Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 54547 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.

LoLbama

Fitchburg, MA

#40007 Sep 30, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Whine and deny!
You are a traitor to the human race..
Ironically, if you didn't agree with the 2007 IPCC report, you were a flat earther and holocaust denier.

Now that the IPCC doesn't agree with their 2007 report, does that make them a flat earth society of holocaust deniers?
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#40010 Sep 30, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Eliminating government subsidies? That is definitely a good 'fix' for high losses to the public from 'protecting' the parasites. You must be one of the money suckers, aggrieved that you aren't getting someone else's money to compensate you for risky behavior?
I notice that most denialists are motivated by money issues. Either fossil fuel stock investment or a desire for someone else to pay the bill for their pleasure.
The losses have nothing to do with AGW, but instead it was that our government that subsidized flood insurance, thus encouraging development in flood-prone areas. The federal government is basically the sole provider for flood insurance, not private insurance companies. When you make the insurance cheap for high risk areas, then you get development where there never should have been any and then that leads to increases losses which then have to be paid out by the federal government. If the insured had to pay the real cost of the insurance to live in a flood-prone area, they wouldn't build in that area. The government has suffered severe losses paying out claims after encouraging the development of these areas. Now they are getting rid of the subsidies and the people who want to live in these areas will now have to pay the price themselves instead of all us subsidizing their stupidity.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#40011 Sep 30, 2013
LoLbama wrote:
<quoted text>
Ironically, if you didn't agree with the 2007 IPCC report, you were a flat earther and holocaust denier.
Now that the IPCC doesn't agree with their 2007 report, does that make them a flat earth society of holocaust deniers?
No, LOL, it makes them keepers of science sense.

Science progresses, new assessment arrives! Lucky us to move on to action.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#40012 Sep 30, 2013
Sunny wrote:
<quoted text>Good grief[sic] space[sic] boy[name calling] why don't you just follow Snowdon's foot steps an[sic] go[?] tell Russia about us[sic] denier slimbags.
I have to tell ya[sic] before you pack your baggage[?] go[?] good luck in Siberia....lol
UN is a big joke spaceboy[name calling] it's run by dicktaterssic] get a clue.LMAO
You must be a servant of Russia per your post.

Siberia is defrosting under the artificial CO2 malady while you whine and deny, unsunny.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#40013 Sep 30, 2013
I call the models B.S., 15 years of no warming but continued CO2 output. What's up with that?

More heat stored in the deep oceans? Ever notice how this stuff works where nobody goes, at the poles or in the night when everyone sleeps? There's something wrong with global warming theory, the arcane ritual is unbelieveable.
litesong

Monroe, WA

#40014 Sep 30, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
Moth-eaten, is that your only whinny argument?
You must change its name inside the quotes to "motheaten", to eliminate confusion. But, "motheaten" is its true & accurate name.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#40015 Sep 30, 2013
Sunny wrote:
<quoted text>Hey what kind of cheese you like with your whine Spaced[sic] out[sic] boy[name calling]?lol
You are confused again. Ask your denier friend who is addicted to whine and deny.
dont drink the koolaid

Minneapolis, MN

#40017 Sep 30, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
The theory is AGW. Or are you stupid?
Does anyone have a link to an AGW theory or two... or three? A link to the hypothesis that the theory is based on would ALSO be appreciated.
litesong

Monroe, WA

#40018 Sep 30, 2013
[QUOTE who="lyin' brian BSer"]I call the models B.S.........[QUOTE]

....... says "lyin' brian BSer", who has no science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc for its proudly held, but poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa, & errors of 1 million TIMES, 1000 TIMES, 3000 TIMES, 73 million TIMES, & 2.5+ trillion TIMES, & is a slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AND 4 time alleged & 4time proud threatener.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#40020 Sep 30, 2013
Sunny wrote:
<quoted text>Space said Lucky us to move on to ACTION.
Does that mean you're moving past all the propaganda an moving onto the battle field?LMAO
Doubt it.

None of these warmists will even point out the hypocrisy of their biggest advocates (celebrities and politicians) as to their own carbon footprints. One would think that that would be such a tiny admission, but they all clam up and change the subject.

And don't dare question them as to their own CO2 with their incessant posts of global warming propaganda and irrelevant factoids.

They'd have to admit their own hypocrisy.

Which lends to the argument that if the 'experts' and spokesmen of the experts are so cavalier with their CO2 creation, then why should Joe Sixpack take it seriously?

If it's the same planet, why target some carbon producers, but not others?

Every little bit helps? Isn't that what they say?... of others, that is.

Sounds more and more like a phony crisis with each post they make. But they're too 'devoted' to see that.
gcaveman1

Laurel, MS

#40022 Sep 30, 2013
Only an anti-government tea-party-type denier (who can't tell the difference between two different graphs) would blame the government for coastal development.

As if beautiful sunrises and sunsets over the ocean had nothing to do with it. As if swimming weren't a favorite human pastime. As if there was never a desire to live close to a place with surfing and sailing and fishing and sunbathing. As if international trade wouldn't utilize anchorages for commerce.

Like New York City and San Francisco developed because of government subsidies. Like the shrimping and oystering industries in Louisiana could exist if the fishermen had to live 150 miles from the coast.

As if coastal development wasn't 500 years old in the USA and thousands of years old in the rest of the world.

As if private insurance companies were scrambling all over each other to write policies so that they could lose money.

Government subsidies contributed to the building of million dollar homes and some hotels on coasts but that's what Congress was paid to do by their rich contributors. Why do you think some in Congress (Republicunts maybe) oppose the flood insurance premium rate increases now?

Some anti-government teabaggers seem to be in favor of shutting Florida down and killing the fishing industries of Texas and Louisiana.

Why would a denier from Florida, who can't read a graph and only lives a few dozen feet above sea level, favor the loss of flood insurance while calling his neighbors stupid for living there? Why would someone who lives where there are visitors like Charley, Francis, Jeanne, and Fay call his neighbors stupid? Would a denier who lived there ever wonder why the chicken crosses the road?
gcaveman1

Laurel, MS

#40023 Sep 30, 2013
How insulated from reality must one be to believe that no one visits the polar regions?

How stupid must one be to believe that everyone sleeps at night?

How ignorant of science must a person be not to have heard of research ships and robot buoys?

As unrealistic, stupid, and ignorant as a person named, oh, say, Brian!
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#40024 Sep 30, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
Only an anti-government tea-party-type denier (who can't tell the difference between two different graphs) would blame the government for coastal development.
As if beautiful sunrises and sunsets over the ocean had nothing to do with it. As if swimming weren't a favorite human pastime. As if there was never a desire to live close to a place with surfing and sailing and fishing and sunbathing. As if international trade wouldn't utilize anchorages for commerce.
Like New York City and San Francisco developed because of government subsidies. Like the shrimping and oystering industries in Louisiana could exist if the fishermen had to live 150 miles from the coast.
As if coastal development wasn't 500 years old in the USA and thousands of years old in the rest of the world.
As if private insurance companies were scrambling all over each other to write policies so that they could lose money.
Government subsidies contributed to the building of million dollar homes and some hotels on coasts but that's what Congress was paid to do by their rich contributors. Why do you think some in Congress (Republicunts maybe) oppose the flood insurance premium rate increases now?
Some anti-government teabaggers seem to be in favor of shutting Florida down and killing the fishing industries of Texas and Louisiana.
Why would a denier from Florida, who can't read a graph and only lives a few dozen feet above sea level, favor the loss of flood insurance while calling his neighbors stupid for living there? Why would someone who lives where there are visitors like Charley, Francis, Jeanne, and Fay call his neighbors stupid? Would a denier who lived there ever wonder why the chicken crosses the road?
Huh? What are... or what? Huh?

Are you low on your CO2 emissions for the day?

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#40025 Sep 30, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Oz loves China. He needs to get a T-shirt that says Oz hearts China.
Do you want the German example instead ? If it wasn't for American Tea Party'rs the US would be far further advanced in recovery from the GFC. They have issues with breathing, let alone running a government. Home grown American Taliban that seems more of an appropriate label than tea party. Which is a lot more destructive than anything the Chinese or anyone else is doing for that matter.
gcaveman1

Laurel, MS

#40026 Sep 30, 2013
Huh? What?

It is unfortunate that some people cannot make logical connections.

It is also unfortunate that some do not know how to use a handy little tool called Google.

And it's really sad to know of people who have no sense of humor.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#40027 Sep 30, 2013
I think climate change alarmists are here for the political motivation. They don't seem to grasp the scientific theory-observational data connection.
They also seem to promote the anti American UN agenda. In fact, I wonder how many people in that crowd on this forum have honest ISP's?

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#40028 Sep 30, 2013
I'm building a data base of my own. It will be fun when my observations are revealed. Climate change is pseudo science at its worst. Get ready to be astounded!

LOL

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#40029 Sep 30, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
Huh? What?
It is unfortunate that some people cannot make logical connections.
It is also unfortunate that some do not know how to use a handy little tool called Google.
BINGO, son!!!!!!

some people can't make a rational connection between actual observations vs. the corrupt IPCC 'consensus'.(btw....consensus has nothing to do with science)

IF ONLY THOSE DOLTS WOULD........google the real science and also research just how corrupt the UN and the IPCC actually is....then maybe they would act like respectable and honorable citizens. But....I don't think many alarmists are really US citizens anyway.
gcaveman1

Laurel, MS

#40030 Sep 30, 2013
When the leaders of the scientific movement against climate change travel, it is hoped that their message produces reductions in emissions equal to or greater than the emissions they produce. Therefore, their carbon footprint is the cost of education, and is not considered important.

It is considered important, however, by desperate denialists searching for any excuse to denigrate the efforts of these committed individuals. They see hypocrisy where there is none and accuse supporters of it without proof of what those supporters are doing.

Therefore, this red herring is a big stinking pile of rotted fish that means absolutely nothing.

But a desperate denier will continue to harp on the subject because he has nothing else with which to wage this war to which he is so devoted. He has no argument; he has no science on his side. What else would you expect of desperation?

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#40031 Sep 30, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
I think climate change alarmists are here for the political motivation. They don't seem to grasp the scientific theory-observational data connection.
They also seem to promote the anti American UN agenda. In fact, I wonder how many people in that crowd on this forum have honest ISP's?
Here we go, if nothing else to offer the ole "UN commie plot" comes out. Can you enlighten us on who will be the winners and losers in emission regulations. All I can see is Green Tech being the winner and a whole new economy springing from it. The losers well, I guess the fossil fuel industry. But how does that equate to an anti American agenda when all of the most prominent anti American countries are oil producers. Also America's biggest competitors are the highest emitters, so go figure. You think its a UN plot designed to hurt the US. Please give me a break!

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) 14 min THE DEVIL 1,277,141
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 1 hr Cheftell 70,160
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 1 hr Ferrerman 100,649
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 hr Jacques Ottawa 196,952
Clare rios 1 hr Lol dumbaz 2
Double Word Game (Dec '11) 2 hr RACE 1,723
Word (Dec '08) 2 hr RACE 5,428
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages