• Sections
Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 63620 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.

gcaveman1
#39329 Sep 17, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Please explain your logic....I picked the year 1993 in both charts. In the first chart 1993 had 1400 weather events, in the 2nd chart it was down to 600. So tell me how by starting at 1980 instead of 1950, the year 1993 had 800 less extreme weather events.
uh, les see...

Thirty fewer years? A difference in the size of the catastrophes, maybe?

G....sus!
gcaveman1
#39330 Sep 17, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Please explain your logic....I picked the year 1993 in both charts. In the first chart 1993 had 1400 weather events, in the 2nd chart it was down to 600. So tell me how by starting at 1980 instead of 1950, the year 1993 had 800 less extreme weather events.
1400? Really? Did you mean 14?

Or are YOU trying to change the facts?
kristy
#39331 Sep 17, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
1400? Really? Did you mean 14?
Or are YOU trying to change the facts?
OMG, I'm dealing with dumber and dumber. So by the way you read charts, the year 2009 only had 3 extreme weather events the entire year.

Judged:

2

2

2

Report Abuse Judge it!
kristy
#39332 Sep 17, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
uh, les see...
Thirty fewer years? A difference in the size of the catastrophes, maybe?
G....sus!
Again, dumb and dumber. How do the amount of weather events in a single year change whether you start the chart at 1950 or 1980? What if I started the 1980 chart in 1990. Would that change the amount of weather events in 2010 or would the amount stay the same? If it changes, how come?

Judged:

2

2

2

Report Abuse Judge it!
SpaceBlues

United States

#39333 Sep 17, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>I'll explain it in Mississippi terms. I'll even use caps where they belong since that usually seems to stump you people.
Science doesn't dispute that climate has been changing, nor do I for that matter.
LOL...
Where you fail with honesty....or either you're dumb.....science hasn't shown that it's man's use of fossil fuels that have caused climate change.
Some say it could....some say it might....some say the evidence indicates. Show me ONE scientist who can quantitatively show that man made CO2 is definitively responsible for impacting the climate (ONE WAY OR THE OTHER!!!).
The only people making those claims and conclusions are dolts like you. Find one scientist who claims to back up what you people claim with the degree of certainty you religious fanatics spout. Please?
Crooks are everywhere......even on Topix, you liberty thief.
It is convenient for you to ignore the daily manmade CO2 emissions of 90 million tons, HUH.

That's both quantitatively and definitely manmade. In terms of energy content, that adds up to 400,000 hiroshima's, DUH!

Elizabeth O'Bagy must be related to you, LOL.
SpaceBlues

United States

#39334 Sep 17, 2013
No Warming wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that Met Office revised their own forecast is a strong indication of failure.
Why?

Remember you are not qualified to judge. If you have a better forecast, publish it where Met Office does. Nuff said, DUH!
SpaceBlues

United States

#39335 Sep 17, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
global warming deniers
coal company shills
climate science morons
sans science morons?
forecast beggers?
gcaveman1
#39336 Sep 17, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, dumb and dumber. How do the amount of weather events in a single year change whether you start the chart at 1950 or 1980? What if I started the 1980 chart in 1990. Would that change the amount of weather events in 2010 or would the amount stay the same? If it changes, how come?
On the 1950-2009 graph, there are 14 great weather events for 1993. FOURTEEN!

On the Weather Catastrophes Worldwide graph, there are 600 for 1993. SIX HUNDRED!

Obviously, Dumbest, the two charts are not comparable, unless you want to deny that they show 1993 catastrophes increasing from 14 to 600.

The two charts have different names. The Y axis is graded differently. They cover different time periods.

How the bars could change using different numbers of years or time periods is exemplified by Hurricane Camille was once number one before 2005. It became #2 following Katrina. Extend the chart to 2012 and you pick up Sandy, which is now #1 (I think), making the other two fade back. As the years go on and the storms get stronger, Camille may drop off the chart at some distant date.

I'm not going to explain this to your dumbass again. Just try to remember that 600 is more than 14.

Judged:

2

2

1

Report Abuse Judge it!
gcaveman1
#39337 Sep 17, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
OMG, I'm dealing with dumber and dumber. So by the way you read charts, the year 2009 only had 3 extreme weather events the entire year.
You started off comparing two completely different graphs and then wonder why the numbers have changed.

DUH. DUH-MASS!

Judged:

2

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!
gcaveman1
#39338 Sep 17, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>I'll explain it in Mississippi terms. I'll even use caps where they belong since that usually seems to stump you people.
Science doesn't dispute that climate has been changing, nor do I for that matter.
LOL...
Where you fail with honesty....or either you're dumb.....science hasn't shown that it's man's use of fossil fuels that have caused climate change.
Some say it could....some say it might....some say the evidence indicates. Show me ONE scientist who can quantitatively show that man made CO2 is definitively responsible for impacting the climate (ONE WAY OR THE OTHER!!!).
The only people making those claims and conclusions are dolts like you. Find one scientist who claims to back up what you people claim with the degree of certainty you religious fanatics spout. Please?
Crooks are everywhere......even on Topix, you liberty thief.
How far back should I go? I guess Callendar is good enough. Look him up.

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!
kristy
#39340 Sep 17, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
On the 1950-2009 graph, there are 14 great weather events for 1993. FOURTEEN!
On the Weather Catastrophes Worldwide graph, there are 600 for 1993. SIX HUNDRED!
Obviously, Dumbest, the two charts are not comparable, unless you want to deny that they show 1993 catastrophes increasing from 14 to 600.
The two charts have different names. The Y axis is graded differently. They cover different time periods.
How the bars could change using different numbers of years or time periods is exemplified by Hurricane Camille was once number one before 2005. It became #2 following Katrina. Extend the chart to 2012 and you pick up Sandy, which is now #1 (I think), making the other two fade back. As the years go on and the storms get stronger, Camille may drop off the chart at some distant date.
I'm not going to explain this to your dumbass again. Just try to remember that 600 is more than 14.
I seriously can't believe you are this stupid. The Y axis is in 100's. So when you see a 2 that means 200. When you see a 3 that means 300 and so on and so forth and when you see 14 that means 1400. Do you really believe that from 1950 to 2009, not one year had more than 14 combined storms, floods, droughts, extreme temperatures, hurricanes, and forest fires worldwide? The only difference between the y axis in the 1950-2009 chart and the 1980 to 2011 chart is that the 1980-2011 chart actually says 200, 300, etc. Where do you get that a storm drops off the chart. These charts are just counts of weather events for insurance companies. Why would they drop off storms? How would that help the insurance company determine how many storms there have been in the past compared to the present? So it has been changed as their prior chart had a 1400 count of combined storms, floods, droughts, extreme temperatures, hurricanes and forest fires and then in their new chart it dropped to 600. You really have no critical thinking skills if you think this chart showed at most 14 extreme weather events in any one year from 1950 to 2009.

Judged:

2

2

2

Report Abuse Judge it!
B as in B S as in S
#39341 Sep 17, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
I seriously can't believe you are this stupid. The Y axis is in 100's. So when you see a 2 that means 200. When you see a 3 that means 300 and so on and so forth and when you see 14 that means 1400. Do you really believe that from 1950 to 2009, not one year had more than 14 combined storms, floods, droughts, extreme temperatures, hurricanes, and forest fires worldwide? The only difference between the y axis in the 1950-2009 chart and the 1980 to 2011 chart is that the 1980-2011 chart actually says 200, 300, etc. Where do you get that a storm drops off the chart. These charts are just counts of weather events for insurance companies. Why would they drop off storms? How would that help the insurance company determine how many storms there have been in the past compared to the present? So it has been changed as their prior chart had a 1400 count of combined storms, floods, droughts, extreme temperatures, hurricanes and forest fires and then in their new chart it dropped to 600. You really have no critical thinking skills if you think this chart showed at most 14 extreme weather events in any one year from 1950 to 2009.
The question and explanations in behalf of our friend from Mississippi are clear and articulate. Perhaps we are observing an extreme case of "Cognitive Avoidance".

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39342 Sep 17, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
"Decadal climate prediction is immature, and uncertainties in future forcings, model responses to forcings, or initialisation shocks could easily cause large errors in forecasts."
Translation: We can't get the short term right, but we're positive about the long term. Keep sending the checks.
A warmist,'Get out of jail free' card.
LOL
The only thing worse than the scientific projections are the "sceptic" projections:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/1_Projec...

Judged:

2

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39343 Sep 17, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
1400? Really? Did you mean 14?
Or are YOU trying to change the facts?
It's those big clown feet again.

Judged:

2

2

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39344 Sep 17, 2013
No Warming wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that Met Office revised their own forecast is a strong indication of failure.
The only forecasts that have failed more are those of the "sceptics".

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/1_Projec...

So who are you going to believe about the future?

Judged:

2

2

1

Report Abuse Judge it!
Mothra

United States

#39345 Sep 17, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
The only thing worse than the scientific projections are the "sceptic" projections:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/1_Projec...
\

Wrong again.

It's always worse to cite skepticalscience.

LOL

Judged:

4

3

3

Report Abuse Judge it!
Mothra

United States

#39346 Sep 18, 2013
>>Climate Change is a big money complex. The US government alone spends roughly \$4 billion a year to finance climate research and initiatives. That level of spending leaves all private US entities in the dust by a factor of roughly 1,000. In North America, the US federal government controls climate change spending.

The big winner in the climate change money train is the National Science Foundation. They are requesting \$1.616 billion dollars. They want \$766 million dollars for the Science, Engineering and Education for Sustainability Program. This is a 15.9% increase from their last budget. They also need another \$370 million for the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) an increase of 16%. The say they also need another \$480 million for Atmospheric Sciences an increase of 8.1% and Earth Sciences up 8.7%. Oh, and not to be left out we need \$955 million for the Geosciences Directorate, an increase of 7.4%. That’s a mighty hefty sum of money to dig into if you’re doing climate change research.

http://oilprice.com/The-Environment/Global-Wa...

Judged:

5

4

3

Report Abuse Judge it!
Mothra

United States

#39347 Sep 18, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
How far back should I go? I guess Callendar is good enough. Look him up.
>>Guy Callendar was a superb scientist and an expert on the physics of steam. He wrote a seminal article in 1938 on the potential for increasing levels of CO2 to warm the atmosphere...

By Callendar’s calculation, a doubling in CO2 from 300 ppm to 600 ppm would cause about a 1.7 degree C increase in atmospheric temperature. What is interesting about this is that Callender’s calculations track much more closely with actual temperatures than the formulas that are used by alarmists today. The reason is that the alarmists’ models build in hypothetical positive feedback effects in order to generate greater temperature impacts....

The modest temperature increase suggested by Callendar, and validated so far by observation, poses no threat, and won’t bring about any of the catastrophic consequences that the alarmists are paid to predict. Callendar himself thought the effect of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere would be salutary:

It may be said that the combustion of fossil fuel, whether it be peat from the surface or oil from 10,000 feet below, is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power. For instance the above mentioned small increases of mean temperature would be important at the northern margin of cultivation, and the growth of favourably situated plants is directly proportional to the carbon dioxide pressure (Brown and Escombe, 1905): In any case the return of the deadly glaciers should be delayed indefinitely.

It is somewhat ironic that the “science” of global warming has regressed since 1938.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/08...

Judged:

4

3

3

Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#39349 Sep 18, 2013
Mothra wrote:
>>Climate Change is a big money complex. The US government alone spends roughly \$4 billion a year to finance climate research and initiatives. That level of spending leaves all private US entities in the dust by a factor of roughly 1,000. In North America, the US federal government controls climate change spending.
The big winner in the climate change money train is the National Science Foundation. They are requesting \$1.616 billion dollars. They want \$766 million dollars for the Science, Engineering and Education for Sustainability Program. This is a 15.9% increase from their last budget. They also need another \$370 million for the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) an increase of 16%. The say they also need another \$480 million for Atmospheric Sciences an increase of 8.1% and Earth Sciences up 8.7%. Oh, and not to be left out we need \$955 million for the Geosciences Directorate, an increase of 7.4%. That’s a mighty hefty sum of money to dig into if you’re doing climate change research.
http://oilprice.com/The-Environment/Global-Wa...
Which one do you belong to ?

For the last quarter century, the climate science denial machine, its cogs oiled by fossil fuel money, has been attacking climate science, climate scientists and every official US report on climate change, along with State and local efforts – with the aim of undermining action on climate change.

http://www.rtcc.org/2013/09/10/dealing-in-dou...

Judged:

3

3

3

Report Abuse Judge it!
Jeff
#39350 Sep 18, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Which one do you belong to ?
For the last quarter century, the climate science denial machine, its cogs oiled by fossil fuel money, has been attacking climate science, climate scientists and every official US report on climate change, along with State and local efforts – with the aim of undermining action on climate change.
http://www.rtcc.org/2013/09/10/dealing-in-dou...
Its not just fossil fuel companies getting oiled:

http://www.widgetserver.com/syndication/l/...

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

#### Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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

Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 20 min Resist 105,136
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 24 min Dr Guru 240,366
last post wins! (Apr '13) 37 min honeymylove 2,466
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 37 min ritedownthemiddle 1,522,868
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 2 hr _Zoey_ 10,592
Look at Minn. Maine & Michigan. 4 hr Hate Apathy 16
Ultra Foods in Crestwood offers array of prepar... (Jun '12) 12 hr Shamrock 33

#### Chicago Jobs

More from around the web