Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 63948 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.

dem

United States

#44705 Mar 20, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>Warmists, are ever so quick to raise the conspiracy flag.

Why?

It's an easy way to dismiss the "inconvenient truths" that permeate their theory.

LOL

Run along... Spongebob's on.
Why are you a jagoff?
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#44706 Mar 20, 2014
dem wrote:
You know you're a stupid tea bag azzhole when you believe other tea bag azzholes and not climate scientists.
I see you've adopted the bulldoze 'em with bullshyt tactic.Having fun? Enjoying yourself?

Never mind you look foolish.

Here's a tip... breathe... in.... out.... and repeat as needed.

LOL
dem

United States

#44707 Mar 20, 2014
Fkn tea bag idiots argue facts. Lil
litesong

Everett, WA

#44708 Mar 20, 2014
litesong wrote:
Even milk stopped their commercials.
Meanwhile, excess energy AGW continues to add 355,000 to 400,000 hiroshima heats per day....... & rising! Our present Pacific Northwest January mornings are like our historic February mornings. Our present February mornings are like historic March mornings. Seattle nailed its hottest recorded 103 degF temperature in 2009, while inland from the cool Salish Sea(Puget Sound), temperatures rose to 105, 108 & to 111degF, on the normally Pacific Ocean cooled region & north of the 48th parallel.
In recent years, the jet stream is often driven far north of normally sopping western Washington, causing 90 days of no rain, while over-large, raging & continuous forest fires broke out early in the eastern Washington fire season, altho rain had wetted the region until mid-July.
Despite storms that set world yearly snow fall records on Mt. Rainier & Mt. Baker in recent years, the huge glaciers on both mountains have been reducing in mass.
//////////
"ratdownthemiddle", "middleofthedownwronggull y" gushed:
all natural variabilities.....
//////////
litesong wrote:
Our local effects, coupled with the rest of the massive AGW effects is far beyond natural variations, to the extent of 355,000 to 400,000 hiroshima energies per day. Only by adding the effects of AGW to natural variability can current Earth energy & heat increases be explained. slimy steenking toxic AGW deniers have no mechanism to explain such & will not have any acceptable explanations, because the vast majority of them have no science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc in poorly (or non-) earned hi skule DEE-plooomaas.

Since: Oct 08

Alpharetta, GA

#44710 Mar 20, 2014
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
slimy steenking toxic topix AGW deniers keep repeating this error. The Earth is receding from the sun because of conservation of angular momentum, solar loss of mass, solar wind, braking force of the atmosphere, oceans & internal friction in Earth's crust, etc.
so you're saying we are going further from the sun? how you gonna stop that, windmills? And don't change my name without my permission, its a violation of the tender of service rules, and I would have to report you to the proper authorities.
litesong

Everett, WA

#44713 Mar 20, 2014
motheaten wrote:
you've adopted the bulldoze 'em with bullshyt.
"motheaten" is afraid someone is stealing its possessions!
dem

United States

#44714 Mar 20, 2014
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>[email protected]

don't you have a wrench to go pull, jerko?

don't drown in your kettle one while living large in your south side paradise.
Say, have you pretended to be a big shot millionaire on this thread yet or are you playing climate scientist today?
dem

United States

#44715 Mar 20, 2014
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>you're starting to behave like,litesong, the village idiot of the forum.
See of that helps you phaggot.
dem

United States

#44716 Mar 20, 2014
Hee if enough tea bag azzholes call me foolish maybe I'll go away.
Not!
dem

United States

#44717 Mar 20, 2014
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>how's that racist law suit working out for ya?
How's being a150lb pusssccee working our for ya
dem

United States

#44718 Mar 20, 2014
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>you actually ask another person that question?
No, I asked your jagoff pal?
litesong

Everett, WA

#44719 Mar 20, 2014
litesong wrote:
slimy steenking toxic topix AGW deniers keep repeating this error. The Earth is receding from the sun because of conservation of angular momentum, solar loss of mass, solar wind, braking force of the atmosphere, oceans & internal friction in Earth's crust, etc.
//////////
"inbred jerk" jotted:
so you're saying we are going further from the sun? And don't change my name without my permission......
//////////
litesong wrote:
This website of rag tag biased news tatterings shows that there are no proper authorities at slimy steenking toxic topix(always small letters).

I've been calling you "inbred jerk" for a year. Now you respond. I thought you enjoyed a more accurate description of yourself.

I don't say the Earth is receding from the Sun. Science states it. It is not unusual that slimy steenking toxic topix AGW deniers don't know science.
litesong

Everett, WA

#44723 Mar 20, 2014
dem wrote:
You dumbfks get your degrees from topix or google?
No. Most slimy steenking toxic topix AGW deniers get their degrees same place as always....... from sugary cereal boxes.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#44724 Mar 20, 2014
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>your fantasies of me don't match up with reality, son.
but, they're all your own anyway.
No surprise... warmists have all kinds of problems with things not matching up with reality.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#44725 Mar 20, 2014
"warminsts," LOL..

Since: Mar 14

Jackson, MS

#44726 Mar 20, 2014
If my pickup truck helps keep the propane bill down fer my double wide then I say good.
dem

Chicago, IL

#44727 Mar 20, 2014
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>your fantasies of me don't match up with reality, son.
but, they're all your own anyway.
Regardless of which bullsh it story you're selling today I prefer to look at you as a liar either now or then. Probably both.
dem

Chicago, IL

#44728 Mar 20, 2014
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>nope. haven't on any other either.
didn't i send you on an errand to find a post where i made that claim?
i'm still waiting...
I knew you were liar when you said it. Best for you to back off that pile of steaming sh it.
I had you pegged for one of Sams characters from the start.
dem

Chicago, IL

#44729 Mar 20, 2014
So seriously...we have tea bag climate experts willing to look like idiots on yet another indisputable fact?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#44730 Mar 20, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Like I said... warmists love their authorities.
So tell me... where's your science? I mean personally, not the work of someone else. C'mon... let's see you stand up to your own standards that only "peer reviewed" studies count.
I want to see yours.
Until then, you're just spewing mindless talking points you learned from the other warmists that believe that only "peer reviewed science from reputable journals" can be used in any debate.
A fallacy of authority, to be sure.... and warmists love their authorities.
-----
“You can’t believe what that guy says. He research was funded by Greenpeace!”
The person uttering this sentence has committed the economic fallacy, which is the belief that the truth of research depends on how that research was obtained or who funded it. More specifically, the economic fallacy says results are false because they were obtained using money from a source known or suspected to be slimy, or is otherwise just plain unlikeable.
Greenpeace and its funders have repeatedly shown themselves to be unlikeable. Greenpeace’s press releases and fund-raising literature, for example, are filled with obfuscations, prevarications, wild speculations, half truths, and worse. Extremely unlikeable behavior. But that does not mean that the research Greenpeace releases is automatically false.
Nor does it imply that the research of the many scientists or organizations Greenpeace funds and supports is automatically false. To say that it is to commit the economic fallacy.
The economic fallacy also rears its illogical head if we consider that Greenpeace’s results must be false because they receive funding from Big Oil and other large corporations. Because we dislike these corporations does not mean that Greenpeace’s results, or again the results from the groups and scientists Greenpeace itself funds, are false because of this funding.
Greenpeace also receives a lot of money from actors and other glitterati, plus a bundle from people and organizations of the far, far left. Again, just because this is so does not mean that was Greenpeace says is false.
The tiresome truth is that each claim Greenpeace or its sponsored scientists and organizations makes must be checked for its veracity. Each and every one, each and every time. None can be dismissed because we dislike the source of funding.
Now just think: if the economic fallacy were not a fallacy, then how could we trust any results? After all, each scientist is funded by someone (even if that someone is himself). How can we be sure that this someone did not dictate the results? All humans are fallible and disagreeable in some way, so if there were no economic fallacy, we could claim any new result is false just by identifying what is disagreeable about someone. And that, dear readers, would take very little effort.
--David Suzuki
What's good for the goose...
Put up or shut up. You have danced around the questions with cut and pastes from denier blogs. The Earth is warming. CO2 is a GHG. Burning fossil fuels increases the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Can you show any of these to be false?

What does Green peace or Climate Audit have to do with the science? What does Al Gore have to do with the science. Climate scientists, the experts, have diligently studied climate change and have found that global warming is happening and that man is implicit. That is the science. What skeptics must do is to show that the premise is incorrect. Whining and nit picking are not going to help their cause.

When you present some solid science that supports your position instead of innuendo and obscure disagreements perhaps someone will listen. So far all you have accomplished is to show how little you understand.

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) 22 min Teaman 1,583,759
Trump Just Sux 1 hr They cannot kill ... 133
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 1 hr They cannot kill ... 11,186
Obama welfare monkeys 1 hr Black wives matter 2
Slavery 2 hr We saved negrahs 3
OVERALL CDST of electric autos. 2 hr Where Is NO-25 26
What's the real story about Charlottsville? 2 hr MalignantDemRacists 28

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages