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 1,812)

Showing posts 36,221 - 36,240 of43,160
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
kristy

Oviedo, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38545
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Liar.
You copied and pasted from this denier blog.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/09/13/an-in...
Not only did you copy exactly the same paragraph:
<quoted text>
You then repasted it highlighting exactly the same words:
<quoted text>
Further proof you are a moron. Now a non-moron would have gone back to the link that you posted and at least read it to see if what I copied and pasted was in the link YOU posted. But, no, you being a moron, did not do that. You, the moron, called me a liar instead.

So, MORON, go back to this link you posted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Te...

No go to the 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence. Now copy and paste what it says and let's see if it's the same thing I copied and pasted.

Bottom line, don't post things you don't read and then call me a liar when I highlight items from the posts and don't call me a liar because I took the time to actually read what you all post.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38546
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

The Integral wrote:
<quoted text>
I do not understand where you are getting the 0.06 C per decade.
Temperatures in the lower troposphere have increased between 0.13 and 0.22 °C (0.22 and 0.4 °F) per decade since 1979, according to satellite temperature measurements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
I got the 0.06 C from the link you posted:

The IPCC AR4 Scenario A2 projected rate of warming from 2000 to 2012 was 0.18°C per decade. This is within the uncertainty range of the observed rate of warming (0.06 ± 0.16°C) per decade since 2000, though the observed warming has likely been lower than the AR4 projection.

So basically same advice to you as to FG. If you expect me to read the posts you posted, at least have the courtesy to first read them yourselves.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38547
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
From your first link:
"Today the scientific community is in almost total agreement that the earth’s climate is changing as a result of human activity, and that this represents a huge threat to the planet and to us."
This is the concensus opinion of the climate research community.
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
A phony premise... no reason to read any further.
Fact is not premise. And you do need to read further if you want to debate. Your ignorance of facts is not an argument. It is a refusal to argue in the face of defeat.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38548
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Further proof you are a moron. Now a non-moron would have gone back to the link that you posted and at least read it to see if what I copied and pasted was in the link YOU posted. But, no, you being a moron, did not do that. You, the moron, called me a liar instead.
So, MORON, go back to this link you posted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Te...
No go to the 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence. Now copy and paste what it says and let's see if it's the same thing I copied and pasted.
Bottom line, don't post things you don't read and then call me a liar when I highlight items from the posts and don't call me a liar because I took the time to actually read what you all post.
No it wasn't the same thing, because you highlighted a section of the text, a section that wasn't highlighted in the original, but was in the denier blog- exactly the same section.

Proof positive that you don't do your own thinking, but run to the denier blogs for a cut 'n paste response.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38549
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
No it wasn't the same thing, because you highlighted a section of the text, a section that wasn't highlighted in the original, but was in the denier blog- exactly the same section.
Proof positive that you don't do your own thinking, but run to the denier blogs for a cut 'n paste response.
Again, MORON....

Your article...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Te...

Now go to the 2nd paragraph and copy and paste the entire paragraph starting with the first sentence. I got all the information from YOUR LINK. Even at this point, you refuse to read your link.

Now go to that 2nd paragraph and copy and paste it and post it here. Let's see if it's the same as what I posted earlier.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38550
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
I got the 0.06 C from the link you posted:
The IPCC AR4 Scenario A2 projected rate of warming from 2000 to 2012 was 0.18°C per decade. This is within the uncertainty range of the observed rate of warming (0.06 ± 0.16°C) per decade since 2000, though the observed warming has likely been lower than the AR4 projection.
So basically same advice to you as to FG. If you expect me to read the posts you posted, at least have the courtesy to first read them yourselves.
You are asking for a lot and you're not going to get it from this crowd.

You've noticed that they do not read what they post and certainly will not read what you post. They don't dispute the science, they denigrate the author. Denying the author credibility relieves them of the necessity of reading and understanding the work.

In the end, it's not about what they believe, it's about what you know and your ability to recognize what you don't know.

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38551
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL….there are many reasons to doubt the alarmist view of global warming, but I have to say one of the main reasons to doubt the alarmism is the insane craziness displayed by the so-called people who tell me they are all about the scientific evidence.
From 350.org . led by Bill McKibbon:
Petition to the WMO to name hurricanes after deniers: As scientific evidence shows that climate change is creating increasingly frequent and devastating storms, and with climate scientists declaring these extreme weather events as the new normal, we propose a new naming system. A system that names extreme storms caused by climate change, after the policy makers who deny climate change and obstruct climate policy.
Seriously? These are supposed to be the adults in the room? These are supposed to be the scientists to look up to and take seriously? First off there is no scientific evidence that climate change is creating increasingly frequent storms. What is extreme weather? There is no scientific evidence this is a new normal. When the alarmist science comes down to witch burning, it is no longer science.
Great post!
gcaveman1

Laurel, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38552
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>We're going to pay for the "eeded changes in their refineries" at the pump, not just big oil; consumers don't want these expensive new fuel regulations.
We've seen the horror of drive by starvation and ethanol mandates. Our economy is broken enough as is. We don't need expensive new gas regulations.
Sounds familiar. Kinda like all the screaming about Obama destroying the economy:

"American manufacturers are doing better than many of their competitors around the world as increased spending by U.S. businesses and a revival in global trade creates more demand for their products.

The Institute for Supply Management said Friday that its gauge of U.S. factory activity expanded in February for the third straight month to 54.2—continuing the biggest jump in manufacturing activity since the economic recovery started in July 2009. A reading above 50 indicates growth. Exports jumped to a nine-month high, while new orders and order backlogs, both gauges of future business, rose sharply.

The report is evidence that increased spending by U.S. businesses and consumers, the housing recovery and an uptick in global trade are helping America's factories, which were a key engine for the nation's recovery three years ago but weakened recently amid a global economic slowdown. The report also suggests that manufacturers aren't nervous about the looming impact of the "sequester," the $85 billion in across-the-board government spending cuts that kicked in Friday.

Separate reports on Friday showed that Americans are still spending despite higher taxes, while confidence among consumers rose in February to its highest level since November. "
-Wall Street Journal

Of course, you're just as wrong on fuel prices, which have been dropping lately.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38553
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL….there are many reasons to doubt the alarmist view of global warming, but I have to say one of the main reasons to doubt the alarmism is the insane craziness displayed by the so-called people who tell me they are all about the scientific evidence.
From 350.org . led by Bill McKibbon:
Petition to the WMO to name hurricanes after deniers: As scientific evidence shows that climate change is creating increasingly frequent and devastating storms, and with climate scientists declaring these extreme weather events as the new normal, we propose a new naming system. A system that names extreme storms caused by climate change, after the policy makers who deny climate change and obstruct climate policy.
Seriously? These are supposed to be the adults in the room? These are supposed to be the scientists to look up to and take seriously? First off there is no scientific evidence that climate change is creating increasingly frequent storms. What is extreme weather? There is no scientific evidence this is a new normal. When the alarmist science comes down to witch burning, it is no longer science.
Never could understand why they started naming hurricanes after men. They were apply named after women for years. There is nothing like the fury of women.

Scientifically, the more energy in the atmosphere, the more violent the storms....
gcaveman1

Laurel, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38554
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>We're going to pay for the "eeded changes in their refineries" at the pump, not just big oil; consumers don't want these expensive new fuel regulations.
We've seen the horror of drive by starvation and ethanol mandates. Our economy is broken enough as is. We don't need expensive new gas regulations.
Hello! my post was from Consumer's Union, you know, the people who advocate for the CONSUMER?!?!

Refineries change their formula twice a year now, for summer blends and winter blends. I doubt any changes will be much more complicated than that.

Starvation is probably a right wing exaggeration. And, unintended consequences or not, the switch from food corn to fuel corn could have been forseen as the natural workings of your beloved capitalistic system, which cares not for the consumer, but only for the profit.

The economy is not broken, as my WSJ article above explains. And your "expensive new gas regulations" might add a penny to the cost of each gallon of gas, according to the experts. I think we can afford that for cleaner air and better gas mileage.
gcaveman1

Laurel, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38555
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>We're going to pay for the "eeded changes in their refineries" at the pump, not just big oil; consumers don't want these expensive new fuel regulations.
We've seen the horror of drive by starvation and ethanol mandates. Our economy is broken enough as is. We don't need expensive new gas regulations.
So, how do you manage to be wrong EVERY time you post?

Is it because you're Brain_Dead?
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38556
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
This is the concensus opinion of the climate research community.
<quoted text>
Fact is not premise. And you do need to read further if you want to debate. Your ignorance of facts is not an argument. It is a refusal to argue in the face of defeat.
Did the article say "climate research community"? Nope it said, "the scientific community".

I stand by my observation.

Warmists do love to parse words.
Taking debate tips from SpaceBlues?

"And you do need to read further if you want to debate."

Huh? Isn't the "debate" over?

LOL

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38557
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sounds familiar. Kinda like all the screaming about Obama destroying the economy:
"American manufacturers are doing better than many of their competitors around the world as increased spending by U.S. businesses and a revival in global trade creates more demand for their products.
The Institute for Supply Management said Friday that its gauge of U.S. factory activity expanded in February for the third straight month to 54.2—continuing the biggest jump in manufacturing activity since the economic recovery started in July 2009. A reading above 50 indicates growth. Exports jumped to a nine-month high, while new orders and order backlogs, both gauges of future business, rose sharply.
The report is evidence that increased spending by U.S. businesses and consumers, the housing recovery and an uptick in global trade are helping America's factories, which were a key engine for the nation's recovery three years ago but weakened recently amid a global economic slowdown. The report also suggests that manufacturers aren't nervous about the looming impact of the "sequester," the $85 billion in across-the-board government spending cuts that kicked in Friday.
Separate reports on Friday showed that Americans are still spending despite higher taxes, while confidence among consumers rose in February to its highest level since November. "
-Wall Street Journal
Of course, you're just as wrong on fuel prices, which have been dropping lately.
uhhhh, sorry to chime in on your "recovery summer", dude, but crude oil made a 2 year high today! Rbob gasoline is up 33 cents since August 8.
gcaveman1

Louin, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38558
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

OzRitz wrote:
Good article on why Krusty & Co think the way they do. Also another one one on the role Fox etc plays in influencing that captive audience with filtered comment in forming those opinions.
http://science.time.com/2013/08/19/in-denial-...
http://inhabitat.com/research-shows-fox-news-...
Thank you for this excellent assessment from Time.

The problem is not with the facts and projections of climate change, but with human psychology.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38559
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for this excellent assessment from Time.
The problem is not with the facts and projections of climate change, but with human psychology.
The second one is even better. It is eye opening for those people:

While around 99 percent of all scientists agree that global warming is real, caused by humanity’s release of heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions and that climate change is one of the most pressing issues of our time, conservative media has swayed a great portion of the American population to believe otherwise. There are five methods by which they have managed to do this, according to The Guardian.

•Presenting scientists who disagree that global warming is real (you know, the .01 percent) and persuading the conservative public that other scientists have some kind of agenda;
•Casting doubt on peer-reviewed journals and scientific institutions;
•Undermining the peer review process by insisting that it’s liberal, and therefore more political opinion than scientific fact;
•Accusing scientists of manipulating their data in order to find funding for their projects;
•Equating climate science with a new religion.

So successful are these tactics, conservative Americans are suspicious of climate change science to the extent that they are unwilling to accept even hard, real-world evidence of its truth, including drought, stronger storms, melting ice caps and other drastic changes in our climate patterns. However, some Republicans are beginning to stand up against the powerful media conglomerations that are skewing the science, The Guardian has found, and at least 53 percent of conservative youth are less gullible as their parents and grandparents.

Here are just a few influential conservatives who are standing up to urge other Republicans to quit fighting climate change and start looking for and supporting bipartisan solutions: Greg Mankiw, economic adviser to George W. Bush and Mitt Romney, George Shultz, Reagan’s Secretary of State, and several EPA Administrators who worked for former presidents Nixon, Reagan and both Bushes. With culpability for climate change denial, which is so dangers and completely polarizes American politics, placed so squarely on the shoulders of irresponsible news media, what happens next?

Read more: Research Shows Fox News is Behind Climate Change Denial | Inhabitat - Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38560
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>Great post!
Why?

Rants are your cup of tea, LOL.
gcaveman1

Louin, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38561
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
From your first link:
"Today the scientific community is in almost total agreement that the earth’s climate is changing as a result of human activity, and that this represents a huge threat to the planet and to us."
A phony premise... no reason to read any further.
What qualifications do you have to judge the veracity of a premise as opposed to the thousands who have been professionally trained to deal with false premises? Are you a scientist?

However, if you consider it a phony premise, don't worry about it anymore. Stay off Topix and go fishing.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38562
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
You are asking for a lot and you're not going to get it from this crowd.
You've noticed that they do not read what they post and certainly will not read what you post. They don't dispute the science, they denigrate the author. Denying the author credibility relieves them of the necessity of reading and understanding the work.
In the end, it's not about what they believe, it's about what you know and your ability to recognize what you don't know.
Awww your new whine is misanthropic!

You used to whine that all you needed was just one AGW reference for you. I found out two separate presentations by the National Academy President. You never confirmed you watched the talks.

Then this year you even changed your name to aka fossil fuels. LOL.

Oh here's a single great reference for you:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/235...

Let me know what you learned. hahahaha

P.S. That poster is merely, shockingly DENSE.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38563
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>
What is it with warmists and their authority figures?

When their "science" was found wanting, did they take their lumps and admit error? Nope. They found higher authorities, "climate scientists".

And then when the "science" of the climate scientists was found wanting, they upped the ante to "peer review and published climate scientists".

And having topped out on the "authorities" of their own science, did they accept it? Nope, again. They run off to find "scientists" in other fields to suggest that it's not their theories that are flawed, but rather, it's because people are flawed.

Sheesh.

Some people cannot be taught, refuse to learn, adapt and live with reality-- they're the true believers...the warmists.

Since: Aug 13

Kailua, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38564
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
I got the 0.06 C from the link you posted:
The IPCC AR4 Scenario A2 projected rate of warming from 2000 to 2012 was 0.18°C per decade. This is within the uncertainty range of the observed rate of warming (0.06 ± 0.16°C) per decade since 2000, though the observed warming has likely been lower than the AR4 projection.
So basically same advice to you as to FG. If you expect me to read the posts you posted, at least have the courtesy to first read them yourselves.
Now I get it.Even though the temperature increase is within the margin of error presented in the model the model is still wrong. It took me a while to wrap my head around that piece of "logic".

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 36,221 - 36,240 of43,160
|
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.

55 Users are viewing the Chicago Forum right now

Search the Chicago Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min Incognito4Ever 1,036,704
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 3 min Wicklow 96,276
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 4 min Scrutiny 167,717
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 18 min Religionthebiglie 47,174
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 29 min Eric 65,547
Music Artists A to Z 39 min _Zoey_ 99
Abby 4-23 1 hr PEllen 29
Amy 4-23 2 hr cheluzal 40
ask amy 4-22 8 hr Sublime1 69
•••
•••
•••

Chicago Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••