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.

SpaceBlues

United States

#40485 Oct 8, 2013
Deniers unite for lies.. But the truth prevails!

By contrast, the study was well received by Muller's peers in climate science research. James Hansen, a leading climate scientist and head of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies commented that he had not read the research papers but was glad Muller was looking at the issue. He said "It should help inform those who have honest scepticism about global warming."[13] Phil Jones the director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA), said: "I look forward to reading the finalised paper once it has been reviewed and published. These initial findings are very encouraging and echo our own results and our conclusion that the impact of urban heat islands on the overall global temperature is minimal."[13] Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, commented that "...they get the same result that everyone else has gotten," and "that said, I think it's at least useful to see that even a critic like Muller, when he takes an honest look, finds that climate science is robust."[20] Peter Thorne, from the Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites in North Carolina and chair of the International Surface Temperature Initiative, said: "This takes a very distinct approach to the problem and comes up with the same answer, and that builds confidence that pre-existing estimates are in the right ballpark. There is very substantial value in having multiple groups looking at the same problem in different ways." [13] A scientist writing at RealClimate.org noted that it was unsurprising that BEST's results matched previous results so well. "Any of various simple statistical analyses of the freely available data ...show... that it was very very unlikely that the results would change," they wrote.[21][wikipedia]
B as in B S as in S

Eden Prairie, MN

#40486 Oct 8, 2013
Climate Science 'logic':
.
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
When did science become a religion?
.
The earth is warming.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Burning fossil fuels increases the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Ergo, man is causing global warming.
.
:-D
SpaceBlues

United States

#40487 Oct 8, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. You are more of an idiot than a hypocrite.
Waste, pollutants and inefficiency created the problem.
Reducing those will inevitably make the world more self sustaining and more robust against problems with supply of resources.
It will come. YOU don't have to worry. The smart ones will survive and they will do it because they AREN'T idiots.
The "idiot" in reference did not comprehend your post... just as mine goes over its minihead.

LOL.
Mothra

United States

#40488 Oct 8, 2013
>>It is important to understand that the IPCC report is not an original scientific inquiry but a wide-ranging literature review and “synthesis.” The technical nature of climate science is such that only other scientists can possibly follow it, and even that is doubtful, as the specialized nature of so many aspects of climate science is beyond the grasp of scientists who work in widely scattered subfields. Whether the domain of climate science can be “synthesized” in this way is a debatable question.

A close reading of some of the key passages shows that it cannot bear the weight of the sensationalized parts of the SPM, at least as rendered in the media. One of the most misleading aspects of this story is the way in which the SPM conveys a “95 percent confidence” or certainty of its findings, as though this figure represented a rigorous or robust test familiar to first-year students of statistical correlation. The IPCC’s methodology behind these conclusions is thoroughly opaque. When you strip away the fog, the IPCC admits these conclusions are “qualitative,” and based essentially on a poll of the self-selecting participants in the IPCC review process itself.

This is like polling the Romney campaign staff about how confident they are their candidate will win the election, and representing it as
the firm “consensus” of all political scientists. The IPCC’s main report finally admits that the methodology for their confidence calibrations is derived from social science, and that “confidence should not be interpreted probabilistically, and it is distinct from ‘statistical confidence.’&#8201;” You won’t see this admission reflected in any of the breathless news reports about the IPCC’s high confidence of our future doom.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/pay-no...
SpaceBlues

United States

#40489 Oct 8, 2013
PETM Shocker: When CO2 Levels Doubled 55 Million Years Ago, Global Temperatures May Have Jumped 9°F In 13 Years
Mothra

United States

#40490 Oct 8, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
PETM Shocker: When CO2 Levels Doubled 55 Million Years Ago, Global Temperatures May Have Jumped 9°F In 13 Years
Wow... that's some lens they have there to see 13 years out of 55,000,000.

Please, no more fantasy.
SpaceBlues

United States

#40491 Oct 8, 2013
welp...
SpaceBlues

United States

#40492 Oct 8, 2013
“There’s been a true disruption of the basic climate of the planet.”

“.. by adding large amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere,.. poking our climate system without being sure how it would respond,”...

.. spewing carbon pollution into the atmosphere .. is a very, very bad move.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#40493 Oct 8, 2013
B as in B S as in S wrote:
Climate Science 'logic':
.
<quoted text>
:-D
It would be interesting to dissect your logic....

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#40494 Oct 8, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
When you ask questions like SpaceBlues, I answer like I do to SpaceBlues.
If you care to try some adult conversation, you're more likely to get adult replies. You're just rehashing the 'appeal to authority' fallacy.
Apparently then, you have no science background. Leave it up to the grownups then. Fox and friends are not science.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#40495 Oct 8, 2013
sick 2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, woman whose grandpa make a skull out of plaster and claimed it was our ancestors.
It's apparent that what you don't know about paleontology, anatomy, and anthropology could fill volumes.
Mothra

United States

#40496 Oct 8, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently then, you have no science background. Leave it up to the grownups then. Fox and friends are not science.
Hmmm... SpaceBlues likes to copy-cat my posts too.

Goodness! You're devolving!

LOL
Yocal Pillbilly

Beckley, WV

#40497 Oct 8, 2013
Al Gore says to invest in the global warming scam, it has made him rich, it can enrich you to.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#40498 Oct 8, 2013
Yocal Pillbilly wrote:
Al Gore says to invest in the global warming scam, it has made him rich, it can enrich you to.
Correct, we want Big Al to be the Richest Green man on the planet. Just like those oil barons, who have sucked the lifeblood from the earth and upset the balance of nature. Big Al is here to fix it all, just keep buying anything he is selling the same way you made the oil barons rich.
Yocal Pillbilly

Beckley, WV

#40499 Oct 9, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct, we want Big Al to be the Richest Green man on the planet. Just like those oil barons, who have sucked the lifeblood from the earth and upset the balance of nature. Big Al is here to fix it all, just keep buying anything he is selling the same way you made the oil barons rich.
You mean the oil that makes your life easier each and every day? Hard to give up, huh?

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#40500 Oct 9, 2013
Yocal Pillbilly wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean the oil that makes your life easier each and every day? Hard to give up, huh?
Of course it's hard to give up, I like my fast cars as much as the next guy but what has got to be done has to be done. Just make it more expensive for me to use that car and I will look for alternatives or drive it less n less, that's how the market works. Not just deny there is no problem at all, it doesn't make it go away.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#40501 Oct 9, 2013
Jimenez Garcia wrote:
<quoted text>
My grandpa did the same job back then. He was a drinker. He told me they just made up many of the numbers when they drank a bit too much.
In modern meteorological stations, the thermometers are housed in a shelter (i.e., in the shade) to keep them from receiving direct sunlight, which would lead to higher readings. I would think that even the earlier designs (1920's-30's) would have taken that into consideration.

If the thermometers were in the shade "most" or "one-half" of the day, then the readings from the time they were in the sun would have been higher. That would give the false impression that their locations have cooled since 70-8- years ago.

Are you saying that all meteorologists are lying drunks? If so, I'll be needing some proof for that claim.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#40502 Oct 9, 2013
"That's interesting. I wondered who did those measurements and how they went about it. Was it done at the same time every day? Where the thermometers ever moved? Were logs kept of all those measurements?.. stuff like that."

Stuff like any idiot knows that not taking measurements at the same time every day would distort the record. Stuff like "No, the thermometers weren't moved; why would they be? Unless the whole site was moved. Stuff like "logs" are the whole purpose and result of stuff like that.

And perhaps most important to some here... was your grandfather a climate scientist?

The title you're looking for is meteorologist. That's what a person that does stuff like that is usually called.

The stupidity burns!
Retired Farmer

Paducah, KY

#40503 Oct 9, 2013
Government shutdown causes National Science Foundation to cancel this fiscal year's research in Antarctica. Because USA operates the airfield there, other countries may have to cancel as well.

http://news.discovery.com/earth/shutdown-canc...
litesong

Everett, WA

#40504 Oct 9, 2013
Retired Farmer wrote:
Government shutdown causes National Science Foundation to cancel this fiscal year's research in Antarctica. Because USA operates the airfield there, other countries may have to cancel as well.
http://news.discovery.com/earth/shutdown-canc...
Ah....... just what tea party & re-pubic-lick-un crooked politician toxic AGW deniers want. tea party & re-pubic-lick-un crooked politicians want smaller gov't. A shut down gov't makes for a smaller gov't......

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) 2 min Cheech the Conser... 1,523,586
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 6 min Dr Guru 240,408
last post wins! (Apr '13) 5 hr They cannot kill ... 2,473
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 6 hr They cannot kill ... 10,598
last post wins! (Dec '10) 7 hr honeymylove 3,125
Obumbler Back To Community Organizing 12 hr John Bearden 7
Cruel or Funny Pranks 14 hr AzzHoles 2

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages