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

Full story: Newsday

When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore.
Comments
41,541 - 41,560 of 46,226 Comments Last updated 3 hrs ago
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44319
Mar 15, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

NONSENSE and LIES: "global warming "science" is chock full of holes, exaggerations, hype and a compliant media that love the "end of the world" headlines.. to whit "Hiroshima bombs"..And then there are the so-called "consensus" clingers-on, who accept that there's enough "science" on the books now to have spelt the impending disaster. Regardless if that proclamation of "settled science" was make 10 days ago or 10 years ago, it's settled so nothing can ever, ever change that... cuz, well, it's "settled" ya' know."

BOOOOO "make"
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44320
Mar 15, 2014
 

Judged:

2

2

2

SpaceBlues wrote:
LOL. Shamelessly, "climate models? Do they match actual observations? So... what credibility do they have? That other "scientists" have made the same predictions? Oh... so the first wasn't wrong cuz the second says the same, even both don't match observation? Oh what! There's a third! A fourth! A dozen! Hundreds! Thousands!"
See these to compare with the observations:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Pred...
the ones that fail are your ilk likes.. duh
Where's the hockey stick? You know... the "settled" science?

Oh wait, guess it's not settled after all.

Hey thanks... you shot a hole all by yourself.

d'Oh!
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44321
Mar 15, 2014
 

Judged:

2

2

2

SpaceBlues wrote:
NONSENSE and LIES: "global warming "science" is chock full of holes, exaggerations, hype and a compliant media that love the "end of the world" headlines.. to whit "Hiroshima bombs"..And then there are the so-called "consensus" clingers-on, who accept that there's enough "science" on the books now to have spelt the impending disaster. Regardless if that proclamation of "settled science" was make 10 days ago or 10 years ago, it's settled so nothing can ever, ever change that... cuz, well, it's "settled" ya' know."
BOOOOO "make"
Boooo?

Yeah's that's about as "scientific" a response I'd expect from you, hypocrite.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44322
Mar 15, 2014
 
There's no scientific response to nonsense and lies other than "seek diagnosis for your condition."
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44323
Mar 15, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

A science denier misses hockey stick:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hockey-stick-...
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44324
Mar 15, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Boooo?
Yeah's that's about as "scientific" a response I'd expect from you, hypocrite.
Boooo "science" was make" LOL

Shamelessly..namecaller..
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44325
Mar 15, 2014
 

Judged:

2

2

1

SpaceBlues wrote:
There's no scientific response to nonsense and lies other than "seek diagnosis for your condition."
Aww... po' widdle spaceballs is in a snit again.

But when is he/she not?

LOL
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44326
Mar 15, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

WOW it did not emrbace its "science" was make " LOL
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44327
Mar 15, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Booo "make" LOL
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44328
Mar 15, 2014
 

Judged:

2

2

1

SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text> Boooo "science" was make" LOL
Shamelessly..namecaller..
hyp·o·crite
--a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

Easy to fix... quit being one.

LOL
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44329
Mar 15, 2014
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Boo "was make" bwahhahhah
denier

Gurnee, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44331
Mar 15, 2014
 

Judged:

2

2

2

ritedownthemiddle wrote:
these people really need help.....
what has happened to our youth?
fuque!!!!!!
Once you drink the kool-aid there's no hope,we have to accept the fact that there gone!
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44332
Mar 15, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SpaceBlues wrote:
A science denier misses hockey stick:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hockey-stick-...
Gotta love this... Spaceballs in his previous post gave another link from sks, that omits all these hockey sticks in an attempt to discredit skeptics temperature projections.

Cherry picking -- the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.-- wikipedia

First off, it's an absurd argument. So what if other temperature projections are wrong? The question is why the warmists insist their projections are THE 'settled science'?. Showing error elsewhere is just another stinky red herring.

But more importantly, where are the hockey sticks? Why did sks leave those out? Why not show what the "consensus" science says right along side those they attempt to debunk?

This is getting fun... warmists are shooting holes in their own "science".

Sadly, they aren't learning anything from their mistakes... and will continue to "believe".

LOL.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44334
Mar 15, 2014
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
..........
First, I said "income inequality", which more similar to socialism than not.
So... you support restrained capitalism? Should Al Gore be restricted selling his snake oil, so others can get their "rain maker" products on the market? LOL
As for your obtuse commentary on my attitudes about the planet, once again, you're putting your ideological mantra in for what can only be the case for anyone who disagrees with you.
This thread is about "global warming" and the alleged "science" that supports it. That "science" is chock full of holes, exaggerations, hype and a compliant media that love the "end of the world" headlines.. to whit "Hiroshima bombs"..And then there are the so-called "consensus" clingers-on, who accept that there's enough "science" on the books now to have spelt the impending disaster..........
Restrained Capitalism is not to being able to drill for oil in National Parks or Banks pretending to be finance companies unable to cover debt or some multinational food company clearing rain forests to grow beef for McDonalds or workers in slave labor at extreme risk making clothing for brand name labels or multimedia outlets being owned by one person. That is Capitalism unleashed! That is your world without rules or "red tape" as you so fondly call it. It has NOTHING to do with socialism it's all about common sense.

As for Science warning of Armageddon, like I have said in previous posts your kind would prefer to destroy the planet before accepting an argument as true. It is a totally moronic position to take, like asking to be nuked and see if I survive. If the danger of radiation poisoning is a well documented science, so is global warming. Yet you accept the science of radiation poisoning and declare the warming science as snake oil! This is despite every academic mind bar a few in the employ of oil companies telling you that your wrong!
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44335
Mar 15, 2014
 

Judged:

3

3

3

OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Restrained Capitalism is not to being able to drill for oil in National Parks or Banks pretending to be finance companies unable to cover debt or some multinational food company clearing rain forests to grow beef for McDonalds or workers in slave labor at extreme risk making clothing for brand name labels or multimedia outlets being owned by one person. That is Capitalism unleashed! That is your world without rules or "red tape" as you so fondly call it. It has NOTHING to do with socialism it's all about common sense.
As for Science warning of Armageddon, like I have said in previous posts your kind would prefer to destroy the planet before accepting an argument as true. It is a totally moronic position to take, like asking to be nuked and see if I survive. If the danger of radiation poisoning is a well documented science, so is global warming. Yet you accept the science of radiation poisoning and declare the warming science as snake oil! This is despite every academic mind bar a few in the employ of oil companies telling you that your wrong!
Yegads... once again, just because one person expresses extreme libertarian views while opposing global warming, doesn't mean every one who doesn't buy into the "settle science" shares the same political views.

Your head is stuck to far up your ideology to make the distinction.

No matter... I'll enjoy making you look foolish, as you did by attempting to equate radiation poisoning to global warming..

What is it about warmists that continue to invent absurd comparisons to sell the global warming "science"?

A critical thinker sees through those lame arguments and dismisses them as not worth the time and effort to bother to refute.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44336
Mar 15, 2014
 

Judged:

3

3

3

OzRitz wrote:
>> But has the public really tuned out from eco matters because it doesn’t understand them, because it is perplexed by “expert discourse”? I don’t think so. I think the reason people are switching off from the enviro-agenda is because they disagree with it. They just don’t buy the idea that capping carbon emissions is the most important thing in the world, more important than growing the economy, increasing wealth, and being free to choose to live in a big house with the heaters permanently switched on and Tesco just a short 4×4 drive away. They see the mean-minded, sacrifice-demanding politics of being green as a challenge to the thing that has motored human communities for millennia – the desire to create a world of plenty, an overflowing “land of milk and honey”, a utopia filled with stuff and comfort – and they don’t like it.

Environmentalism is, by its own admission, a campaign against the public and our historic desire for more things and freedom. George Monbiot has stated this baldly. Environmentalism is “a campaign not for abundance but for austerity”, he says.“It is a campaign not for more freedom but for less… it is a campaign not just against other people, but against ourselves.” And that is precisely how most people experience environmentalism – as an extraordinarily elitist drive to reprimand and possibly even punish the people for daring to want more; as a top-down, hectoring effort to make us acclimatise to austerity and give up on that age-old dream of a “great production that will supply all, and more than all the people can consume”(Sylvia Pankhurst). If environmentalism is a “campaign against people”, then it makes perfect sense that the people bristle at it, even hate it and deny its “truths”.(source)

http://australianclimatemadness.com/2014/03/1...
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44337
Mar 15, 2014
 

Judged:

4

4

4

OzRitz wrote:
Fuhai Hong and Xiojian Zhao, economists at Singapore's Nanyang Technological University and Hong Kong University of Science and Technology respectively, are publishing a paper in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics called "Information Manipulation and Climate Agreements," which argues that manipulation of information by the media will "enhance global welfare" by inducing countries to agree to environmental accords (IEAs)....

The article purports to prove, with an economic model, that the urgency of climate change and the necessity of international agreement makes it okay to lie about the projected consequences of climate change.

Progressives have advocated lying in order to get their way before, but this model is actually different from fighting lies with more lies; these two economists advocate lying even when assuming that the entire debate to this point has been entirely honest on both sides due to the asymmetric information problems and game theory involved. Now, they don't advocate "lying" - they merely propose "information manipulation," "accentuation" and "exaggeration" on the part of the media in order to enhance global welfare.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/kevinglass/2014/...

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44338
Mar 16, 2014
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
..........
A critical thinker sees through those lame arguments and dismisses them as not worth the time and effort to bother to refute.
A critical thinker would see vast opportunity here in a new commodity, just like the gold rush in pioneering times. A critical thinker would see that advanced countries with all the infrastructure already in place would have a distinct advantage over developing countries. A critical thinker would also know how the balance of trade could shift with alternative energy products and a golden opportunity for Capitalism to hit the reset button and start over. Yet this all flies over the top of your head because of an ideology that is stuck in the groove & a point blank refusal to accept facts.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44339
Mar 16, 2014
 

Judged:

3

3

3

motheaten wrote:
Fuhai Hong and Xiojian Zhao, economists..... argues that manipulation of information by the media will "enhance global welfare" by inducing countries to agree to environmental accords (IEAs)....
Ah...... China murdering millions per decade with pollution won't make countries see how environmental protection is necessary.

Glad to see the raw exposed lack of science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra & pre-calc in the poorly (or non-) earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa of motheaten. It is also good to understand that unnecessarily dead people, still will not cause slimy steenking toxic topix AGW deniers to believe a cleaner environment is necessary.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44340
Mar 16, 2014
 

Judged:

4

4

4

motheaten wrote:
Environmentalism is “a campaign not for abundance but for austerity”, he says.“It is a campaign not for more freedom but for less… it is a campaign not just against other people, but against ourselves.”
Industrialists strive for abundance of pollution & their freedom to pollute, until we can't. Industrialists campaign against other people, but not themselves, because they move to where their pollutions don't affect themselves or their families.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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 Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Chicago Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

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 ]
•••