Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 63619 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.

litesong

Snohomish, WA

#39393 Sep 18, 2013
middleofthedownwronggully wrote:
......do you actually get the joke and see the ridiculousness?1?!
lol
SpaceBlues wrote, "In terms of energy content, that adds up to 400,000 hiroshima's......."

"middleofthedownwronggull y" did not. In other words,

"middleofthedownwronggull y" continues in the middle of the down wrong gully.
SpaceBlues

United States

#39394 Sep 18, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
You must enjoy embarrassing yourself.
Run along sonny... adults are talking here.
What's your answer to my question?

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39395 Sep 18, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-...
Can we take it that you're accepting what Callendar said, the world has warmed and we're responsible, and warming will continue?
No response.
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
So as you can't accuse him of being influenced by money, are you going to accept his conclusion that the world has warmed, we're responsible, and it's going to continue warming?
No response.
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#39396 Sep 18, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL. First you misread the graph and prove yourself a clown, and then you demand a serious discussion about what the graph shows.
Look, either the insurance company added new data to their database so the numbers changed, or they are in the conspiracy with the climate scientists.
Which one is easier to believe?
Pivot again with you. If you say I misread the chart, then you need to explain what the chart is saying. You can do this by answering the questions I posted.

1. So do you really believe that Munich RE a re-insurer who tracks natural disasters around the world (to include storms, hurricanes, tornados, forest fires, droughts floods, and extreme temperatures) only tracked 14 natural disasters worldwide in 1993? If you believe that, then Munich Re is saying there were only 3 natural disasters worldwide in 2009. Do you also believe that to be true?

2. If each bar represents a total count for worldwide disasters in a single year, how does the count change for that single year whether the chart starts at 1950 or starts in 1980?

3. According to caveman:“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.”

Can you even explain how a hurricane that was counted in the natural disasters in 2005 would fade back and drop off the chart? Why would a hurricane that was counted in 2005 be dropped off the count of natural disasters in 2005?

If I'm misreading the chart then it should be really easy for you to answer the questions, especially the first question. If you won't answer the questions, then it is safe to say you are misreading the chart.

http://350orbust.com/2010/03/01/icebergs-ice-...

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39397 Sep 18, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Pivot again with you. If you say I misread the chart, then you need to explain what the chart is saying. You can do this by answering the questions I posted.
1. So do you really believe that Munich RE a re-insurer who tracks natural disasters around the world (to include storms, hurricanes, tornados, forest fires, droughts floods, and extreme temperatures) only tracked 14 natural disasters worldwide in 1993? If you believe that, then Munich Re is saying there were only 3 natural disasters worldwide in 2009. Do you also believe that to be true?
2. If each bar represents a total count for worldwide disasters in a single year, how does the count change for that single year whether the chart starts at 1950 or starts in 1980?
3. According to caveman:“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.”
Can you even explain how a hurricane that was counted in the natural disasters in 2005 would fade back and drop off the chart? Why would a hurricane that was counted in 2005 be dropped off the count of natural disasters in 2005?
If I'm misreading the chart then it should be really easy for you to answer the questions, especially the first question. If you won't answer the questions, then it is safe to say you are misreading the chart.
http://350orbust.com/2010/03/01/icebergs-ice-...
Talk to the hand.
B as in B S as in S

Eden Prairie, MN

#39398 Sep 18, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting... another bit of evidence for the 'global warming as a religion' theory.
Point well taken!
B as in B S as in S

Eden Prairie, MN

#39399 Sep 18, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Talk to the hand.
Every attempt to engage in a discussion about a specific issue results in avoidence behaviors... "Talk to the hand" being the latest.

May your faith give you peace
SpaceBlues

United States

#39400 Sep 18, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>What's your answer to my question?
..
Again:
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>What's your answer to my question?
Also:
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
No response.
<quoted text>
No response.
Yet:
B as in B S as in S wrote:
<quoted text>
Every attempt to engage in a discussion about a specific issue results in avoidence behaviors...
That's what the deniers do as the evidence shows.

LOL. Denial is your game.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#39401 Sep 18, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
SpaceBlues wrote, "In terms of energy content, that adds up to 400,000 hiroshima's......."
"middleofthedownwronggull y" did not. In other words,
"middleofthedownwronggull y" continues in the middle of the down wrong gully.
you aren't very well schooled in energy transfers are you, mullet?

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#39402 Sep 18, 2013
guss you didn't get a 'deeplomer', huh?

btw.....there's actually a number for a thousand thousand thousand thousand.

guess you 'ain't too smart in math either.

i have three letters for you, son. G-E-D go for it!!!

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#39403 Sep 18, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Awww.. Thanks for your support, LOL.
you're welcome!! when it comes to ridiculous and ludicrous....you have no peer.

your feigned knowledge of science is the only thing that surpasses those traits.

LOL

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#39404 Sep 18, 2013
litesong wrote:
motheaten muffed:
You're almost coherent.
//////////
litesong wrote:
I was less scientific than usual.
//////////
"motheaten" muffed:
So when you're more "scientific" your less coherent?
////////
litesong wrote:
When I'm more scientific, toxic topix AGW deniers cannot understand because they have no science & mathematics degrees, no science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc for their proudly held, but poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaas, or no hi skule DEE-plooomaas, at all.
hmmmmm....what are you going to major in? your posts suggest you haven't earned a degree. possible you haven't gone through puberty either for that matter.
Retired Farmer

Cadiz, KY

#39405 Sep 18, 2013
SpaceBlues

United States

#39406 Sep 18, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>you're welcome!! when it comes to ridiculous and ludicrous....you have no peer.
your feigned knowledge of science is the only thing that surpasses those traits.
LOL
Aww your interest in my qualities are overwhelmed by your lacking them, i.e. errr well I'm beyond your event horizons, LOL.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#39407 Sep 18, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Aww your interest in my qualities are overwhelmed by your lacking them, i.e. errr well I'm beyond your event horizons, LOL.
are you a chronic attention seeker......or really that dim?

one question, please......what 'qualities' do you actually think you possess? seriously!!

science is certainly out of the question.
witty....NOT.
creative....not exactly.

boring.....BINGO!!!!

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#39408 Sep 18, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh wow... another 'follow the oil money' drone.
Like I've posed to other warmists, IF you are going to use money sources as an argument against some research and scientists, be prepared to explain all the billions of dollars spent via public coffers on behalf of warmists scientists.
Until you do, I call bullshyt!
That's laughable coming from you who posted about funding for climate science research indicating that it's a waste of time.
I counted with a post regarding corporate funding protecting their fossil fuel interests and its all BS.
Well tell me, how much private funding from corporate goes to climate research as opposed to funding to counter that research.
Then when you find the answer to that, it might just explain why governments have to get involved when the very idea that any research coming up with the wrong results may put a huge dent in profits.
SpaceBlues

United States

#39409 Sep 18, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>are you a chronic attention seeker......or really that dim?
one question, please......what 'qualities' do you actually think you possess? seriously!!
science is certainly out of the question.
witty....NOT.
creative....not exactly.
boring.....BINGO!!!!
Thanks for your interest in me.

Like I said before, I'm beyond your event horizons, LOL.
SpaceBlues

United States

#39410 Sep 18, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
That's laughable coming from you who posted about funding for climate science research indicating that it's a waste of time.
I counted with a post regarding corporate funding protecting their fossil fuel interests and its all BS.
Well tell me, how much private funding from corporate goes to climate research as opposed to funding to counter that research.
Then when you find the answer to that, it might just explain why governments have to get involved when the very idea that any research coming up with the wrong results may put a huge dent in profits.
Ditto. Don't forget national security.
SpaceBlues

United States

#39411 Sep 18, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Aww your interest in my qualities is overwhelmed by your lacking them, i.e. errr well I'm beyond your event horizons, LOL.
Corrected.

Since: Sep 13

Chicago, IL

#39413 Sep 18, 2013
like Tony said I didn't even know that a stay at home mom able to make $8082 in 1 month on the computer. did you see this link >>>>>>> JOBS75.com

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 BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 3 min LOL 240,800
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 6 min Well Well 1,534,349
ex chicago police woman (Jul '16) 9 min SAy it aint so 20
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 1 hr _Zoey_ 10,687
Bottomless wife? 5 hr Earl 4
Mass media's war on police leads to more crime. 7 hr actorvet 1
Deporting Seniors 12 hr But brain works 3

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages