Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 63855 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: 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.
dem

Chicago, IL

#44731 Mar 20, 2014
Bring me up to speed on what rightuptheasshole is beating his denial drum about so I can slap him around a little.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#44732 Mar 20, 2014
40 Years On:'It's Time We Start Listening' to Global Warming Prediction

Paper written four decades ago warned of global warming, accurately predicted temperature rise[commondreams]

"Industrial development has recently been proceeding at an increasing rate so that the output of man-made carbon dioxide has been increasing more or less exponentially," wrote Sawyer. "So long as the carbon dioxide output continues to increase exponentially, it is reasonable to assume that about the same proportion as at present (about half) will remain in the atmosphere and about the same amount will go into the other reservoirs."

While half of the carbon adds to the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere, the rest is absorbed in the ocean and biosphere, Sawyer accurately noted. Hence, this relentless excess of carbon has also led to what scientists are now calling global warming's "evil twin"—the acidification of the world's oceans.

"All in all, Sawyer's 1972 paper demonstrated a solid understanding of the fundamental workings of the global climate, and included a remarkably accurate prediction of global warming over the next 30 years," writes Nuccitelli. "Sawyer's paper was followed by similarly accurate global warming predictions by Wallace Broecker in 1975 and James Hansen in 1981."
dem

Chicago, IL

#44733 Mar 20, 2014
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Well after seeng the fact based beat down you have given these idiots I can't see any reason to bother trying to play nice with them. They are the willfully ignorant. The ignorant will be treated as such. What's the confusion. When you meet an idiot that refuses to learn keep in mind they are a right wing terrorist. No interest at all in the truth. They are here to spread lies. I don't like liars.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#44739 Mar 20, 2014
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Once again, oh thick one, you refuse to debate the facts as presented. And apparently the volume of such cannot penetrate your concrete cranium.

I've given plenty of evidence. You've refuted none of it. Instead, you've chosen make one ridiculous call for "science" after another.

Run along.,, you're tiresome.
dem

Chicago, IL

#44740 Mar 20, 2014
Calm down, lady. I know you're a little shaken up to see me. You've quickly abandoned your climate scientist routine just to talk about old times. When you lie, lady, you take the chance that someone might remember your lies and try and remind you. A nudge or a kick in the azz usually gets your old man temper up.
dem

Chicago, IL

#44741 Mar 20, 2014
Don't let rightuptheasshole fool you. He stalks around here under many names. He's always lurking. Yet he has such an exciting life of leisure. Just ask him.
dem

Chicago, IL

#44742 Mar 20, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, oh thick one, you refuse to debate the facts as presented. And apparently the volume of such cannot penetrate your concrete cranium.
I've given plenty of evidence. You've refuted none of it. Instead, you've chosen make one ridiculous call for "science" after another.
Run along.,, you're tiresome.
This is rightuptheasshole's partner? He's retarded.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#44743 Mar 20, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, oh thick one, you refuse to debate the facts as presented. And apparently the volume of such cannot penetrate your concrete cranium.
I've given plenty of evidence. You've refuted none of it. Instead, you've chosen make one ridiculous call for "science" after another.
Run along.,, you're tiresome.
I would love to debate the facts. Try presenting some. Until you do, good by Gertrude.
litesong

Everett, WA

#44744 Mar 20, 2014
[QUOTE who="ritedownthemiddle ","middleofthedownwr onggully"]doesn't give you exclusive rights to look like an idiot.[/QUOTE]

You protect your territory, strongly.
litesong

Everett, WA

#44745 Mar 20, 2014
dem wrote:
he has such an exciting life of leisure.
"ratdownthemiddle", "middleofthedownwronggull y" has a favorite movie.
dem

Chicago, IL

#44746 Mar 20, 2014
Come on, pal, lets talk about climate change.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#44747 Mar 20, 2014
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
I would love to debate the facts. Try presenting some. Until you do, good by Gertrude.
<yawn>

1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer...
dem

Chicago, IL

#44749 Mar 20, 2014
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
"ratdownthemiddle", "middleofthedownwronggull y" has a favorite movie.
He's such an idiot. He's infatuated about a used car I bought to have a little fun with. Now he stalks with dumb comments about how corvettes are junk or how I need to lie about a used car to impress somebody. Green with envy I guess.
dem

Chicago, IL

#44750 Mar 20, 2014
Spooky Vulgar wrote:
<quoted text>
How about that wart on your nose biotch!
Evening, lady!
You must be rightuptheasshole's wife.
dem

Chicago, IL

#44752 Mar 20, 2014
WASHINGTON — Climate change is accelerating, and it will place unparalleled strains on American military and intelligence agencies in coming years by causing ever more disruptive events around the globe, the nation’s top scientific research group said in a report issued Friday.
Related in Opinion

Dot Earth Blog: Science Panel Warns Spy Agencies Are in the Dark on Risks from Warming (November 9, 2012)

The group, the National Research Council, says in a study commissioned by the C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies that clusters of apparently unrelated events exacerbated by a warming climate will create more frequent but unpredictable crises

Hurricane Sandy provided a foretaste of what can be expected more often in the near future, the report’s lead author, John D. Steinbruner, said in an interview.

“This is the sort of thing we were talking about,” said Mr. Steinbruner, a longtime authority on national security.“You can debate the specific contribution of global warming to that storm. But we’re saying climate extremes are going to be more frequent, and this was an example of what they could mean. We’re also saying it could get a whole lot worse than that.”
dem

Zion, IL

#44761 Mar 20, 2014
I'm a dum bass idiot who goes around talking sht about something I know nothing of cause my pen is is so small and my z28 runs on 7 cylinders and is rusted out so don't blame me for my sudden outbursts of stupidity I'm just mad litesout bangs my rear to much you should see my bumper!
dem

Chicago, IL

#44762 Mar 20, 2014
Looks like the tea bag scientists are angry tonight.
dem

Chicago, IL

#44763 Mar 20, 2014
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>nobody is abandoning anything. you just came to the thread. it's impossible to talk about subject matter when you're around. anybody on topix knows that. LOL
btw.....where is the troll patrol?
bwaaahaaaahhahahaha
i'm glad you're here. i want to stomp out these ridiculous climate change threads. a useful troll like you makes the serious minded people leave!
please go on!!!!!
I'm not certain you are even the same imbecile I used to fk with. He wasn't this stupid. I think it's Sam I am from GGGGUUUUUURRRRRNNNNEEEEE!
Truth Facts

Chillicothe, OH

#44764 Mar 20, 2014
dem wrote:
WASHINGTON — Climate change is accelerating, and it will place unparalleled strains on American military and intelligence agencies in coming years by causing ever more disruptive events around the globe, the nation’s top scientific research group said in a report issued Friday.
Related in Opinion
Dot Earth Blog: Science Panel Warns Spy Agencies Are in the Dark on Risks from Warming (November 9, 2012)
The group, the National Research Council, says in a study commissioned by the C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies that clusters of apparently unrelated events exacerbated by a warming climate will create more frequent but unpredictable crises
Hurricane Sandy provided a foretaste of what can be expected more often in the near future, the report’s lead author, John D. Steinbruner, said in an interview.
“This is the sort of thing we were talking about,” said Mr. Steinbruner, a longtime authority on national security.“You can debate the specific contribution of global warming to that storm. But we’re saying climate extremes are going to be more frequent, and this was an example of what they could mean. We’re also saying it could get a whole lot worse than that.”
Blah,blah,blah dirty little troll

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) 7 min VetnorsGate 1,548,925
Am I the only one who notices how weird and con... 7 min Johnny Depps Hair 2
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 29 min Dr Guru 241,615
bring back vocational schools!! 56 min Sherm Potter 54
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 1 hr They cannot kill ... 10,844
Back Foor Trump Tax Cuts for Rich Again 2 hr Reeba Sinatra 1
Illinois is in critical financial crisis. 3 hr Angry Citizen 9

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages