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

Full story: Newsday 46,766
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Full Story
chief chickenfeathers

Denver, CO

#40263 Oct 4, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
It hasn't cooled down either, grandpa. The last decade is the warmest on record.
The "record" you speak of is a mere speck. You know that, don't you?
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#40264 Oct 4, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
You do know that even without all your cut/paste posts from government websites (closed by Obama as non-essential during the shutdown), you're still spewing more CO2 into the atmosphere, don't you?
Hypocrite.
Hypocrite!

How many posts you published since my last post?
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#40265 Oct 4, 2013
chief chickenfeathers wrote:
<quoted text>
seems to be a lot you don't know.
hahaha that's hard to know, huh?
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#40266 Oct 4, 2013
chief chickenfeathers wrote:
<quoted text>
Bad for the environment, don't 'cha know? No wind, no sun, no power.
Awww you lack comprehension.

Please learn what I informed you.. reprocess/recyle waste..

There's always wind, sun to make electricity... free, too. Independently, too.

What's there not to like solar or wind power? Remember the Japanese...
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#40267 Oct 4, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Hypocrite!
How many posts you published since my last post?
Search Results

hyp·o·crite
a person who claims or pretends to have certain beliefs about what is right but who behaves in a way that disagrees with those beliefs

You're the one lamenting all the CO2 yet you're the one spewing it.

Next time, look up the word... you won't be so foolish.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#40268 Oct 4, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you get a cookie every time you put "whine" into a post?
Oooo... and now a new word for the day...'obsession'.
But I guess Al Gore is just too important to you to dare criticize.
Al Gore is the only argument you seem to be able to support. You can pull out your fingers now and try to find a beter argument.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#40269 Oct 4, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>hahaha that's hard to know, huh?
Hard to know what you don't know?

Thanks for the gibberish.

And the atmosphere thanks you for all the new CO2 you added.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#40270 Oct 4, 2013
chief chickenfeathers wrote:
<quoted text>
The "record" you speak of is a mere speck. You know that, don't you?
But it is our speck.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#40271 Oct 4, 2013
chief chickenfeathers wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe. Conservatives are much more charitable than libs, libs are mostly all talk.
Who told you thast? Limpballs? Why do TP's want to take away the lifeline for the unfortunates.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#40272 Oct 4, 2013
chief chickenfeathers wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not proof.
Run for the chicken house, Chicken Little.
gcaveman1

Louin, MS

#40274 Oct 4, 2013
chief chickenfeathers wrote:
<quoted text>
The planet has been warming since the last ice age, that's why many have trouble believing your speculations, suppositions and theories that haven't come true. weren't we supposed to have calamitous hurricanes by the droves? pretty sure the fat man said that. Would you prefer I call your high priest big oil Al?
Another one GORED!

Will they ever learn to get out of the way?
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#40275 Oct 4, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>To another:

Run for the chicken house, Chicken Little.
Too many chickens, too little time..
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#40276 Oct 4, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Who told you thast? Limpballs? Why do TP's want to take away the lifeline for the unfortunates.
>>According to Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks, they do. Dr. Brooks, a professor of public administration at Syracuse’s Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, was quite astounded with the results of his own research, which was so at variance with the common perception of the generous “liberal” and the Scrooge-like “conservative.”

In his book, Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservativism (Basic Books, 2006), Brooks discovered that approximately equal percentages of liberals and conservatives give to private charitable causes. However, conservatives gave about 30 percent more money per year to private charitable causes, even though his study found liberal families earned an average of 6 percent more per year in income than did conservative families. This greater generosity among conservative families proved to be true in Brooks’ research for every income group,“from poor to middle class to rich.”

This “giving gap” also extended beyond money to time donated to charitable causes, as well. Brooks also discovered that in 2002, conservative Americans were much more likely to donate blood each year than liberals and to do so more often within a year. Brooks found “if liberals and moderates gave blood at the same rate as conservatives, the blood supply in the United States would jump by about 45 percent.”

When Brooks compared his findings to IRS data on the percentage of household income given away, he found that “red” states in the 2004 election were more charitable than “blue” states. Brooks found that 24 of the 25 states that were above average in family charitable giving voted for Bush in 2004, and 17 of the 25 states below average in giving voted for Kerry. Brooks concluded,“The electoral map and the charity map are remarkably similar.”

Read more: http://blog.beliefnet.com/castingstones/2008/...
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#40277 Oct 4, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>To another:

Another one GORED!
Will they ever learn to get out of the way?
It works for them..
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#40278 Oct 4, 2013
Stage 2: Deny We're the Cause

Once people move beyond denying that the problem exists, they often move to the next stage, denying that we're responsible. John Christy and Roy Spencer took this approach by disputing the accuracy of global climate models in The Daily Mail and The Christian Post, respectively. Spencer was quite explicit about this:

...we deny "that most [current climate change] is human-caused, and that it is a threat to future generations that must be addressed by the global community."

Christy and Spencer made their case by comparing the outputs of 73 climate models to satellite temperature measurements, and showing that the models seemed to predict more warming than has been observed. But the comparison was not of surface temperatures, or of the lowermost layer of the atmosphere, or even any measurement global average temperatures. They specifically looked at measurements of the temperature of the middle troposphere (TMT) in the tropics.

There's certainly nothing wrong with examining this particular subset of temperature data, but it's a bit of an odd choice on the face of it. The real problem lies in the fact that satellite measurements of TMT are highly uncertain. In fact, estimates of the TMT trend by different scientific groups vary wildly, despite using the same raw satellite data.

Another problem is that the stratosphere (the layer of the atmosphere above the troposphere) is cooling – an expected consequence of the increased greenhouse effect. But some of the cooling stratosphere bleeds into the TMT data, leading to another cool bias. While there is a discrepancy between model simulations and measurements of tropical troposphere temperatures, it's not clear how much (if any) is due to the models being wrong, and how much is due to errors in the measurements. As a U.S. Climate Change Science Program report co-authored by John Christy concluded,

"This difference between models and observations may arise from errors that are common to all models, from errors in the observational data sets, or from a combination of these factors. The second explanation is favored, but the issue is still open."

However, in mainstream media interviews and editorials, Christy and Spencer always fail to mention the possibility that the problem could lie more in the measurements than the models, which frankly is intellectually dishonest. Additionally, climate models have done very well in projecting long-term global surface temperature changes.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#40279 Oct 4, 2013
[QUOTE who="SpaceBlues"
[/QUOTE]

Poof!

Another huge cloud of CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere -- for no reason.

Hypocrite.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#40280 Oct 4, 2013
Stage 3: Deny It's a Problem

Once they've progressed through the first two stages and admitted global warming is happening and human-caused, contrarians generally move on to Stage 3, denying it's a problem. Lomborg and Ridley did their best Tony the Tiger impressions in The Washington Post and Murdoch's Wall Street Journal, respectively, arguing that global warming is 'Grrrrreat!'(or at least nothing to worry about).

I've previously discussed why this argument is a complete risk management failure. When faced with a potentially catastrophic outcome for something as important as the global climate, it's a no-brainer to take action to make sure we avoid that possible outcome. Moreover, Lomborg's and Ridley's arguments are based on cherry picking data. For example, Lomborg talks about how droughts have not worsened in the United States, according to the IPCC, but fails to mention that the IPCC predicts that US droughts will intensify over the next century.

In his editorial, Ridley takes a rosy view about the impact of climate change on crop yields that is not supported by the scientific research. He argues that climate impacts won't be bad in a middle-of-the-road emissions scenario, but as Climate Progress reports, the scientist on whose work Ridley based this argument previously explained,

"In his article, Mr. Ridley is just plain wrong about future global warming."

Moreover, by painting an unjustifiably rosy picture and thus misleading the public, he's helping to ensure that we'll blow past that middling greenhouse gas emissions scenario (which requires significant emissions reductions efforts) and commit ourselves to much worse climate change consequences.

Stage 4: Deny We can Solve It

In his editorial, Roy Spencer bounced between the second and fourth stages of global warming denial, also claiming that solving the problem is too expensive and will hurt the poor. In reality the opposite is true.

Spencer specifically attacked renewable energy like wind power as being too expensive. In reality, wind power is already cheaper than coal, even without considering the added climate damage costs from coal carbon emissions. When including those very real costs, solar power is also already cheaper than coal. Additionally, the poorest countries are generally the most vulnerable to climate change. Listening to Spencer and continuing to cause rapid climate change is what will really hurt the poor.

Stage 5: It's too Late

Stage 5 global warming denial involves arguing that it's too late to solve the problem, so we shouldn't bother trying (though few climate contrarians have reached this level). Unfortunately this stage can be self-fulfilling. If we wait too long to address the problem, we may end up committing ourselves to catastrophic climate change.

The good news is that we still have time to avoid a catastrophic outcome. The more emissions reductions we can achieve, the less the impacts of climate change will be. The challenge lies in achieving those greenhouse gas emissions reductions when Rupert Murdoch's media empire and other news outlets are spreading climate misinformation and denial.

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#40281 Oct 4, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Poof!
Another huge cloud of CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere -- for no reason.
Hypocrite.
you left out "liar". it's documented many times and confirmed for all to see.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#40282 Oct 4, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
>>According to Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks, they do. Dr. Brooks, a professor of public administration at Syracuse’s Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, was quite astounded with the results of his own research, which was so at variance with the common perception of the generous “liberal” and the Scrooge-like “conservative.”
In his book, Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservativism (Basic Books, 2006), Brooks discovered that approximately equal percentages of liberals and conservatives give to private charitable causes. However, conservatives gave about 30 percent more money per year to private charitable causes, even though his study found liberal families earned an average of 6 percent more per year in income than did conservative families. This greater generosity among conservative families proved to be true in Brooks’ research for every income group,“from poor to middle class to rich.”
This “giving gap” also extended beyond money to time donated to charitable causes, as well. Brooks also discovered that in 2002, conservative Americans were much more likely to donate blood each year than liberals and to do so more often within a year. Brooks found “if liberals and moderates gave blood at the same rate as conservatives, the blood supply in the United States would jump by about 45 percent.”
When Brooks compared his findings to IRS data on the percentage of household income given away, he found that “red” states in the 2004 election were more charitable than “blue” states. Brooks found that 24 of the 25 states that were above average in family charitable giving voted for Bush in 2004, and 17 of the 25 states below average in giving voted for Kerry. Brooks concluded,“The electoral map and the charity map are remarkably similar.”
Read more: http://blog.beliefnet.com/castingstones/2008/...
Other studies show that the giving is about equal. But I suppose it may depend upon whose definition of conservatives and liberals one uses.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm...
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#40283 Oct 4, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>you left out "liar". it's documented many times and confirmed for all to see.
Indeed. The whole world knows you are committed as LIAR.

Your lies are your excuse for existing, pathetic for others to see.

You have no skills including no science, no mathematics, no morals.

BWAHAHAHAHA

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
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min LibTards Unite 1,110,334
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 16 min Learn to Read 178,145
Word (Dec '08) 50 min andet1987 4,728
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 58 min MaryanMattie 49,888
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 1 hr _Zoey_ 4,717
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 2 hr Faith 68,521
is there any girl frm ghaziabad .... 2 hr ayush11gupta 1
•••
•••

Chicago Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••