Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 63304 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.

heavy tune

Seattle, WA

#42706 Jan 16, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Another fantasyland denier, by the way who funds mothballs key hero's M&M one was a fossil fuel industry man & they give lectures under some bull$hit climate research organisation funded by Exxon Mobil. So go figure YOU would be paying for that as well, do you think Exxon do it as being a GOOD corporate citizen, no they are doing it to screw both your world and mine for GREED.
So feeding the ignorant with BS about the hockey stick graph gone wrong which has since been proven that is was correct. The wonder boys M&M who found errors in the dataset to try and pull the graph apart made errors themselves. So the hockey stick graph still stands.
What you idiots don't get that all your wild theories to try and explain the warming to some other source other than man have ALL been discounted. Now it's you that have turned denying into a religion because you have to believe in some myth other than fact.
by the way 'ritz', I like m&ms, you are in for a big fight now. this is almost like the amazed spectators finding out the fire was started by a volunteer firefighter. you fit right in buddy

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#42707 Jan 16, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
"So even with the disregarding of the Bristlecone Pine data..."
What's that? An admission of error from a warmist? Do explain.
Here is a dummies guide for the Bristlecone Pine controversy;
Perhaps it will help if you take the time to read it.
http://www.odlt.org/dcd/docs/Dummies%20guide%...
heavy tune

Seattle, WA

#42708 Jan 16, 2014
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is a dummies guide for the Bristlecone Pine controversy;
Perhaps it will help if you take the time to read it.
http://www.odlt.org/dcd/docs/Dummies%20guide%...
are you really that nuts?
Jerry

Pittsboro, IN

#42709 Jan 16, 2014
Jugdish wrote:
<quoted text>
Remember the Population Explosion? By now, there were supposed to be so many people on Earth all sorts of dire things were to happen. What happened with that? Why don't we talk about the Population Explosion anymore?
Some of us do talk about it - it's a part of what is causing the problem with CO2. The more people that get added to the population, the faster we go through the nonrenewable fuels and the faster we add carbon to the thin atmosphere.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#42710 Jan 16, 2014
Jerry wrote:
<quoted text> Some of us do talk about it - it's a part of what is causing the problem with CO2. The more people that get added to the population, the faster we go through the nonrenewable fuels and the faster we add carbon to the thin atmosphere.
Correct and those other lil bonuses from globalisation taking the Chinese off bicycles to add another new car to the pollution pool every 2.6 seconds. None of this has any effect according to the deniers they blame pole shifts , volcanoes ,sun spots. In fact anything other than man as the cause.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#42711 Jan 16, 2014
The leaked IPCC draft report urges the world community to act without delay to cut emissions and shift to clean energy.
If CO2 gases are allowed to continue growing at their current rate, increased conservation and efficiency would not be sufficient to counter their impact, the document says. It accuses governments of spending far more on subsiding fossil fuels than switching to cleaner energy. And the document identifies economic growth and population growth as two main drivers for the rising greenhouse emissions.

In 2009, politicians from around the world took a decision at the Copenhagen climate conference to try to limit long-term global average temperature increases to 2C (36F). This, it was said, was the point above which dangerous changes to the planet would occur.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment...

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/j...
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#42714 Jan 17, 2014
Mothra wrote:
>>But what did the NAS report and the authors actually say about the Mann hockey stick? In fact, the NAS report validated all of the significant criticisms of McIntyre & McKitrick (M&M):

In subtle wording?


Mann never mentions that a subsequent House Energy and Commerce Committee report chaired by Edward Wegman totally destroyed the credibility of the ‘hockey stick’ and devastatingly ripped apart Mann’s methodology as ‘bad mathematics’. Furthermore, when Gerald North, the chairman of the NAS panel -- which Mann claims ‘vindicated him’– and panel member Peter Bloomfield who Mann says above came to the opposite conclusions as Prof Hand, were asked at the House Committee hearings whether or not they agreed with Wegman’s harsh criticisms, they said they did:
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegman’s report?
DR. NORTH. No, we don’t. We don’t disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report.
DR. BLOOMFIELD. Our committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his co-workers and we felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman.
WALLACE:‘the two reports were complementary, and to the extent that they overlapped, the conclusions were quite consistent.’(Am Stat Assoc.)
Thus, despite Mann's incredible spin, Dr. Bloomfield did not "come to the opposite conclusion as Dr. Hand", nor those of Dr. Wegman, Steve McIntyre, and Dr. McKitrick.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/04/the...
It don't matter how many times you kick that dead horse, it just aint gonna get back up!

The bottom line is that the National Academies of Science agrees that global temperatures are “unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years” is...; indeed, the NAS reports that it is “supported by an array of evidence”(NAS 2006, pg. 3).

So M&M found errors, but they didn't amount to a hill of beans, certainly not enough to make a Federal case out of, which they promptly proceeded to do.

But, the dirty pool came to light, especially when James Inhofe or Joe Barton are involved.
Wegman's institution, George Mason University, confirmed in October 2010 that they were investigating misconduct charges, following a March 2010 formal complaint by Raymond S. Bradley alleging plagiarism and fabrications in the Wegman Report. A 250-page study by computer scientist John Mashey, posted on the "Deep Climate" website, claims that 35 of the 91 pages in the Wegman Report were plagiarized, and "often injected with errors, bias and changes of meaning."
Later, a George Mason committee unanimously found "that plagiarism occurred in contextual sections of the (CSDA) article, as a result of poor judgment for which Professor Wegman, as team leader, must bear responsibility", and Wegman was to receive an "official letter of reprimand". The investigation reports were to be sent on to federal authorities, but would not be made public.

ANOTHER EPIC FAIL!
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#42715 Jan 17, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
"So even with the disregarding of the Bristlecone Pine data..."
What's that? An admission of error from a warmist? Do explain.
Not a chance, not this time, genius.

Just doing you a favor. You don't like bristlecones, we'll take 'em out.

Guess what? Same results! In several studies.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#42716 Jan 17, 2014
There's no experimental evidence man can change the composition of the atmosphere; it's too big. The sky is the biggest thing on Earth.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#42717 Jan 17, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
There's no experimental evidence man can change the composition of the atmosphere; it's too big. The sky is the biggest thing on Earth.
There's all kinds of evidence that Man IS changing the composition of the atmosphere.

You are the biggest fool on Earth.

Since: Jul 13

Freehold, NJ

#42718 Jan 17, 2014
Mothra wrote:
>>But what did the NAS report and the authors actually say about the Mann hockey stick? In fact, the NAS report validated all of the significant criticisms of McIntyre & McKitrick (M&M):
1. The NAS indicated that the hockey stick method systematically underestimated the uncertainties in the data (p. 107).
2. In subtle wording, the NAS agreed with the M&M assertion that the hockey stick had no statistical significance, and was no more informative about the distant past than a table of random numbers. The NAS found that Mann's methods had no validation (CE) skill significantly different from zero. In the past, however, it has always been claimed that the method has a significant nonzero validation skill. Methods without a validation skill are usually considered useless. Mann’s data set does not have enough information to verify its ‘skill’ at resolving the past, and has such wide uncertainty bounds as to be no better than the simple mean of the data (p. 91). M&M said that the appearance of significance was created by ignoring all but one type of test score, thereby failing to quantify all the relevant uncertainties. The NAS agreed (p. 110), but, again, did so in subtle wording.
3. M&M argued that the hockey stick relied for its shape on the inclusion of a small set of invalid proxy data (called bristlecone, or “strip-bark” records). If they are removed, the conclusion that the 20th century is unusually warm compared to the pre-1450 interval is reversed. Hence the conclusion of unique late 20th century warmth is not robust—in other word it does not hold up under minor variations in data or methods. The NAS panel agreed, saying Mann’s results are “strongly dependent” on the strip-bark data (pp. 106-107), and they went further, warning that strip-bark data should not be used in this type of research (p. 50).
4. The NAS said " Mann et al. used a type of principal component analysis that tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions", i.e. produce hockey sticks from baseball statistics, telephone book numbers, and monte carlo random numbers.
5. The NAS said Mann downplayed the "uncertainties of the published reconstructions...Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al.(1999) that ‘the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium.’
Mann never mentions that a subsequent House Energy and Commerce Committee report chaired by Edward Wegman totally destroyed the credibility of the ‘hockey stick’ and devastatingly ripped apart Mann’s methodology as ‘bad mathematics’. Furthermore, when Gerald North, the chairman of the NAS panel -- which Mann claims ‘vindicated him’– and panel member Peter Bloomfield who Mann says above came to the opposite conclusions as Prof Hand, were asked at the House Committee hearings whether or not they agreed with Wegman’s harsh criticisms, they said they did:
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegman’s report?
DR. NORTH. No, we don’t. We don’t disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report.
DR. BLOOMFIELD. Our committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his co-workers and we felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman.
WALLACE:‘the two reports were complementary, and to the extent that they overlapped, the conclusions were quite consistent.’(Am Stat Assoc.)
Thus, despite Mann's incredible spin, Dr. Bloomfield did not "come to the opposite conclusion as Dr. Hand", nor those of Dr. Wegman, Steve McIntyre, and Dr. McKitrick.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/04/the...
A blogspot is not scientific evidence of anything. Try quoting a scientific, peer reviewed paper to support your comments.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#42719 Jan 17, 2014
bligh wrote:
<quoted text>
A blogspot is not scientific evidence of anything. Try quoting a scientific, peer reviewed paper to support your comments.
A waste of time with mothballs & co, they are all shooting blanks now and they know it. Before this denier science (using term loosely) came along Climate science was all about the warning for the future. Now they have had time to discredit EVERY one of these BS arguments by fossil fuel funded organisations on top of conducting new research. These sites and fake climate organisations were designed with one purpose in mind. Delay or disrupt any measures that might come about to address CO2 emissions. The game is up, they have nothing only hearsay and opinions. It's like trying to hang on to the horse & cart after the invention of the automobile. Clean energy is our future , dirty is our past. It's just a pity that politics like those of the self destructing Republicans keep trying to flog the past as their future..
No way Jose

Corona Del Mar, CA

#42720 Jan 17, 2014
Global climate change is real, dude.

Seems like every year now, there are record cold temperatures, record rainfall, record drought and record heat waves. It never STOPS!

Be green. Lower your city's density. More trees, less concrete, less glass, less steel.
Mothra

Tempe, AZ

#42722 Jan 17, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Another fantasyland denier, by the way who funds mothballs key hero's M&M one was a fossil fuel industry man & they give lectures under some bull$hit climate research organisation funded by Exxon Mobil. So go figure YOU would be paying for that as well, do you think Exxon do it as being a GOOD corporate citizen, no they are doing it to screw both your world and mine for GREED.
So feeding the ignorant with BS about the hockey stick graph gone wrong which has since been proven that is was correct. The wonder boys M&M who found errors in the dataset to try and pull the graph apart made errors themselves. So the hockey stick graph still stands.
What you idiots don't get that all your wild theories to try and explain the warming to some other source other than man have ALL been discounted. Now it's you that have turned denying into a religion because you have to believe in some myth other than fact.
There He Goes Again: Mann Claims His Hockey Stick was Given "Clean Bill of Health"

Mann has been repeating this arrogant duplicitous spin continuously since Climategate and refuses to acknowledge any problems whatsoever with his infamous doomsday hockey stick graph. Mann always refers to the subtly worded US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report as his ally because he knows McIntyre & McKitrick, the Wegman Report, Hans von Storch, et al, and now the Head of the Royal Statistical Society have minced no words debunking his hockey stick. But what did the NAS report and the authors actually say about the Mann hockey stick? In fact, the NAS report validated all of the significant criticisms of McIntyre & McKitrick (M&M)

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/04/the...

Funding argument again?

Lame.

"evil" oil company?

Lamer.

Al Gore is global warming hypocrite.

An inconvenient truth.

LOL
Mothra

Tempe, AZ

#42723 Jan 17, 2014
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is a dummies guide for the Bristlecone Pine controversy;
Perhaps it will help if you take the time to read it.
http://www.odlt.org/dcd/docs/Dummies%20guide%...
I'm aware of the "controversy", but more interested in the admission of error on the part of the warmists.

It's such a rare occurrence in their "science". Why do you suppose that's true? That warmists never hold themselves accountable?... and only toss those under the bus who dissent from the "consensus"?

Yeah... there's some real "science" for ya.
Mothra

Tempe, AZ

#42724 Jan 17, 2014
bligh wrote:
<quoted text>
A blogspot is not scientific evidence of anything. Try quoting a scientific, peer reviewed paper to support your comments.
Eventually in 2003, McIntyre and McKitrick published an article entitled “Corrections to the Mann et al.(1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series” in the journal Energy and Environment raising concerns about what they had found in Manns Hockey Stick paper. By this point following further work analysing Mann’s paper McIntyre and McKitrick showed that the data mining procedure did not just pull out a random group of proxies, instead it pulled out a single eccentric group of bristlecone pine chronologies published by Graybill and Idso in 1993 called the Sheep Mountain series.The original authors of the bristlecone study have always stressed that these trees are not proper climate proxies, their study was not trying to do a climate reconstruction and that they were surprised that Mann included it in the Hockey Stick data set. McIntyre and McKitrick had discovered that just removing this odd series from Mann’s proxy set and then applying Mann’s own eccentric statistical averaging caused the Hockey Stick shape to disappear. This revolutionary new model of the recent climate past was that fragile and it revealed the Hockey Stick graph as just a carefully worked artificial creation.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/01/the...
Mothra

Tempe, AZ

#42725 Jan 17, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
... denier science
... by fossil fuel funded organisations
.
Al Gore is a global warming hypocrite.

Take your snark back to the third grade, son.

“Sharia, NOT!”

Since: Jul 10

Suffolk, VA

#42726 Jan 17, 2014
Scientists are baffled? LOL
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment...

The "sleeping" sun coincides with a bitter winter.

LOL Maybe if they just cracked open their physics books and stopped chasing grant money, eh?

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#42727 Jan 17, 2014
Socialism is for Sissies wrote:
Scientists are baffled? LOL
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment...
The "sleeping" sun coincides with a bitter winter.
LOL Maybe if they just cracked open their physics books and stopped chasing grant money, eh?
Are you kidding us or what, it is called GLOBAL warming. Have you bothered to see what's going on in the southern hemisphere, heat records being broken daily.
Look at the Australian Open tennis

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/15/sport/tenni...

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#42728 Jan 17, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Al Gore is a global warming hypocrite.
Take your snark back to the third grade, son.
As usual Al Gore's name again and why ? because he can use the same tools the fossil fuel industry uses to get his message across.
Hypocrite, I'll tell you what is, dummy climate research organisations on the pretence of saving the planet but what they are really about is saving their profits. Those same profits that YOU & I pay for on a daily basis. Yet we all help kill our environment by doing so, rather than spend our money elsewhere to give us a far better outcome. That is the ultimate hypocrite especially when you know what you are doing is wrong!

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
Four letter word game (Dec '11) 1 min RACE 2,469
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min Guest 1,497,216
News Record-breaking temperatures Saturday draw Chic... 8 min A real man not a ... 2
Double Word Game (Dec '11) 11 min GEORGIA 3,602
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 15 min Coffee Party 237,640
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 1 hr Sublime1 105,004
Are democrats destroyed? 1 hr Dixiecrat 318

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages