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

Full story: Newsday 47,497
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Full Story
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#38963 Sep 7, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>


Apparently there are some warmists who believe that if you don't buy into the "science" (or religion, for some) of global warming with all your body, heart, mind and soul, you're incapable of having any 'causes' in which to support.

What a load of crap.

I know you're desperate now, but please knock off the sanctimonious bullshyt.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#38964 Sep 7, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Apparently there are some warmists who believe that if you don't buy into the "science" ..
Some (like MothEaten) think they should win on 'style' after rejecting the truth and losing on fact and reason. That is TRULY pitiable.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#38965 Sep 7, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Some (like MothEaten) think they should win on 'style' after rejecting the truth and losing on fact and reason. That is TRULY pitiable.
I have style? Never thought I'd get a compliment from you, but thanks.

Truth? Fact? Reason?

Gee... all I'm doing is applying the same argument standards that warmists use. I 'reason' that if you can meet the same criteria you apply to skeptics, then it should bolster your argument. Shouldn't it?

You're just pissed because by these same standards your arguments fall short.

Tis a shame, t'aint it?

btw, I do take credit for introducing "pity" (and all forms of the word) into the conversation. They say 'imitation is a high form of flattery'. Thanks to all of you.

I blush.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#38966 Sep 7, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
I have style? Never thought I'd get a compliment from you, but thanks.
*I* never said you have style (other than misreading posts, I guess). What I said is that you want to WIN on 'style', whatever that means to you. You certainly don't try to win on data, reason or science. And your latest whine about losing when you should be winning seems to imply that YOU think you have 'style' or something to win on..

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#38967 Sep 7, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
"Wedge" it in? It was supporting evidence.
Sheesh... and you wonder why I don't take you seriously?
And third graders "know" this? Is that what you learned last year?
"It was supporting evidence." ??? LOL
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#38968 Sep 7, 2013
Ice in Antarctica and Greenland is disappearing faster and may drive sea levels higher than predicted this century, according to leaked United Nations documents.

Greenland’s ice added six times more to sea levels in the decade through 2011 than in the previous 10 years, according to a draft of the UN’s most comprehensive study on climate change. Antarctica had a fivefold increase, and the UN is raising its forecast for how much the two ice sheets will add to Earth’s oceans by 2100.

The changes in the planet’s coldest areas are a “very good indicator” of a warming planet, according to Walt Meier, a research scientist with the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

-Bloomberg
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38973 Sep 7, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
How does a late-winter snowstorm on a mile-high peak in the southern half of New Zealand prove that global warming isn't happening?
Only a denier would think so.
Now was that post directed at you? NO! It was directed at ritedownthemiddle who was talking about a friend in NZ who remarked on how cold it was this winter. It had nothing to do with global warming. It’s not like I was posting a hurricane hitting the US during hurricane season and claiming global warming.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38974 Sep 7, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently picking a post from a string of discussion (ie,'context') is beyond your critical thinking skills.
But of course, any challenge (perceived or real) to your religion is the work of a heretic and must be squashed.
How pitiful you are.
They truly do have a problem when they are challenged. I read this the other day:

The report (IPCC AR5) says:“The rate of warming over the past 15 years (from 1998-2012) at 0.05 degree Celsius per decade is smaller than the trend over the longer period 1951-2012 which stands at 0.12 degree Celsius per decade.” This means that in the last 15 years, the rate of warming has been 40% slower than in the period 1951-2012. BUT THE FACTS DO NOT TAKE AWAY FROM THE REALITY OF ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE.

How Orwellian is that?

Fact: Things that are true or that really happened, rather than things that are imaginary or not true.

Reality: A fact, event, or situation as it really exists.

Talk about these people being delusional…it makes your head spin.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38975 Sep 7, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, she tried to wedge it into the discussion as evidence. Pitiful as your remark. Even a third-grader knows that climate changes are of the first magnitude while weather changes can be of the second magnitude.
Same response to you as caveman.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38976 Sep 7, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
Ice in Antarctica and Greenland is disappearing faster and may drive sea levels higher than predicted this century, according to leaked United Nations documents.
Greenland’s ice added six times more to sea levels in the decade through 2011 than in the previous 10 years, according to a draft of the UN’s most comprehensive study on climate change. Antarctica had a fivefold increase, and the UN is raising its forecast for how much the two ice sheets will add to Earth’s oceans by 2100.
The changes in the planet’s coldest areas are a “very good indicator” of a warming planet, according to Walt Meier, a research scientist with the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
-Bloomberg
Oh lord….that is so 2006. The IPCC is finally catching up to the science of 2006. Now if they could only catch up to the science of 2013.

From your article:

Greenland’s contribution to rising sea levels “very likely” rose to an average of 0.59 millimeters a year from 2002 to 2011, from 0.09 millimeters a year in the prior decade, according to the draft. The rate in Antarctica “likely” rose to 0.4 millimeters a year from 0.08 millimeters, it said.

From 2006:

But, according to 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, and the Colorado group estimates that melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet alone is adding up to four-tenths of a millimeter of fresh water to sea levels each year. In other words, the global sea level, due to melting of the ice in Greenland and Antarctica combined, is already rising 10 times faster than the IPPC's tentative estimates, the two analyses indicate.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0811-...

From 2013:

New research from a team of European scientists has found there is not enough satellite data to determine the rate of polar ice cap melt very far into the future and warned against using current trends to predict sea level rise that might result from melting glaciers.

“Although ice is lost beyond any doubt, the period is not long enough to state that ice loss is accelerating,” Rack told the Guardian.“This is because of the natural variability of the credit process, snowfall, and the debit process, melting, and iceberg calving, which both control the ice sheet balance.”

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/11128975...
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#38977 Sep 7, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
*I* never said you have style (other than misreading posts, I guess). What I said is that you want to WIN on 'style', whatever that means to you. You certainly don't try to win on data, reason or science. And your latest whine about losing when you should be winning seems to imply that YOU think you have 'style' or something to win on..
Well, no surprise to me that you'd retract a compliment.

"losing when I should be winning"?

Huh.. what are you... I mean... that is... awww...never mind... you're post is already sunk into mindless minutia.

btw, got any more exposes on global warming research funding? It's been quite a while since I asked. You must have been able to dig something up by now -- what with all those public funds being spent, I'd think a full accounting of the dollars must have been posted by now.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#38978 Sep 8, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Same response to you as caveman.
I see, most of your posts have nothing to do with global warming.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#38979 Sep 8, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
I see, most of your posts have nothing to do with global warming.
And most of his post. It is just a 'here's some confusing literature taken out of context'. You decide what it means.

For example. "Oh lord….that is so 2006. The IPCC is finally catching up to the science of 2006. Now if they could only catch up to the science of 2013."

The science of 2013 is not well enough supported by secondary studies and 'rebuttals' so of COURSE the IPCC, charged with presenting the 'known' science to which there is 'very likely' or 'likely' consequences must use five year old stuff. It takes that time for science to check 'preliminary results'. They would be irresponsible to take studies from the present year that have yet to be checked by other scientists.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#38980 Sep 8, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, no surprise to me that you'd retract a compliment.
"losing when I should be winning"?
Huh.. what are you... I mean... that is... awww...never mind... you're post is already sunk into mindless minutia.
When YOU say you should be winning (on style). You have no substance AGAIN.
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
btw, got any more exposes on global warming research funding? It's been quite a while since I asked. You must have been able to dig something up by now -- what with all those public funds being spent, I'd think a full accounting of the dollars must have been posted by now.
The exposes have been of funding for fossil fuel funded lobbyists and 'astroturf' science.

I am not sure what peer reviewed science is in question due to funding which is mostly 'third party' distributed and sourced from a general fund so that it cannot be tied to any pressure for specific results (i.e. tobacco science) Otherwise the fossil fuel funded propaganda would not have to be made as the corporations could put pressure directly on the scientists.

But that won't happen anyway. The Tobacco science could only work while all research was done by CORPORATE scientists. Once independent research was started, it showed a major discrepancy in results between independent and corporate science papers that blew the lid off.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#38981 Sep 8, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, no surprise to me that you'd retract a compliment.
Again. Try to get it right. I never complimented you. I have no need to 'retract' it. Get your delusions under control.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#38983 Sep 8, 2013
Science Turns Authoritarian

Science is losing its credibility because it has adopted an authoritarian tone, and has let itself be co-opted by politics.

http://www.american.com/archive/2010/july/sci...

And the response from the warmists?

>>find new authority figures to "explain" why global warming 'science' isn't being accepted (ie, skepticalscience debunking guides)

>>Obama launches a huge public relations effort to "inform" (aka, browbeat) people to accept the 'science'

>>warmists on Topix get all snarky and insistent that global warming science is above reproach and that people who question the 'science' are just low-brow poopy-heads
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#38984 Sep 8, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Again. Try to get it right. I never complimented you. I have no need to 'retract' it. Get your delusions under control.
My, my, my... seems I touched a nerve.

Equally funny and pitiful.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#38985 Sep 8, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
My, my, my... seems I touched a nerve.
You might think about keeping these delusions to yourself.
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Equally funny and pitiful.
Nah. You are just sad.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#38986 Sep 8, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
You might think about keeping these delusions to yourself.
<quoted text>
Nah. You are just sad.
Nope... now I'm just laughing.(Pity is long gone.)
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#38988 Sep 8, 2013
motheaten wrote:
Science Turns Authoritarian
"motheaten" couldn't get a science or mathematics degree. Suspect, "motheaten" earned no science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra, or pre-calc in its poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa. "motheaten" looks from the outside, in.

Yeah, science has much more authority than "motheaten".

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 fetch almighty 1,126,786
Abby 10-24 5 min pde 15
Abby 10-23-14 8 min pde 7
Emanuel set to outline re-election agenda in fi... 11 min Le Jimbo 7
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 17 min Learn to Read 179,402
Amy 10-24 46 min PEllen 7
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 55 min TRD 68,659
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 ]