Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 54341 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

#41104 Nov 3, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
I would expect the same from you since you have little real evidence to offer. Are you educated or uneducated? The rest we know.
"Real" evidence?

Warmists cannot even make the tiniest concession that Al Gore is a global warming hypocrite (and so is Space Blues).

As that concept is too hard to grasp why should I think you can advance past that baby step?
Retired Farmer

Hopkinsville, KY

#41105 Nov 3, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
WASHINGTON (AP)- Many of the ills of the modern world - starvation, poverty, flooding, heat waves, droughts, war and disease - are likely to worsen as the world warms from man-made climate change, a leaked draft of an international scientific report forecasts.
The report uses the word "exacerbate" repeatedly to describe warming's effect on poverty, lack of water, disease and even the causes of war.
The Nobel Peace Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will issue a report next March on how global warming is already affecting the way people live and what will happen in the future, including a worldwide drop in income. A leaked copy of a draft of the summary of the report appeared online Friday on a climate skeptic's website. Governments will spend the next few months making comments about the draft.
"We've seen a lot of impacts and they've had consequences," Carnegie Institution climate scientist Chris Field, who heads the report, told The Associated Press on Saturday. "And we will see more in the future."
Cities, where most of the world now lives, have the highest vulnerability, as do the globe's poorest people.
"Throughout the 21st century, climate change impacts will slow down economic growth and poverty reduction, further erode food security and trigger new poverty traps, the latter particularly in urban areas and emerging hotspots of hunger," the report says. "Climate change will exacerbate poverty in low- and lower-middle income countries and create new poverty pockets in upper-middle to high-income countries with increasing inequality."
That report is saying nothing that the U.S. Army wasn't saying almost 20 years ago. See textbook for DGSC course C520:

U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, C520 OPERATIONS OTHER THAN WAR (2 January 1995).
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#41106 Nov 3, 2013
Retired Farmer wrote:
<quoted text>
That report is saying nothing that the U.S. Army wasn't saying almost 20 years ago. See textbook for DGSC course C520:
U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, C520 OPERATIONS OTHER THAN WAR (2 January 1995).
I know. But our resident idiots claim it's all a hoax and everyone but them has been taken in.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#41107 Nov 3, 2013
One of the things in how nature works is that it only takes what it needs to survive. A plant or tree will only take nutrients from the soil in order to grow. A lion will only kill the prey it needs to survive. Man is the only one in that chain that takes more than is needed to survive. Humans horde, be it property, possessions, or natural resources and that upsets the balance of nature. Burning of fossil fuels is a classic example of how an abundant resource is abused to upset the balance somewhere else in the worse possible way, CLIMATE! Which is all powerful & unforgiving, it is what we need for our very survival. Yet the ignorant choose to ignore the warnings. Despite Science giving us the answers to interact with nature in far less threatening way.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#41108 Nov 3, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
One of the things in how nature works is that it only takes what it needs to survive. A plant or tree will only take nutrients from the soil in order to grow. A lion will only kill the prey it needs to survive. Man is the only one in that chain that takes more than is needed to survive. Humans horde, be it property, possessions, or natural resources and that upsets the balance of nature. Burning of fossil fuels is a classic example of how an abundant resource is abused to upset the balance somewhere else in the worse possible way, CLIMATE! Which is all powerful & unforgiving, it is what we need for our very survival. Yet the ignorant choose to ignore the warnings. Despite Science giving us the answers to interact with nature in far less threatening way.
If humans behaved the way you desribe over the millennia, they would have wiped themselves off the face of the planet. Some did indeed, like romans, ancient greeks.. Even their languages are dead.

The same will happen in the coming decades. The spenders will spend themselves away to the grave.. They can't be the survivors naturally.
Retired Farmer

Hopkinsville, KY

#41110 Nov 4, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>If humans behaved the way you desribe over the millennia, they would have wiped themselves off the face of the planet. Some did indeed, like romans, ancient greeks.. Even their languages are dead.
The same will happen in the coming decades. The spenders will spend themselves away to the grave.. They can't be the survivors naturally.
An archaeologist who dug on my farm once told me that there is a hypothesis that all civilizations have a built in self destruct mechanism. At first increased organization and stability leads to greater food production, which in turn feeds a larger and larger population. Greater exploitation of the land and other resources leads to environmental degradation. All civilizations then tend to concentrate wealth and power at the top, and in the process impoverish everybody else. The demands on the rich and powerful few on the great mass for more and more work, more and more contribution to their wealth, causes the mass to eventually revolt. The civilization then collapses into chaos. The people move away into the wilderness.

Today, for the first time, we have a global civilization. There is no wilderness to move away to. So we may get a global version of Easter Island.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#41111 Nov 4, 2013
Retired Farmer wrote:
<quoted text>
An archaeologist who dug on my farm once told me that there is a hypothesis that all civilizations have a built in self destruct mechanism. At first increased organization and stability leads to greater food production, which in turn feeds a larger and larger population. Greater exploitation of the land and other resources leads to environmental degradation. All civilizations then tend to concentrate wealth and power at the top, and in the process impoverish everybody else. The demands on the rich and powerful few on the great mass for more and more work, more and more contribution to their wealth, causes the mass to eventually revolt. The civilization then collapses into chaos. The people move away into the wilderness.
Today, for the first time, we have a global civilization. There is no wilderness to move away to. So we may get a global version of Easter Island.
True. However, others have survived even the invading english, french, spanish, japanese,.. in our recent history, the Palestinians.. still.

You can imagine Iceland, Greenland, Canada, Siberia, Argentina, Norway, Nepal, Sahara, Brazil,.. being safer. Wilderness is not the answer but communities that share what they have.
Retired Farmer

Hopkinsville, KY

#41112 Nov 4, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>True. However, others have survived even the invading english, french, spanish, japanese,.. in our recent history, the Palestinians.. still.
You can imagine Iceland, Greenland, Canada, Siberia, Argentina, Norway, Nepal, Sahara, Brazil,.. being safer. Wilderness is not the answer but communities that share what they have.
You are ignoring the global nature of the coming catastrophe. True, there are now "islands" that are safer and where communities share the resources more equally. However, those island communities are still part of the global economy-environment. A disaster will cut them off from the resources, no matter how they share those resources internally.

Interesting that you mentioned the survival of the Palestinians. True, they have survived under oppressive Israeli occupation. But think what would happen if the Israelis cut off all outside supplies to Gaza. The place is the world's biggest prison now, a concentration camp. And the Israelis have just announced plans to build a wall along the Jordan River so that they can control the borders of any future Palestinian state that might come into being on the West Bank. They are in essence building an even bigger prison. And, knowing the vicious nature of some of the extreme Zionists in Israel as I do, I cannot help but think that eventually shutting off supplies and starving out the Palestinians is in their future plans.

All they need to put the plan into operation is a big war to cover and "justify" it and U.S. protection to prevent the rest of the world from coming to the Palestinians' rescue. Given the level of Islamophobia and hatred of Arabs/Muslims in the U.S. today, I'm not so sure that the American would not support such a genocide either. I even know preachers who, although they say that it is "terrible," think that a genocide of the Palestinians/all Arabs is inevitable because it is pre-destined to happen by Bible prophecy!
Retired Farmer

Hopkinsville, KY

#41113 Nov 4, 2013
Those same preachers are the ones who either deny that Global Warming is impossible because the climate is controlled by God and humans are powerless to affect it or contend that disastrous climate change, however induced, is God's will. It is pre-destined to happen so that the Plagues of the Apocalypse can happen. I have had a bitter run in with one of them, a fellow that I have promised - not threatened, but promised - that if he ever walks up to my door again and starts preaching this stuff to me, he will not walk away under his own power. He will be carried.
litesong

Monroe, WA

#41114 Nov 4, 2013
Retired Farmer wrote:
Those same preachers........ He will be carried.
Sounds like a movie on the SyFy channel... pitch forks at 3 paces.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#41115 Nov 4, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
"Real" evidence?
Warmists cannot even make the tiniest concession that Al Gore is a global warming hypocrite (and so is Space Blues).
As that concept is too hard to grasp why should I think you can advance past that baby step?
As usual, the ubiquitous misdirection. Apparently you have nothing "real" to contribute.
Retired Farmer

Hopkinsville, KY

#41116 Nov 4, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Sounds like a movie on the SyFy channel... pitch forks at 3 paces.
No pitchforks. I keep a broken drive axle from an old Allis-Chalmers tractor beside the door. It is a steel rod about an inch in diameter, a little over 2 feet long, and it has a bevel gear about 3 inches in diameter on one end. It makes one hell of a good mace.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#41117 Nov 4, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
As usual, the ubiquitous misdirection. Apparently you have nothing "real" to contribute.
C'mon... you can say it.

Repeat after me...

"Al Gore is a global warming hypocrite."

Take the baby step.
Coal is King

Hopkinsville, KY

#41118 Nov 4, 2013
More voices from the coalfields:

From Clay Center, KY:

"China, India and third world countries are burning coal and will continue to do so, that is not in dispute, easy to confirm.

It is a scientific fact that the carbon and other elements China, India and the 3rd world countries pump into the atmosphere does not stay in their countries.

The Kyoto Protocol and our stupid EPA regs might have made more since it the burning of coal was banned world wide and every country had to stop burning it. As it stands the largest polluters will be able to burn as much coal as they want and will continue to increase the amount of coal they use.

What good does it do for the President and the EPA to stop our coal production and shut down our coal fired power plants when others are still pumping carbon into the atmosphere? Why are we the ones destroying our economy by driving electrical prices beyond what we will be able to afford with no viable alternative energy in sight? Why are we destroying our local economy and the countries economy for something that is not making one iota's worth of difference?

I know the big plan it to make coal so expensive that the renewables will be able to get a foothold in the energy market and for the government to rake in billions from the carbon tax. Thing is the renewable energy sources are not doable at this time and we are shutting down coal fired plants with no power generation from alternative sources to replace the Power We Lose. Yes they can shut down Louisa and AEP can buy power off the grid at a higher rate but how many coal fired plants can you shut down with nothing on line to replace the power you lose.
It is like a firing squad formed in a circle! The most absolute stupidest concept ever developed by a left wing Democrat. You keep taking power off line provided by coal and hoping power will become so expensive that the alternative sources will come on line. That is a dangerous GD gamble if no other renewable sources are made ready to step in as we lose coal fired powered power plants.
It takes years just to get a nuclear plant approved then 10 years or more to build one. It takes years to get a hydroelectric dam approved and years to build one. You can't have solar when the sun don't shine and you can't put the grid on batteries at night when it don't. Just a stupid concept that no one understands how it got this far with anyone with any common sense not stopping this nonsense before he destroys the country.

He is not making a nickels worth of difference on carbon emissions into the atmosphere because he can't make India and China quit burning it."
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#41119 Nov 4, 2013
American coal country is in a contradictory position. Increases in productivity cut the industryís employment by tens of thousands over the last few decades, the natural gas boom thatís eaten away at coalís share of the power sector may be about to bust, but itís not clear coal can expand to take advantage of the opening.

So at a Congressional hearing last week ó looking into the impact on coal-dependent communities of new regulations for power plants ó the anger was palpable, if also confused.

Earlier this year, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced limits on carbon dioxide emissions from new power plants. Limits for already operating power plants will be released in 2014. Given the strictness of the rules, and the fact that coal is by far the power sectorís most carbon-intensive fossil fuel, critics have called the regulations an effective ban on new coal plants.[JeffSpross]
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#41120 Nov 4, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
American coal country is in a contradictory position. Increases in productivity cut the industryís employment by tens of thousands over the last few decades, the natural gas boom thatís eaten away at coalís share of the power sector may be about to bust, but itís not clear coal can expand to take advantage of the opening.
So at a Congressional hearing last week ó looking into the impact on coal-dependent communities of new regulations for power plants ó the anger was palpable, if also confused.
Earlier this year, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced limits on carbon dioxide emissions from new power plants. Limits for already operating power plants will be released in 2014. Given the strictness of the rules, and the fact that coal is by far the power sectorís most carbon-intensive fossil fuel, critics have called the regulations an effective ban on new coal plants.[JeffSpross]
The productivity improvement was accomplished mainly through mountaintop removal, from what I understand; an infinitely more destructive and automation friendly process, without the inherent dangers of below-ground mines; and so, fewer coal miners required.

And, as you said, the natural gas boom, along with the steady growth of the solar and wind sectors, has cut into both demand and employment.

The EPA is more or less kicking a dead horse. Individuals like "Coal used to be king" can't relate to the historic changes happening now, and needs to find someone to blame. Obama, the EPA, etc. are convenient scapegoats, but they have little to do with the changes in the energy industry right now.
Jay

United States

#41121 Nov 4, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The productivity improvement was accomplished mainly through mountaintop removal, from what I understand; an infinitely more destructive and automation friendly process, without the inherent dangers of below-ground mines; and so, fewer coal miners required.
And, as you said, the natural gas boom, along with the steady growth of the solar and wind sectors, has cut into both demand and employment.
The EPA is more or less kicking a dead horse. Individuals like "Coal used to be king" can't relate to the historic changes happening now, and needs to find someone to blame. Obama, the EPA, etc. are convenient scapegoats, but they have little to do with the changes in the energy industry right now.
"growth of solar power"...yeah our taxpayer money made a shit load with government grants & loan guarantees didn't we? Shades of Solyndra, Abound and so many others totally bust and bankrupt.

You are nothing but Soylent Green Socialists.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#41122 Nov 5, 2013
Jay wrote:
<quoted text>
"growth of solar power"...yeah our taxpayer money made a shit load with government grants & loan guarantees didn't we? Shades of Solyndra, Abound and so many others totally bust and bankrupt.
You are nothing but Soylent Green Socialists.
According to a recent Pew poll, a large majority of Americans understand that global warming is happening and that man is largely responsible. The rabid minority is rapidly diminishing as evidence becomes more convincing. Money spent for development of alternate energy is not wasted. There will be stumbles as well as progress but anything learned along the way is valuable. While wind and solar may not be able to provide for all our needs, it is still necessary in the mix. Probably nuclear will need to be employed as a bridge until new energy sources are developed.

Unless some method is found to sequester CO2 from fossil fuel generating plants or extracting it from the atmosphere, coal and oil will necessarily become less useful. Funds spent to develop new sources is not money wasted.
RAY

United States

#41124 Nov 5, 2013
SARVIS IS A SPOILER! JUST CONFIRMED, AUSTIN, TEXAS BILLIONAIRE JOE LIEBANDT MAJOR BENEFACTOR TO LIBERTARIAN BOOSTER PAC-ALSO MAJOR BUNDLER FOR BARACK OBAMA!

HIS PAC RESPONSIBLE FOR SARVIS ON BALLOT!

“no one told me”

Since: Dec 07

Denver

#41126 Nov 5, 2013
Retired Farmer wrote:
<quoted text>
An archaeologist who dug on my farm once told me that there is a hypothesis that all civilizations have a built in self destruct mechanism. At first increased organization and stability leads to greater food production, which in turn feeds a larger and larger population. Greater exploitation of the land and other resources leads to environmental degradation. All civilizations then tend to concentrate wealth and power at the top, and in the process impoverish everybody else. The demands on the rich and powerful few on the great mass for more and more work, more and more contribution to their wealth, causes the mass to eventually revolt. The civilization then collapses into chaos. The people move away into the wilderness.
Today, for the first time, we have a global civilization. There is no wilderness to move away to. So we may get a global version of Easter Island.
I believe yur referring to liberals.

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) 17 min shinningelectr0n 1,264,680
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 54 min Dr Guru MD CEO CFO 194,741
Best value kit'chens of europe reviews 3 hr selamet 1
Ask Amy August 3 4 hr mrs gladys kravitz 9
Music Artists A to Z (Feb '14) 5 hr _Zoey_ 443
Word (Dec '08) 6 hr _Zoey_ 5,383
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 6 hr _Zoey_ 6,260
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 12 hr PEllen 100,306
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages