Aug 15, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct! pre 9/11 and pre GFC 2008 climate was very much on the radar of both parties, almost in sync. But as soon as the bills started coming in post IRAQ & GFC the climate message was suddenly another unnecessary expense we can all do without. Then suddenly climate science became a target like taxes with the right. Both of which we can't survive without. Yet read Kristy's posts, straight out of Fox/ Rush copy book, "unnecessary" red tape holding back business. I have never heard such crap in all my life. This is what Reagan did in the 80's remember got rid of the red tape so business can flourish. Well flourish it did, built a house of straw on fraud, exactly the same as what the deniers are doing now.
Yikes!

Could it be that post 2008 the "science" of global warming was found to be lacking?

That the dire predictions weren't coming true, and people started asking questions?

Your recollection of history is very agenda biased.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38027
Aug 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Yikes!
Could it be that post 2008 the "science" of global warming was found to be lacking?
That the dire predictions weren't coming true, and people started asking questions?
Your recollection of history is very agenda biased.
Oh i see, we have to wait until Armageddon then we can say I told you so!

Since: Aug 13

Kailua, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38028
Aug 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Yikes!
Could it be that post 2008 the "science" of global warming was found to be lacking?
That the dire predictions weren't coming true, and people started asking questions?
Your recollection of history is very agenda biased.
What are you talking about?

Try going to this site to see the relationship between predictions and actual events.

http://www.global-warming-forecasts.com/under...

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38029
Aug 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes it has to be CO2 except for all the uncertainties we don't yet understand, you know water vapor, clouds, sun, oceans, climate sensitivity just to name a few. So now the Earth has not behaved the way the models predicted, so there is no plausible reason to believe that CO2 is the main driver of rising temperatures leading to catastrophic climate change. Science is not absolute as you said, except for some reason AGW science is. There can be no questioning or skepticism. So shame on you for sacrificing the people alive today for a science that you have made absolute.
I think I understand now. Because of uncertainties you are certain that CO2 can't be causing global warming.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38030
Aug 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

gcaveman1 wrote:
Related.
The Environmental Protection Agency has unveiled new labels that prohibit the use of some of the controversial pesticides containing neonicotinoids where bees are present.
"Multiple factors play a role in bee colony declines, including pesticides. The Environmental Protection Agency is taking action to protect bees from pesticide exposure, and these label changes will further our efforts," Jim Jones, assistant administrator for the agency's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Preventions, said Thursday in a news release.
The new labels have a bee advisory box and an icon with information about routes of exposure and precautions that should be taken to reduce spray drift. The label says in red letters, "This product can kill bees and other insect pollinators."
The EPA said it would work with pesticide manufacturers to change their labels so that they meet federal standards.
<><><>< ><><><> <><><>< ><>
Now in Mississippi, if Willie can read, he might do what the label says.
But Bubba will probably say, "Hell, that a bunch of bullshit, more will work even better!"
The latest I have heard is that there seems to be a relationship between colony collapse and herbicides. Don't remember the source.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38031
Aug 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
I think I understand now. Because of uncertainties you are certain that CO2 can't be causing global warming.
Who's hiding the daily man-made emissions of 90 million tons? What havoc are they creating?

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38032
Aug 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Really, just a few posts up you were all like we need to do is unite, have faith, love, educate and then you go and say a bigoted statement like that?
and it's about people in his own state. The self loathers hate their fellow man just as much as themselves. They use words like " unite", but it means little if anything to them.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38033
Aug 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct! pre 9/11 and pre GFC 2008 climate was very much on the radar of both parties, almost in sync. But as soon as the bills started coming in post IRAQ & GFC the climate message was suddenly another unnecessary expense we can all do without. Then suddenly climate science became a target like taxes with the right. Both of which we can't survive without. Yet read Kristy's posts, straight out of Fox/ Rush copy book, "unnecessary" red tape holding back business. I have never heard such crap in all my life. This is what Reagan did in the 80's remember got rid of the red tape so business can flourish. Well flourish it did, built a house of straw on fraud, exactly the same as what the deniers are doing now.
Lack of regulation and lowered taxes has saved all kinds of money for some groups, but has cost the nation dearly and has the potential to cost even more.

Deregulation, defunding, and tax cuts has resulted in fewer FDA inspectors, fewer border agents, poison dog food, poisoned baby formula, lead coated toys, oil spills, Wall Street boondoggles, an increase in the homeless, increases in food stamp applications, inadequate inspection of imported shipping containers, reduced services at national parks, fewer inspections of any kind, and the list grows daily. The push now, after Republicans and Congress have spent money like drunken sailors for the past decade, is to make the "shiftless poor" and struggling middle class pay for their "undeserved" entitlements (like SS and Medicare, which we have all paid for and are entitled to).

Mr. Ray-gun's trickle down economics have the distinct smell of urine. i. e., "piss on them."

In today's radical right wing Republicant party, mitigating climate change is "voodoo economics" and keeping earth-observing satellites up is a waste of taxpayer money.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38034
Aug 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Integral wrote:
<quoted text>
What are you talking about?
Try going to this site to see the relationship between predictions and actual events.
http://www.global-warming-forecasts.com/under...
As our friend Pvt. Gomer Pyle would say, "Surprise, surprise, surprise!" Another huge denier lie.

They require better than crystal ball accuracy before conceding a millimeter, but the predictions have been close enough, even too conservative at times, to give normal people a good idea of what's happening.

I have understated the situation, on pain of being labeled an "alarmist".
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38035
Aug 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
I think I understand now. Because of uncertainties you are certain that CO2 can't be causing global warming.
The well-known Dunning-Kruger effect.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38036
Aug 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
The latest I have heard is that there seems to be a relationship between colony collapse and herbicides. Don't remember the source.
Yes, but nothing occurs in a vacuum. There are so many stresses, it's hard to count them all. Global warming and mites have been strongly implicated as well.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38037
Aug 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, but nothing occurs in a vacuum. There are so many stresses, it's hard to count them all. Global warming and mites have been strongly implicated as well.
I meant to say fungicides, not herbicides.

http://sfist.com/2013/07/26/new_study_suggest...
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38038
Aug 16, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
....
Deregulation, defunding, and tax cuts has resulted in fewer FDA inspectors, fewer border agents, poison dog food, poisoned baby formula, lead coated toys, oil spills, Wall Street boondoggles, an increase in the homeless, increases in food stamp applications, inadequate inspection of imported shipping containers, reduced services at national parks, fewer inspections of any kind, and the list grows daily....
Boy, you've really piled up a massive amount of manure here.

Please offer evidence that all of the above occurred BECAUSE of "deregulation, defunding, and tax cuts".
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38039
Aug 16, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

The Integral wrote:
<quoted text>
What are you talking about?
Try going to this site to see the relationship between predictions and actual events.
http://www.global-warming-forecasts.com/under...
THIS is what I'm talking about:

Quick post about failed Global Warming predictions

http://anthonyvioli.wordpress.com/2012/10/22/...
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38040
Aug 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Inter-GOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change. They made the science into a government/political agenda. Had nothing to do with republicans.
INTER-Government (science) panelll on Climate change. They made it into a science organization outside of the internal govenrment policies. Has nothing to do with any of your bullshit.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38041
Aug 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
The latest I have heard is that there seems to be a relationship between colony collapse and herbicides. Don't remember the source.
Probably news on the EU ban on neonicotinoid insecticides currently #1 on the suspect list. tinyurl.com/lgn6sph

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38042
Aug 16, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
INTER-Government (science) panelll on Climate change. They made it into a science organization outside of the internal govenrment policies. Has nothing to do with any of your bullshit.
how do you think the organization is funded?
gcaveman1

Louin, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38043
Aug 16, 2013
 
Denier statement: Scientists can't explain the recent slowdown in atmospheric warming.

BUT! If you explore the science literature, you find this little gem from 2007, making a prediction for the decade 2004-2014:

"Britain’s Met Office projects 2014 temperature likely to be 0.3 degrees Celsius warmer than 2004.“Here is the climate forecast for the next decade [2007-2014]; although global warming will be held in check for a few years, it will come roaring back to send the mercury rising before 2014. This is the prediction of the first computer model of the global climate designed to make forecasts over a timescale of around a decade, developed by scientists at the Met Office. The new model developed at the Met's Hadley Centre in Exeter, and described in the journal Science, predicts that warming will slow during the next few years but then speed up again, and that at least half of the years after 2009 will be warmer than 1998, the warmest year on record.

Over the 10-year period [2007-2014] as a whole, climate continues to warm and 2014 is likely to be 0.3 deg C [0.3 degrees Celsius] warmer than 2004. The overall trend in warming is driven by greenhouse gas emissions but this warming effect will be broadly cancelled out over the next few years by the changing patterns of the ocean temperatures.”(Roger Highfield, Science Editor,“Global warming forecast predicts rise in 2014,” The Daily Telegraph, London, England, United Kingdom, August 9, 2007 reporting findings in Doug M. Smith, Stephen Cusack, Andrew W. Colman, Chris K. Folland, Glen R. Harris, and James M. Murphy,“Improved Surface Temperature Prediction for the Coming Decade from a Global Climate Model,” Science, August 10, 2007 317: 796-799 DOI: 10.1126/science.1139540)"

That seems to me like a hit right in the middle of the goddamed bullseye! The only data missing is the year we haven't experienced yet (2014). I guess we'll have to wait and see. But it appears that it was not only predicted, but explained as well.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38044
Aug 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Integral wrote:
<quoted text>
What are you talking about?
Try going to this site to see the relationship between predictions and actual events.
http://www.global-warming-forecasts.com/under...
Ok I went to the site and did what you told me. This paper actually proved that the AGW hypothesis has failed.

1. The paper states this: Carbon emissions are not only still growing, they're growing faster than ever, and the outcome is even worse than scientists expected. That's mainly because the scientific models underestimated the amount of carbon gas the world would be producing by now.

(So now we are not using the business as usual predictions, we are at worst-case scenario emission, thus pushing the temperature increase to the highest prediction. Faster than ever rise in CO2 concentrations and no warming for 15 years.)

2. The paper states: The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] warns that the planet is warming faster than previously predicted…..[The impacts of climate change]‘seem to be occurring faster than we projected just five or 10 years ago.

(Climate experts from both sides were asked in congressional testimony if temperatures were warming faster than previously anticipated 5 years ago, and none of them said that was true.)

3. The paper states: Ice free Arctic forecasts revised to nearer term event instead of previous projections for 2050 and 2070.“Recent satellite data from the U.S. Space agency NASA indicate that sea ice in the Arctic and Greenland is melting at a faster rate than previously projected. VOA's Paul Sisco has the story. Climate scientists at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, outside Washington, say the Arctic Ocean could be mostly ice free in late summer 2013.

(Arctic summer 2013, shortest summer on record)

4. The paper states: The Bolivian Chacaltaya glacier forecast to disappear in 2020 disappeared in 2009-2010.“The glaciers that ring the [Bolivian] cities [of La Paz and El Alto] have essentially provided natural low-maintenance storage, collecting water in the short rainy season and releasing it for water and electricity in the long dry one. With warmer temperatures and changing rainfall, they no longer do so.

(They give one example of a glacier disappearing, but fail to report that they overestimated the Himalaya glacier melts by 30% and that the Himalayas are doing better than predicted)

5. The paper states: Massive wildfires that have become increasingly common in recent years are a flash point for climate change. Wildfires emit huge amounts of carbon dioxide, increasing the rate of global warming. That warming then increases the number and severity of wildfires.

(Since they don't link to any data to prove that wildfires are increasing, I provided a link to the US wildfires....no such trend. http://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/nfn.htm )

6. The paper says this about rising sea level: But, according to [physicist Jianli Chen] and his Texas team, the melting of Greenland's ice cap is already raising global sea levels by six-tenths of a millimeter each year.

(Can someone provide proof of this statement?)

Bottom line, the AGW hypothesis is that as CO2 rises, temperatures will increase. This paper states that CO2 levels are at the worst case scenario so we should be seeing the highest temperature increases predicted. The hypothesis has failed.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 35,721 - 35,740 of45,444
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

59 Users are viewing the Chicago Forum right now

Search the Chicago Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 8 min RoxLo 1,071,768
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 37 min LRS 173,573
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 39 min cheluzal 97,432
Last word + 2 (Mar '12) 1 hr andet1987 388
I Hate my life and mom (Aug '07) 2 hr hands on AR 1,756
Negra Nagin gets 10 years-YEAH 2 hr hands on AR 5
IL Who do you support for Governor in Illinois in ... (Oct '10) 3 hr george 3,812
•••
•••
•••
•••

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 ]
•••