Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 63946 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.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#42555 Jan 8, 2014
total idiots r us wrote:
<quoted text>oh but 'mothra', you miss the point.
El oh El wrote:
<quoted text>the following is taken from NASA.com
More heavy tunes/ritedownthemiddle sock puppets- need to get a new keyboard- that broken shift key is making it obvious.
GLOBAL COOLING UNDERWAY

Dover, OH

#42557 Jan 8, 2014
In 1974, Time Magazine blamed the cold polar vortex on global cooling.

‘Scientists have found other indications of global cooling. For one thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude polar winds —the so-called circumpolar vortex—that sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world.’

http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2014/01/07/time...

“Allcladrad”

Since: Jan 10

Bangkok, Thailand

#42558 Jan 8, 2014
OzRitz,
Hard to imagine a global problem where some countries pass a law reducing something that will protect them, while others suffer,

Global warming theorists continually shoot them selves in the foot with inane arguments like that. You are your causes worst enemy.

“Sharia, NOT!”

Since: Jul 10

Suffolk, VA

#42559 Jan 8, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
You Flat Earther's are all the same, it's been decades and billion$ spent on finding a cure for cancer why haven't you come out about that scam for funding or finding a cure for Aids.
But climate science is singled out as a world wide scam because ????????
I have. Where have you been. Today is the 50th anniversary of the beginning of the war on crime. Why is this war still going on?
Oh, as a side note: libbies are the the flat earthers.
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
or did Rush tell you or was it Hannity or did this light bulb moment just happen to coincide with both.
Um, we're talking science facts here.and not entertainment. That facts based upon simple laws of physics.

It's so cold here...

How cold is it?

It's so cold that Democrats are keeping their own hands in their own pockets!

“Sharia, NOT!”

Since: Jul 10

Suffolk, VA

#42560 Jan 8, 2014
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmm. It is not because they started with the year with a particularly active El nino? Good grief, some folks will believe anything. If anything, this discredits Mr. Watts biased agenda.
Now you guys are re-writing simple math?
A decade is ten years. Not one year. Pfft!

“Sharia, NOT!”

Since: Jul 10

Suffolk, VA

#42561 Jan 8, 2014
El oh El wrote:
<quoted text>No no. Hurricane's are because of George Bush's hurricane machine that is sponsored by that evil Dick Cheney and Halliburton or didnt you get that memo? we gotta make sure we dont confuse the two. Dastardly weather machines dont count toward global warming/cooling/heating/change or what ever its called this week.
Or HAARP. Let's not forget HAARP. LOL

“Sharia, NOT!”

Since: Jul 10

Suffolk, VA

#42562 Jan 8, 2014
El oh El wrote:
<quoted text>the following is taken from NASA.com ------In Earth’s history before the Industrial Revolution, Earth’s climate changed due to natural causes not related to human activity. Most often, global climate has changed because of variations in sunlight. Tiny wobbles in Earth’s orbit altered when and where sunlight falls on Earth’s surface. Variations in the Sun itself have alternately increased and decreased the amount of solar energy reaching Earth. Volcanic eruptions have generated particles that reflect sunlight, brightening the planet and cooling the climate. Volcanic activity has also, in the deep past, increased greenhouse gases over millions of years, contributing to episodes of global warming.
Damn! Now NASA is whining! And to make such statements without scientific basis to boot!

“EnvironMENTAList ”

Since: Feb 07

Near Detroit

#42563 Jan 8, 2014
REAL planet lovers and REAL progressives are skeptics who doubt, challenge and question all authority not goosestep like fear mongering Greenizs condemning billions of innocent children to the greenhouse gas ovens with science’s consensus belief of nothing beyond; “could be”. Now who’s the neocon?

“Sharia, NOT!”

Since: Jul 10

Suffolk, VA

#42564 Jan 8, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh now Time magazine is not credible, its one US publication that has more credibility worldwide than any other.
LOL Especially when they stated just the opposite of their claims in 1974?

Are they now the waffle magazine of credibility??

http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2014/01/07/time...

A must read. So very credible that TIME magazine!!!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#42565 Jan 8, 2014
Desperate Warmist wrote:
Damn, Damn those facts again. You warmist are killing my agenda. Can you not cover up these facts? Worthless pukes. I pay you and you FAIL me.
These two wind turbines will take four centuries to pay for themselves
One British town is in the renewable energy game for the long run — literally. The town bought two wind turbines that will take more than four centuries to pay for themselves.
The BBC reports that the two wind turbines installed in the English town of Rushcliffe will not likely produce any financial benefits for the town. Rushcliffe spent nearly $50,000 in 2004 installing the wind turbines at a county park, which doesn’t actually get much wind.
“Due to higher than anticipated maintenance costs and relatively low generation rates, it is unlikely the council will make a financial saving within the anticipated lifespan of the turbine,” said the Rushcliffe Borough Council.
The wind turbines’ poor location and mechanical problems mean that it only produced 477 kilowatt hours in 2012 and 2013. Last year, the turbine only generated about $121 worth of power, meaning that it would take 405 years for them to pay for themselves.
The Rushcliffe council, however, contended that the “meter wasn’t operating properly” and that the two turbines usually produce 3,478 kilowatt hours annually — which would still mean a 55-year payback period.
This information was obtained by the UK Telegraph as part of an in-depth investigation on how the towns all across the United Kingdom are spending millions of dollars on wind turbines that are faulty and don’t generate enough revenue to pay for themselves.
“Some turbines generate so little energy they would take hundreds of years to repay their original value,” Telegraph reported.“Experts argue that the failure of some wind turbines to recoup their value shows how small wind turbines are a poor way to generate renewable energy.”
Only three out of a handful of the towns that responded to the Telegraph’s inquiries had wind turbines with payback periods under ten years.
“Wind energy is an experiment, and sometimes the lessons learnt are hard and dearly bought,” Dr. John Constable, director at the Renewable Energy Foundation, told the Telegraph.“The truth is that foolishly ambitious targets and silly levels of subsidy have overheated the wind industry, resulting in defective technologies and poor installations.”
In Scotland, wind power developers are being criticized for cutting down millions of trees to make room for wind turbines — all in the name of independence.
The Times of London reported that about five million trees have been cut down since 2007 in order to make way for wind farms. Only about 1,957 acres of woodland were planted after the wind farms were built.
The left-leaning Scottish National Party that wants to secede from the United Kingdom has often invoked renewable energy as a path to independence.
Scottish Conservative energy spokesman Murdo Fraser told the Times,“the [Scottish National Party] is so blindly obsessed with renewable energy that it doesn’t mind destroying another important environmental attribute to make way for it.”
This is simply an example of a poorly vetted application of wind power. Normally the cost of a commercial turbine and instillation is paid back in a few months to a year. They are a viable alternate energy. Iowa is producing about 25% of their power from wind.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#42566 Jan 8, 2014
BOSTON and WASHINGTON, Jan. 8, 2014 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/-- A total of 311 U.S. and international environmental and clean energy groups said today that, while they respect the climate change work of Dr. James Hansen and three of his academic colleagues, they take strong exception to the notion that nuclear power is the solution to global warming.

The January 8th statement from the more than 300 signers reads in part: "Nuclear power is not a financially viable option. Since its inception it has required taxpayer subsidies and publically financed indemnity against accidents. New construction requires billions in public subsidies to attract private capital and, once under construction, severe cost overruns are all but inevitable. As for operational safety, the history of nuclear power plants in the US is fraught with near misses, as documented by the Union of Concerned Scientists, and creates another financial and safety quagmire – high-level nuclear waste. Internationally, we've experienced two catastrophic accidents for a technology deemed to be virtually 'fail safe'.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#42567 Jan 8, 2014
wow wrote:
Yeah it was great I work outside for a living got a lot done but every year is different it always has been it's cyclical. What are all the satellites doin to our atmosphere? What about harrp, what about 3 passengers on a 747 flyin from Hawaii to Washington? What about humanity just breathing?what do you do ,who do u blame,where's al gore? This sh!ts a joke created by the government's of the western world to control the people and what they do including you globot!
Normally, one would have to interview attendees at a wrestling match to encounter such stupidity.

The satellites are heating the Earth, sucking all the oxygen out of the air, and taking pictures of you during your regular Saturday night bath.

HAARRRP is recording you snoring and giving you herpes.

If you are talking about a President taking a vacation back to his home state, where he was born, then there are not 3 people on a plane. There are secretaries, assistants, Secret Service, cooks, bottle-washers, candlestick-makers, press, and Republican-lie researchers. And the dog.

The eastern world governments are in on this plot. too. Global warming means it's global. That means all over the world.

Al Gore is vacationing in the Arctic, while he still can, before it gets too hot.

Call your mother, she's worried about you because she knows you don't have much sense.
Mothra

Tempe, AZ

#42568 Jan 8, 2014
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
This is simply an example of a poorly vetted application of wind power. Normally the cost of a commercial turbine and instillation is paid back in a few months to a year. They are a viable alternate energy. Iowa is producing about 25% of their power from wind.
Where the hell are you getting your info?

Now that all components of the payback equation are defined, the payback period can be calculated.

Residential payback period:

$15,000/($600 –$100)=$15,000/$500 = 30 years

Commercial payback period:

$100,000/($6,000 –$1,000)=$100,000/$5,000 – 20 years

- See more at: http://www.iowaenergycenter.org/wind-energy-m...

Look at that... Iowa...

Quit posting lies.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#42569 Jan 8, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Where the hell are you getting your info?
Now that all components of the payback equation are defined, the payback period can be calculated.
Residential payback period:
$15,000/($600 –$100)=$15,000/$500 = 30 years
Commercial payback period:
$100,000/($6,000 –$1,000)=$100,000/$5,000 – 20 years
- See more at: http://www.iowaenergycenter.org/wind-energy-m...
Look at that... Iowa...
Quit posting lies.
Those are dinky applications. Try finding information for a 1.5 gigawatt turbine instead of a 50kW application.
Big Willy

Zion, IL

#42570 Jan 8, 2014
He called you a globot ,haven't heard that one.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#42571 Jan 8, 2014
Socialism is for Sissies wrote:
<quoted text>LOL Especially when they stated just the opposite of their claims in 1974?
Are they now the waffle magazine of credibility??
http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2014/01/07/time...
A must read. So very credible that TIME magazine!!!
So let me see: the Arctic was colder in the 70s so the jet stream was stronger, but the Arctic is much warmer now so the jet stream is weaker and more wobbly, and has dropped down over the US, and this somehow contradicts global warming?
Ice Climatologist Phd

Corona Del Mar, CA

#42572 Jan 8, 2014
“Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years,” says Gore.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/12/five-...

Ice Climatologist Phd Emeritus Fellow

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#42573 Jan 8, 2014
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
So let me see: the Arctic was colder in the 70s so the jet stream was stronger, but the Arctic is much warmer now so the jet stream is weaker and more wobbly, and has dropped down over the US, and this somehow contradicts global warming?
Exactly, the jet stream instead of whipping around in a circular fashion with the Arctic winds got the wobbles and came south. The BIG question is what causes the wobbles and that is what should be argued about. These denier idiots on here dismiss everything, they take no notice of NASA, No notice of any weather organisation, No notice of any climate science in Europe, China, Russia in fact every corner of the globe. Coming up with their own wild theories that we are supposed to make sense of excluding all of the above. Mind you, these would be
the same people that get abducted by Aliens.
SpaceBlues

United States

#42574 Jan 8, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly, the jet stream instead of whipping around in a circular fashion with the Arctic winds got the wobbles and came south. The BIG question is what causes the wobbles and that is what should be argued about. These denier idiots on here dismiss everything, they take no notice of NASA, No notice of any weather organisation, No notice of any climate science in Europe, China, Russia in fact every corner of the globe. Coming up with their own wild theories that we are supposed to make sense of excluding all of the above. Mind you, these would be
the same people that get abducted by Aliens.
The last bit is helpful.

LOL. See yourself as educating those who are silent.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#42575 Jan 8, 2014
Desperate Warmist wrote:
Damn that Sharptonlove and enjoy.
Caught-on-tape-smoking-crack-b eleaguered-by-left-wing Mayor Rob Ford. It's not his fault he got in trouble, right? just a left-wing conspiracy.

"the 97% of climate researchers poll has been disproved many times over" You're a God-damned liar. Prove it.

Gore predicted for the North Pole. The stuck icebreakers were at the South Pole. You don't know the difference. And, they broke out today, so global warming is now real to you, I guess.

Gore's new house is well back from the coast and well above sea level, like about 100 feet. There's plenty of time for him to sell it to some fool like you.

"the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.N.’s global warming organization, which acknowledges that the Earth’s temperatures haven’t gotten warmer in over 15 years. THAT'S A LIE. Additionally, both polar ice caps are growing at near record rates. THAT'S A LIE. In fact, some peer-reviewed studies are predicting the earth is about to experience a mini ice age." THAT'S A LIE.

You're a Creator-damned liar.

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) 26 min Gag me 1,581,898
Chicago is much worse since Obama was elected 9 hr Abc123 3
Tecumseh the prophet 10 hr Ricardo montobomb 1
john peppercorn the prophet 10 hr Ricardo montobomb 1
What's the real story about Charlottsville? 11 hr ThomasA 24
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 13 hr Chicagoan by Birth 242,540
The Party of Racism. 15 hr Its The Democrats 2

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages