Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 54564 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.

Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#40119 Oct 2, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Just pass the budget and then use the process to address the Affordable Health Care Act if that is what they want to do. It is pathetic to hold the nation hostage because they don't like a law that was passed legally by the government. Get on with the buisness of the nation and quit whining.
"hold the nation hostage"

It's obvious your partisan politics have trumped reason in this discussion.

Just like global warming, income inequality, and the role of government.

Run along... adults are talking here.
Cut n paste

Minneapolis, MN

#40120 Oct 2, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
But we really get tired of "I told you so" before it happens. This forum has been all about factual information from the warming side and your lot not acknowledging any of it.
So this forum (2008~Once Slow-Moving Threat, Global Warming Speeds Up...) has been all about factual information??? Yes, that is why your side is wrong. This forum starts out with a false premise and tries to build on it's error. We (our "lot") are simply pointing out the fallacies of your positions.

You say CO2 is a GHG... Fine
You say Man adds CO2 to the air... Fine!
You say the Earth is Warming... Fine!!!

See, we agree (and if you would check ALL THE THREADS you will find that I have been consistent in my position on the above three agreed upon points) so where is the problem?

The problem is you gays don't stop there. You go on to claim the opinions of people you do not even know are facts.

You have your opinions about our future climate and I have mine. My opinion is based on reason and logic that you believers have yet to challenge (only insults and denial on your part) and your opinions are based on false logic, the opinions of others and fear mongering.

Once you learn the difference between fact and opinion you too will find the flaws of your arguments.

There is nothing wrong with your facts... it's the conclusions (opinions) that are silly.
B as in B S as in S

Minneapolis, MN

#40121 Oct 2, 2013
You have your opinions about our future climate and I have mine.

My opinion is based on reason and logic and you believers have yet to challenge them. You only offer insults and denial in your objections to my points.

Your opinions are based on the opinions of others, false logic, the and fear mongering.

Global Warming has proven to be a good thing for civilization and there is little evidence (other than computer models) that a future of higher levels of CO2 in the air will be harmful. In FACT, every atmospheric CO2 experiment has shown the benevolence of higher levels of Carbon Dioxide.

At the levels we are ALL talking about: CO2 is life giving food... NOT a poison.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#40122 Oct 2, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
"hold the nation hostage"
It's obvious your partisan politics have trumped reason in this discussion.
Just like global warming, income inequality, and the role of government.
Run along... adults are talking here.
That is exactly what they are doing, holding the nation hostage. There is no reasoning on their part. Just temper tantrums. They want it and they are going to destroy all reason to get it. Just like how they have turned their back on science and income inequality.
What do they want? Power at any cost? It is Party above Nation. Grow up, hun.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#40123 Oct 2, 2013
Cut n paste wrote:
<quoted text>
So this forum (2008~Once Slow-Moving Threat, Global Warming Speeds Up...) has been all about factual information??? Yes, that is why your side is wrong. This forum starts out with a false premise and tries to build on it's error. We (our "lot") are simply pointing out the fallacies of your positions.
You say CO2 is a GHG... Fine
You say Man adds CO2 to the air... Fine!
You say the Earth is Warming... Fine!!!
See, we agree (and if you would check ALL THE THREADS you will find that I have been consistent in my position on the above three agreed upon points) so where is the problem?
The problem is you gays don't stop there. You go on to claim the opinions of people you do not even know are facts.
You have your opinions about our future climate and I have mine. My opinion is based on reason and logic that you believers have yet to challenge (only insults and denial on your part) and your opinions are based on false logic, the opinions of others and fear mongering.
Once you learn the difference between fact and opinion you too will find the flaws of your arguments.
There is nothing wrong with your facts... it's the conclusions (opinions) that are silly.
You do not base your opinions about global warming on science, exactly what do you base them upon?
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#40124 Oct 2, 2013
B as in B S as in S wrote:
You have your opinions about our future climate and I have mine.
My opinion is based on reason and logic and you believers have yet to challenge them. You only offer insults and denial in your objections to my points.
Your opinions are based on the opinions of others, false logic, the and fear mongering.
Global Warming has proven to be a good thing for civilization and there is little evidence (other than computer models) that a future of higher levels of CO2 in the air will be harmful. In FACT, every atmospheric CO2 experiment has shown the benevolence of higher levels of Carbon Dioxide.
At the levels we are ALL talking about: CO2 is life giving food... NOT a poison.
You are WRONG in your head.

From MIT Technology Review:

Solar, nuclear, and other non-fossil-­fuel energy sources need to be developed now, before carbon emissions get out of hand. MIT alumni could play a prominent part in discovering the technology needed to keep us all going. And there are fortunes to be made from the effort. It’s worth thinking about.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#40125 Oct 2, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
That is exactly what they are doing, holding the nation hostage. There is no reasoning on their part. Just temper tantrums. They want it and they are going to destroy all reason to get it. Just like how they have turned their back on science and income inequality.
What do they want? Power at any cost? It is Party above Nation. Grow up, hun.
And the three different spending bills sent to the Senate, and rejected without discussion or compromise?

Never let facts get in the way of your arguments, right?
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#40126 Oct 2, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
You do not base your opinions about global warming on science, exactly what do you base them upon?
You mean the same science advocates cite then ignore?

That science?
Cut n Paste

Minneapolis, MN

#40127 Oct 2, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
...your opinions about global warming on science, exactly what do you base them upon?
A very good day to you, sir.
Thanks for asking Patriot AKA Bozo.
Like you... I base my opinions in part, on the scientific FACTS that we both agree upon:

CO2 is a GHG.
Man adds CO2 to the air.
Earth is Warming.

and...

There has never ever been a precedent for a Global Warming "Tipping Point".
There has never ever been a precedent for this planet having too much CO2.

That is part of the foundation for my opinions regarding "The Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide Driven Catastrophic Global Climate Disruption Orthodoxy" that is currently being so 'hotly' debated :-)

As for climate science claims... I respectfully suggest that it would behoove everyone to sort fact from opinion before one believes in the infallibility of The Prophets of The Carbon Dioxide Cataclysm.

Sincerely yours,
koolaid

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#40128 Oct 2, 2013
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#40129 Oct 2, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Just pass the budget and then use the process to address the Affordable Health Care Act if that is what they want to do. It is pathetic to hold the nation hostage because they don't like a law that was passed legally by the government. Get on with the buisness of the nation and quit whining.
What process to address obamacare? Harry Reid tables most everything the house sends to the senate. Obamacare was passed and yet we have a president, by executive order, who picks and chooses what part of the law he wants enforced or not enforced. So the house goes through the proper channels to get the individual mandate delayed, but they are the ones who are holding the government "hostage." My questions is why does Harry Reid think it is ok for the president to delay his own law, but it is "hostage" taking when the republicans ask for the same delay for the individual? All Harry Reid and the democrats in the senate have to do is say ok to a delay on the individual mandate and the government would be up and running again. Why is the individual mandate delay a bad thing?
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#40130 Oct 2, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
As with global warming, so with healthcare legislation.
And Representative Peter King told the Washington Post he was "the only one who spoke strongly in opposition" to the shutdown, describing his conservative colleagues as "living in their own echo chamber, hearing themselves and talking to each other".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-243...
This is more than the House Republicans relentlessly pushing an advantage to wring some concessions out of the president. Their leadership looks and feels trapped. They made demands that they knew wouldn't be met rather than be accused of weakness and betrayal by their own hardliners.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-243...
The Republican leadership looks and feels trapped - they made demands that they knew wouldn't be met rather than be accused of weakness and betrayal by their own hardliners”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-243...
The political class live in their own echo chamber.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#40131 Oct 2, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>You are WRONG in your head.
From MIT Technology Review:
Solar, nuclear, and other non-fossil-­fuel energy sources need to be developed now, before carbon emissions get out of hand. MIT alumni could play a prominent part in discovering the technology needed to keep us all going. And there are fortunes to be made from the effort. It’s worth thinking about.
Well where have they been? I would think the smartest of the smart would have already been working on the technology. What are they waiting for?
Teaparty4everMEn U

Sonoma, CA

#40132 Oct 2, 2013
Ham, we did it! We shut the gubmint down! Folks will still whine and cry for all the stuff, the education, the security, the food, the hospitals, the medicines, the roads, the parks, the water, air and the whole shebang...and we can sell sorta reasonable facsimiles of the same services they so willingly let us cut down like weeds in a field. The big diff is we can SELL that that back to 'em, after a fashion, and only to the highest bidders. Rent a vault, the BIG COIN is a coming in! You jerks what is calling us Reichspublicans can go suck where your teeth used to rest.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#40136 Oct 2, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
And the three different spending bills sent to the Senate, and rejected without discussion or compromise?
Never let facts get in the way of your arguments, right?
If they send a clean bill, then perhaps the Senate can act upon it.
San Fran Wacko

Lakewood, NJ

#40137 Oct 2, 2013
Teaparty4everMEnU wrote:
Ham, we did it! We shut the gubmint down! Folks will still whine and cry for all the stuff, the education, the security, the food, the hospitals, the medicines, the roads, the parks, the water, air and the whole shebang...and we can sell sorta reasonable facsimiles of the same services they so willingly let us cut down like weeds in a field. The big diff is we can SELL that that back to 'em, after a fashion, and only to the highest bidders. Rent a vault, the BIG COIN is a coming in! You jerks what is calling us Reichspublicans can go suck where your teeth used to rest.
Obama-worship is bad for your health. LOL

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#40138 Oct 2, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
What process to address obamacare? Harry Reid tables most everything the house sends to the senate. Obamacare was passed and yet we have a president, by executive order, who picks and chooses what part of the law he wants enforced or not enforced. So the house goes through the proper channels to get the individual mandate delayed, but they are the ones who are holding the government "hostage." My questions is why does Harry Reid think it is ok for the president to delay his own law, but it is "hostage" taking when the republicans ask for the same delay for the individual? All Harry Reid and the democrats in the senate have to do is say ok to a delay on the individual mandate and the government would be up and running again. Why is the individual mandate delay a bad thing?
Just send a clean bill to the Senate. The Affordable Healthcare Bill is already in force. If they wish to deactivate it, let them do it upon its own merits. If deactivating the Healthcare Bill cannot stand on its own, perhaps they should move on.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#40139 Oct 2, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
If they send a clean bill, then perhaps the Senate can act upon it.
How silly.

I see you got your negotiation skills from Obama.

'Send me what I want, then we'll talk.'

Had Obamacare been a bipartisan bill it wouldn't get the opposition it is.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#40140 Oct 2, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Just send a clean bill to the Senate. The Affordable Healthcare Bill is already in force. If they wish to deactivate it, let them do it upon its own merits. If deactivating the Healthcare Bill cannot stand on its own, perhaps they should move on.
What a silly argument. The Constitution puts the responsibility of revenue bills on the House.

Ever heard of checks and balances?

Had Obamacare been a bipartisan bill, it wouldn't get the opposition it does.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#40141 Oct 2, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
How silly.
I see you got your negotiation skills from Obama.
'Send me what I want, then we'll talk.'
Had Obamacare been a bipartisan bill it wouldn't get the opposition it is.
Are you serious or what! It's those tea bag Republicans who are saying send me what i want, then we'll talk. After all this has been tested 2 times at the ballot box and once in the supreme court. That is what the law is, the fact that your lot can't accept it is too bad. Then screaming about the right to water it down so the scheme is totally useless is not acceptable either. If you think Obama will suffer at the ballot box because of this, then I hope your lot push it all the way. Then wait for the mid terms and see what happens.

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) 5 min Ben Frankly 1,277,432
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 13 min Rogue Scholar 05 196,982
Ask amy 9-2-15 49 min RACE 12
How to get into the USA. 56 min New Beach Boys Song 4
News Three Men Arrested for Oak Park Carjacking, Arm... 59 min They Shot da Cop 2
abby9-2-15 1 hr Mister Tonka 5
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 2 hr Ferrerman unplugg... 100,659
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages