Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 54542 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.

dont drink the koolaid

Minneapolis, MN

#39239 Sep 16, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
From the abstract:
<quoted text>
So there's no missing heat, and the Earth continues to warm.
That helps your case how?
Dear Fair Game,

It helps because a warmer Earth, on average, has been a good thing (no glaciers over Minneapolis or Madison) and there is no observed evidence the benefits will stop. CM's "suggest" continued warming will someday be bad but they may be wrong... in the same way they were wrong when they failed to forecast the "pause" in warming within these past 2 decades.

May your faith bring you peace,
-koolaid
B as in B S as in S

Minneapolis, MN

#39240 Sep 16, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Our CO2 emissions are so high that dangerous warming will still result. Even the authors of these papers say so.
<quoted text>.
I suspect that is not the case.

It is clear; there is not a single science study or science academy that claims that "Our CO2 emissions are so high that dangerous warming will still result."
B as in B S as in S

Minneapolis, MN

#39241 Sep 16, 2013
"WILL" is not a qualifier one will read in 'Climate Science' Forecasts, Models, Studies, Reports, Abstracts, Statements, Conclusions or Endorsements.

"Likely,
May,
Suggest,
Possibly,
Could,
Indicates": yes such will be found in abundance, BUT NOT... "Will"
B as in B S as in S

Minneapolis, MN

#39242 Sep 16, 2013
AlgoreTheTinFoilHatter wrote:
Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a theory (hypothesis). It is an
unproven theory. What you do with theories is put them to the test with
scientific observations. Let's see what data points we now have:
1) Average annual temperatures have not surpassed 1998 (NOAA)
(University of Alabama)
2) Average annual temperatures are now trending downward since 1998
(NOAA)(University of Alabama)
3) Ocean temperatures have not risen since 2000 when the 3000 Argo buoys
were launched. The buoys even show a slight decrease in ocean temperatures
4) The Arctic ice froze to February levels by December 07, there are 1mm
more sq km than before (previous was 13mm sq km)
5) The Arctic ice is 20cm thicker than "normal" (whatever that is)
6) All polar bear pods are stable or growing (NOAA/PBS)
7) Mount Kilimanjaro is not melting because of global warming, rather
"sublimation"
8) The Antarctic is not "melting", it is growing in most places, the
sloughing off at the edges is normal as the ice mass grows
9) The majority of the Antarctic is 8 degrees below "normal" (again,
whatever that is)
10) The coveted .7 degree rise in temperatures over the last 100 years
has been wiped out with last years below "normal" temperatures (NOAA
coolest winter since 2001)
11) Al Gores film was just deemed "propaganda" in a court of law in the
UK as many points could not be substantiated by scientists
12) It was also just reveled that some of the footage in Als film was
CGI. The ice shelf collapse was from the movie The Day After Tomorrow (ABC)
13) One of the scientists that originally thought that CO2 preceded the
warming has now found with new data that the CO2 rise follows the
warming (Dr David Evans)
14) August 2008 was the first time since 1913 there were no sun spots.
15) The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the 20th century (no SUVs)
16) Many scientists are now predicting 30 years of cooling.
17) The greenhouse effect is real, our small contribution to it cannot
even be measured
18) Several publications, including those that are warmist have recently
written that the natural cycles of the earth may mask AGW. Give me a break.
Move along folks... Nothing to see here.

“For God & Country”

Since: Aug 13

The Promised Land Illinois

#39243 Sep 16, 2013
Letís look at some so called green energy and global warming.
Windmills: kill 100ís of birds a day country wide
Windmills: Increase ground temperate by 1 degree.
Windmills: Change wind patterns (I am not sure if they are doing what a forest would do in the same location on wind patterns.)
Windmills: Cost 2 million to put up per windmill. Life expectance of windmills 25 years with maintenance return on investment 342 months
This does not look so green to me
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#39244 Sep 16, 2013
B as in B S as in S wrote:
<quoted text> I suspect that is not the case.
It is clear; there is not a single science study or science academy that claims that "Our CO2 emissions are so high that dangerous warming will still result."
You are infinitely and definitely wrong.

Daily man-made CO2 emissions amount to 90 million tons! Warming is not the only consequence. Why don't you pay attention to all the other resulting man-made happenings such as global climate change, ocean acidification, species extinctions, sea-level rise, and many others like malaria increase, food shortages, habitat destruction, etc.

You don't understand the way the scientists express their work. They don't talk like you do, LOL. Neither does the President.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#39245 Sep 16, 2013
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
Dear Fair Game,
It helps because a warmer Earth, on average, has been a good thing (no glaciers over Minneapolis or Madison) and there is no observed evidence the benefits will stop. CM's "suggest" continued warming will someday be bad but they may be wrong... in the same way they were wrong when they failed to forecast the "pause" in warming within these past 2 decades.
May your faith bring you peace,
-koolaid
It is not a picnic. Read my previous post.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#39246 Sep 16, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Link?
So I can read them myself, since I sure as hell don't trust you to comprehend English, nor tell the truth.
Here's the link you requested, Gomer! Now let's see how well your English comprehension is, son.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-s...
I posted this link back in May or early June. Took a little time to find it, but well worth it. I love damning evidence of pseudoscientific zealotry....and proving I don't lie to known lying idiots.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#39247 Sep 16, 2013
B as in B S as in S wrote:
"WILL" is not a qualifier one will read in 'Climate Science' Forecasts, Models, Studies, Reports, Abstracts, Statements, Conclusions or Endorsements.
"Likely,
May,
Suggest,
Possibly,
Could,
Indicates": yes such will be found in abundance, BUT NOT... "Will"
The new language is "95% certainty".
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#39248 Sep 16, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>Here's the link you requested, Gomer! Now let's see how well your English comprehension is, son.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-s...
I posted this link back in May or early June. Took a little time to find it, but well worth it. I love damning evidence of pseudoscientific zealotry....and proving I don't lie to known lying idiots.
Have you read all that bs?

No wonder you make no sense. You lost your mind while reading that mindless garbage. Poor poor poster! Pitiful.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#39249 Sep 16, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
The new language is "95% certainty".
You are confusing things. Wait for the report, silly goose.

Now read this:

https://www.cdproject.net/CDPResults/CDP-Glob...

How about it?
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#39250 Sep 16, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>You are confusing things. Wait for the report, silly goose.
Now read this:
https://www.cdproject.net/CDPResults/CDP-Glob...
How about it?
How about what?

Meh... I'll wait for the movie.
Bart

Falls Church, VA

#39251 Sep 16, 2013
I hate snow too.
gcaveman1

Louin, MS

#39252 Sep 16, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>Here's the link you requested, Gomer! Now let's see how well your English comprehension is, son.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-s...
I posted this link back in May or early June. Took a little time to find it, but well worth it. I love damning evidence of pseudoscientific zealotry....and proving I don't lie to known lying idiots.
Here is the abstract. See if you can find where you failed.

Also, six papers out of almost 12,000. Do you think that changes the 97% figure?

What a fool!
gcaveman1

Louin, MS

#39253 Sep 16, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Have you read all that bs?
No wonder you make no sense. You lost your mind while reading that mindless garbage. Poor poor poster! Pitiful.
This is an interesting quote from the CEO:

The economic case for action is strengthening.
This year, we published the 3% Solution with
WWF showing that the US corporate sector could
reduce emissions by 3% each year between 2010
and 2020 and deliver $780 billion in savings above
costs as a result. 79% of US companies responding
to CDP report higher ROI on emission reductions investments than on the average business investment.

If you follow the money, you'll get green. And vice-versa.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#39254 Sep 16, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
This is an interesting quote from the CEO:
The economic case for action is strengthening.
This year, we published the 3% Solution with
WWF showing that the US corporate sector could
reduce emissions by 3% each year between 2010
and 2020 and deliver $780 billion in savings above
costs as a result. 79% of US companies responding
to CDP report higher ROI on emission reductions investments than on the average business investment.
If you follow the money, you'll get green. And vice-versa.
Maybe.

"79% of US companies responding
to CDP..."

That leads to a whole lot of questions. How many companies total? How many responded?

"...report higher ROI on emission reductions investments than on the average business investment."

The average business investment?

Gotta be careful with those kinds of generalities.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#39255 Sep 16, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is the abstract. See if you can find where you failed.
Also, six papers out of almost 12,000. Do you think that changes the 97% figure?
What a fool!
but 12,000 papers weren't used in the "97% calculation", son!!

LOL!!!

guess your english comprehension needs a lot of work, aye?

LOL..

“It's not personal Its business”

Since: Jan 08

Fluffya

#39256 Sep 16, 2013
Uh, no. You got it wrong. I am not a doomer. On the contrary.
mememine69 wrote:
<quoted text>Ok Doomer Michael Corleone, since I have seniority around here can you remind us again why we should look our children in the eyes and tell them they won't have kids of their own on a 5 billion year old planet now ravaged by Human CO2?

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#39257 Sep 16, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Have you read all that bs?
No wonder you make no sense. You lost your mind while reading that mindless garbage. Poor poor poster! Pitiful.
have you, wedge?

LOL

with a post like this coming from you....i'll take my link as a grand slam zinger!!

i know how you religious zealots react when you're left speechless after being force fed some factual information.

bwaaahahhahaaaaa
gcaveman1

Louin, MS

#39258 Sep 16, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe.
"79% of US companies responding
to CDP..."
That leads to a whole lot of questions. How many companies total? How many responded?
"...report higher ROI on emission reductions investments than on the average business investment."
The average business investment?
Gotta be careful with those kinds of generalities.
Space gave you the link; don't wait for the movie, look it up. If you find anything wrong with it, contact the authors.

https://www.cdproject.net/CDPResults/CDP-Glob...

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) 3 min Liberal Sock Rage 1,276,862
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 14 min PEllen 100,644
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 43 min Joe Balls 196,935
Word (Dec '08) 2 hr boundary painter 5,426
Ask Amy 9-1-15 2 hr Mrs Gladys Kravitz 11
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 3 hr boundary painter 6,428
Dear Abby 9-1-15 3 hr boundary painter 7
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages