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

Full story: Newsday 49,171
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Full Story

“The Intrepid”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#44479 Mar 18, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
We congratulate the IPCC and Al Gore on receiving this year's Peace Prize. We thank you for what you have done for mother earth, and wish you further success in a task that is so vital to us all. Action is needed now. Climate changes are already moving beyond human control.
http://nobelpeaceprize.org/en_GB/laureates/la...
It's ALWAYS been beyond man's control...

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2014/03/...

...ya loopy arsed tranny.

Now try to prove it was mankind making it warmer for the last 20,000 years.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#44480 Mar 18, 2014
Socialism is for Sissies wrote:
<quoted text>Well, Mr. Brain Trust, I did not say "NO GOVERNMENT". Hence, you lie, as usual. You are sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooo clueless as to the function of government in a free society that it's pitiful.
Until you answer this quick and simple question your "debating" is done here. Run along and let Uncle Sam wipe your azz for you since you need someone to do everyhting for you because you lack self responsibility.
It's pretty obvious you listen to Rush too much. "Free" as you define it is what ? Freedom of speech, Freedom of assembly, Freedom to travel, Freedom to migrate. That's what most normal people expect in a democratic system of government. What you expect is not deliverable, because your needs are sooooo offbeat to the rest of the population they are ignored. That is why you elect a government, to deal with things YOU as an individual can't deal with. A government is there to look after the majority of the population. It looks after your security, trade , infrastructure, education, health and delivers services you cannot provide. If you want to live in a cave that is your choice, but you still have to pay for the privilege of being able to do it. That is pay taxes on your income for the government to provide all of the above. The fact that you just want to be selective on what the government provides again is irrelevant. If you refuse an education, you can't refuse to pay for that service in your taxes. That's just one example of many but probably the most relevant to you.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#44482 Mar 18, 2014
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
what happened to freedom of choice, freedom of speech, freedom of thought?
are you liberals as opposed to this kind of thing?
speak up hypocrites!!
lol
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/03/18/colleg...
if man made climate change is so certain....why are you whackos behaving so hysterical? is it becasue science doesn't back up your beliefs quite so much?
I would have thought that was obvious, the clock is ticking and still nothing of substance has been implemented on a global basis. We have already passed the point where climate is changing, now its trying not to make it worse!. Of cause with you guys the more delay the better, that means you pass it on, like passing on the economic debt but you seem to be more concerned with that when climate is much more important.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#44483 Mar 18, 2014
Maybe our politicians can't mitigate climate change.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#44484 Mar 18, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer...
Happy reading!
From the rebuttals; " it is not claimed that all the papers are physical science papers, only that they are all peer-reviewed."

Of course there are papers that take issue with many facets of global warming science. That is how science works. The ones from reputable scientific journals have been weighed and studied. Those that have found merit have been incorporated into the science. It is up to you to present those that support your rather loose position.

But I do not expect much other than more blather.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#44485 Mar 18, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer...
Happy reading!
BTW, where is the solid science that supports your tenuous tedium.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#44486 Mar 18, 2014
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
what happened to freedom of choice, freedom of speech, freedom of thought?
are you liberals as opposed to this kind of thing?
speak up hypocrites!!
lol
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/03/18/colleg...
if man made climate change is so certain....why are you whackos behaving so hysterical? is it becasue science doesn't back up your beliefs quite so much?
The freedoms stop where they trample on others rights. We are a social order, not a bunch of anarchistic individuals. When those ideas infringe upon the social order, they must be contained. It is not an inherent freedom to shout fire in a packed movie theater. You can think whatever you please.

Here is the quote, "The importance of clearly communicating science to the public should not be underestimated. Accurately understanding our natural environment and sharing that information can be a matter of life or death. When it comes to global warming, much of the public remains in denial about a set of facts that the majority of scientists clearly agree on. With such high stakes, an organised campaign funding misinformation ought to be considered criminally negligent."
Coal is King

Paducah, KY

#44488 Mar 18, 2014
Looks like at least one Global Warming Hoax money sink is about to get stopped:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/03...

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#44489 Mar 18, 2014
For what it is worth the denier message is falling rather flat. It seems that our local deniers are a pitiful minority.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observati...
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#44491 Mar 18, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
I would have thought that was obvious, the clock is ticking and still nothing of substance has been implemented on a global basis.[incoherent ramblings omitted]
What! A crisis?

Goodness... give Al Gore a call! He needs to know this.

If he's not home, call his other mansion. If not there, try is limo. Still no? Try his plane.

Still no luck?

Dunno... smoke signals?

LOL.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#44492 Mar 18, 2014
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
if man made climate change is so certain....why are you whackos behaving so hysterical? is it becasue science doesn't back up your beliefs quite so much?
Maybe they didn't get the memo.... a little "hide" hear, a "trick" there... mix in some homogenization.... and TADA!

It's proven!!!
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#44493 Mar 18, 2014
Coal is King wrote:
Looks like at least one Global Warming Hoax money sink is about to get stopped:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/03...
No Joke, NO..

From your link: Increasing amounts of CO2 and other gases caused by the burning of the oil, gas and coal that power our world are enhancing the natural "greenhouse effect," causing the planet to warm to levels that climate scientists say can't be linked to natural forces.

Carbon dioxide levels were around 280 "parts per million" (ppm) before the Industrial Revolution, when humans first began releasing large amounts into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. They're now near 400 ppm.
..

All of this comes against the backdrop of last week's CO2 rise above 400 ppm at Mauna Loa for the second straight year.(CO2 levels peak in the spring when plants come alive, then decrease when the plants die in the autumn.)

Keeling says that within the next two to three years, the measurement will stay above 400 ppm permanently. "It's just a matter of time before it stays over 400 forever," he said. Consistent levels above 400 ppm haven't been seen in human history and perhaps as long as millions of years.

"We are living in extraordinary times," Keeling said.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#44494 Mar 18, 2014
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
From the rebuttals; " it is not claimed that all the papers are physical science papers, only that they are all peer-reviewed."
Of course there are papers that take issue with many facets of global warming science. That is how science works. The ones from reputable scientific journals have been weighed and studied. Those that have found merit have been incorporated into the science. It is up to you to present those that support your rather loose position.
But I do not expect much other than more blather.
Do please give the whole context:

Under Rebuttals:

Criticism: Paper [Insert Name] is not a physical science paper.
Rebuttal: This is strawman argument as it is not claimed that all the papers are physical science papers, only that they are all peer-reviewed. Just like the WGII and WGIII sections of the IPCC reports, peer-reviewed papers from social scientists and policy analysts are included in the list. These papers appear in the appropriate socio-economic sections (e.g. Socio-Economic) separate from the physical science sections on the list. Regardless, there are over 1000 physical science papers on the list.

Get back to your reading... and this time make sure you look at all the words.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#44495 Mar 18, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe they didn't get the memo.... a little "hide" hear, a "trick" there... mix in some homogenization.... and TADA!
It's proven!!!
Proven what, denier?

Whining suits you!
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#44496 Mar 18, 2014
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
BTW, where is the solid science that supports your tenuous tedium.
Ahhh... nothing like the cart before the horse, huh?

It's the warmists that have presented the "theory". As such, they gotta answer to all comers.

Not my rules... just the way it is (or used to be).
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#44497 Mar 18, 2014
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>exactly who's rights are being trampled on, son?
funny.....you people can never disprove any facts given to you....no matter how much misinformation you all produce.
You, pops, can't handle the truth.. starting with the greenhouse gas effect!

Back to elementary school..
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#44498 Mar 18, 2014
Coal is King wrote:
Looks like at least one Global Warming Hoax money sink is about to get stopped:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/03...
Oh my goodness! A crisis within a crisis!

But funding should be no big deal... just snip out a few resort conferences, take commercial airlines, drop some SUV convoys... you know little budget tightening.

Tada! You've got scads of money!

And don't forget your curly-cue light bulbs and to inflate your tires!

btw... anyone know why it takes $1 million a year to keep this running? Seen a cost breakdown anywhere?
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#44500 Mar 18, 2014
coal is kinky wrote:
Looks like at least one Global Warming.....
Coal advocates want to cover up evidence of their rape of the atmosphere, seas, & Earth.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#44501 Mar 18, 2014
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
For what it is worth the denier message is falling rather flat. It seems that our local deniers are a pitiful minority.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observati...
"...according to an assessment of 21 surveys ..."

A survey of surveys? Yeah... there's some hard hitting stuff there. This guy's gotta be a warmists... who else could support cherry picking data in such a unique fashion, and then present it as a "fact"?

>>The majority of Americans continue to believe that the effects of global warming are happening or will begin to happen during their lifetimes. At the same time, many fewer, currently 36%, believe global warming will pose a serious threat to their way of life during their lifetimes.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/167879/not-global-...

First... note the distinction... "are happening" or "will happen during their lifetimes"... nothing like a broad brush to cover a big area.

But... is it a big deal?... nope. Check the graph. Never has a majority seen it as a "serious" threat.

d'Oh!
Franklin

Los Angeles, CA

#44502 Mar 18, 2014
True or false?

Several solar energy experts said they have not calculated the industry’s total waste and were surprised at what the records showed.

Solyndra, the now-defunct solar company that received $535 million in guaranteed federal loans, reported producing about 12.5 million pounds of hazardous waste, much of it carcinogenic cadmium-contaminated water, which was sent to waste facilities from 2007 through mid-2011.

Before the company went bankrupt, leading to increased scrutiny of the solar industry and political fallout for President Barack Obama’s administration, Solyndra SAID it created 100 megawatts-worth of solar panels, enough to power 100,000 homes.

The records also show several other Silicon Valley solar facilities created millions of pounds of toxic waste without selling a single solar panel, while they were developing their technology or fine-tuning their production.

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
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min flack 1,152,900
Deat Abby 12-16 4 min RACE 42
best joke (Oct '09) 6 min Always Smile 526
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 34 min Edmond Pulpo 181,670
14-Year-Old Boy Shot In Head On Far South Side 40 min Laughing Bear Fan 3
CHICAGO BEARS ARE SHYT. Boycott them 1 hr Go Blue Forever 18
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 1 hr RACE 4,912
Chicago Dating
Find my Match

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 ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 9:29 am PST

CBS Sports 9:29AM
Tony Dungy says Bears took Lovie Smith for granted
Bleacher Report10:20 AM
Bears Should Move on from Trestman and Emery, Keep Cutler
ESPN10:57 AM
Lions RT Waddle not likely to play vs. Bears
Bleacher Report11:00 AM
Jaguars, Titans Battle for No. 1 Pick as AFC South Tries to Catch Andrew Luck
NBC Sports11:21 AM
Who's in worse shape, Redskins or Bears?