Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 60014 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.

d pantz

United States

#45097 Mar 27, 2014
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
I see that you do not understand science either. A theory is as good as science ever gets. Facts are what we observe. Theories are what science formulates from facts to explain how things work.
This may help.
http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theo...
"A scientific theory is a general statement intending to explain nature that is confirmed by all available evidence such that it can be used to predict new, as yet unobserved phenomena. Importantly, a theory is worth very little if it doesn't correctly predict all known evidence. Very importantly, theories are subject to changes as new evidence becomes available. Most theories that you will discuss in a high school science class are well-confirmed and are unlikely to be revised in any significant sense. Theories that are less confirmed are abundant in fields like theoretical physics and cosmology, such as String Theory."
So did those polar ice caps melt and flood the earth this year? Or is the man made global warming theory making incorrect predictions based on faulty evidence?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#45098 Mar 27, 2014
d pantz wrote:
<quoted text> all your link does is state what I've already stated . Theory isn't fact/law, it has to proven before its called "law".pointing out a couple of scientific laws that may support a theory doesn't make it "law". They would have to prove every angle of the hypothesis or you're still left with just a theory. You mean "LAW" is as good as science gets. That's what your link says.
Perhaps you didn't read the article. A law is not proven but it is highly accepted by the scientific community. Neither Laws or Theories in science are "proven". They are the best it gets.

Quote from the article:
"As used in science, I think that it is important to realize that, in spite of the differences (see below), these terms share some things in common. Both are based on tested hypotheses; both are supported by a large body of empirical data; both help unify a particular field; both are widely accepted by the vast majority (if not all) scientists within a discipline. Furthermore, both scientific laws and scientific theories could be shown to be wrong at some time if there are data to suggest so."

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#45099 Mar 27, 2014
Therefore, science is not certain! However, it is better than simply guessing or quoting from incomplete information.
litesong

Everett, WA

#45100 Mar 27, 2014
[QUOTE who="ratdownthemiddle ","middleofthedownwr onggully"]The entire premise of the EPA-RFS was to force fossil fuel producers to make fuels with a lower amount of GHG emission!![/QUOTE]

The EPA accomplished lower GHG emissions from ethanol, easily...... because ethanol used(but not burned efficiently) in low compression ratio(9:1 to 12:1) gasoline engines produces little power. That is why just a 10% ethanol blend reduces mpg by 8% to 5%! In a small minority of PRESENT gasoline engines, the 10% ethanol causes ~10% loss in mpg. It is easily seen that the ethanol produces NO POWER in those particular gasoline engines.

Yeah, the EPA produces less GHG from their forced ethanol requirement......BECAUSE THE ETHANOL PRODUCES NO PROPER BURNING & POWER PRODUCTION...... just lowers mpg.

Meanwhile, the original premise that ethanol reduced pollutants of other chemicals is not true now(if it ever was true), since modern technology is producing 100% gasoline refinements to meet EPA pollution restrictions.....WITHOUT ETHANOL!

For 2014 EPA is lowering ethanol blending requirements. Further reductions will be forthcoming, since the 'EPA forced ethanol program' is a failure.

I see that you are a paper shuffler & people shover, but didn't have science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra, or pre-calc in a poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#45101 Mar 27, 2014
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
The EPA accomplished lower GHG emissions from ethanol, easily...... because ethanol used(but not burned efficiently) in low compression ratio(9:1 to 12:1) gasoline engines produces little power. That is why just a 10% ethanol blend reduces mpg by 8% to 5%! In a small minority of PRESENT gasoline engines, the 10% ethanol causes ~10% loss in mpg. It is easily seen that the ethanol produces NO POWER in those particular gasoline engines.
Yeah, the EPA produces less GHG from their forced ethanol requirement......BECAUSE THE ETHANOL PRODUCES NO PROPER BURNING & POWER PRODUCTION...... just lowers mpg.
Meanwhile, the original premise that ethanol reduced pollutants of other chemicals is not true now(if it ever was true), since modern technology is producing 100% gasoline refinements to meet EPA pollution restrictions.....WITHOUT ETHANOL!
For 2014 EPA is lowering ethanol blending requirements. Further reductions will be forthcoming, since the 'EPA forced ethanol program' is a failure.
I see that you are a paper shuffler & people shover, but didn't have science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra, or pre-calc in a poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa.
but....but....but ethanol is better for the environment!! isn't that what you want, son? now you bytch about mpg?!?! you people always claim renewables (green energy) are just as good as conventional fuel!!!

anyway....thanks for your concession!!!

if the EPA can't get fuel standards right.....why do you trust them with mitigating climate?
Mothra

Tempe, AZ

#45102 Mar 27, 2014
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
Therefore, science is not certain! However, it is better than simply guessing or quoting from incomplete information.
So much for that "settled science" argument.

Warmists foil themselves.

Love it!
Mothra

Tempe, AZ

#45103 Mar 27, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Speaking of parrots, as I said the other day. Why single out climate scientists, cancer scientists are scamming millions in their research, lets stop that as well. Why not stop every science project research especially the ones studying the universe. Their findings might clash with what the bible says. To an ignorant denier like yourself, then it must make you choke as each week dissolves another bs theory from the deniers.
Have medical scientists ever argued their science was "settled" based on "consensus"?

You embarrass yourself but are too thick to see otherwise.

I do love holding warmists to their own standards.

LOL
litesong

Everett, WA

#45104 Mar 27, 2014
[QUOTE who="ratdownthemiddle ","middleofthedownwr onggully"]....thanks for your concession!!!
[/QUOTE]

I've promoted 100%(ethanol-free) gasoline for decades, & "ratdownthemiddle", "middleofthedownwronggull y" never mentioned 100% gasoline, till reading my many posts on it.

"ratdownthemiddle", "middleofthedownwronggull y" have conceded to me, because it believes my ten plus years of personally gathered data.

But "ratdownthemiddle", "middleofthedownwronggull y" is sleasy, racist, a paper shuffler & people shover, & has no science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc in its poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa.
litesong

Everett, WA

#45105 Mar 27, 2014
motheaten wrote:
..... holding.....
"motheaten" has never held a hi skule DEE-plooomaa with science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra, & pre-calc.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#45106 Mar 27, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Have medical scientists ever argued their science was "settled" based on "consensus"?
You embarrass yourself but are too thick to see otherwise.
I do love holding warmists to their own standards.
LOL
Of course the tobacco industry argued the science was not settled and there was no consensus on smoke causing cancer.

Not even original, mothballs, you're singing from an old song sheet, just given to you by a new set of sociopathic greedy amoral scumbags.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#45107 Mar 27, 2014
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
I've promoted 100%(ethanol-free) gasoline for decades, & "ratdownthemiddle", "middleofthedownwronggull y" never mentioned 100% gasoline, till reading my many posts on it.
"ratdownthemiddle", "middleofthedownwronggull y" have conceded to me, because it believes my ten plus years of personally gathered data.
But "ratdownthemiddle", "middleofthedownwronggull y" is sleasy, racist, a paper shuffler & people shover, & has no science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc in its poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa.
so you stand with big oil when it suits your personal preferences!!

http://theenergycollective.com/gcooperrfa/233...

interesting!!!
Mothra

Tempe, AZ

#45109 Mar 27, 2014
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course the tobacco industry...
Ahh.... nothing like puerile diversion from the promoters of the "settled" science.

Run along .. Spongebob is probably on.
litesong

Everett, WA

#45110 Mar 27, 2014
[QUOTE who="ratdownthemiddle ","middleofthedownwr onggully"]..so you stand with big oil.....[/QUOTE]

So....... you quote an ethanol promoting website, which lies, even tho you don't support ethanol in gasoline.

Why do you think Big Oil never complained about the "ethanol in gasoline" industry, overmuch? Big Oil, from the beginning, knew that ethanol wouldn't burn efficiently in low compression ratio gasoline engines. Big Oil knew the "ethanol in gasoline" industry would use MORE oil than it would save. Big Oil wanted "ethanol in gasoline", which is why your chosen website is lying...... & you don't care if it lies.

Its so funny, that we agree on a subject, but you hate me so much, you desire more potshots at me(altho you miss all the time).

Indeed, "ratdownthemiddle", "middleofthedownwronggull y" earns its name "ratdownthemiddle", "middleofthedownwronggull y".
Mothra

Tempe, AZ

#45111 Mar 27, 2014
litesong wrote:
Loon.

Have a seat next to Oz and Spaceballs in the ZERO credibility penalty box.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#45112 Mar 27, 2014
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
The Feinstein/Coburn, bi-partisan bill is proceeding thru Congress that would halt the mandate to blend ethanol into our gasoline stocks. Presently, many areas charge 30 cents to $1+ for 100% gasoline vs. 10% ethanol blends, because of the rarity of 100% gasoline. If 10 to 15 times more 100% gasoline can be made available to American buyers, the price difference between 100% gasoline & 10% ethanol blends will come down.
100% gasoline is more fuel efficient than 10% ethanol. From my house in Chesapeake Va to my farm near Summersville WV it took 3/4 tank of 100% gas but it takes 1 1/4 10% gas to travel the same distance. Same truck, same tune up.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#45113 Mar 27, 2014
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
So....... you quote an ethanol promoting website, which lies, even tho you don't support ethanol in gasoline.
Why do you think Big Oil never complained about the "ethanol in gasoline" industry, overmuch? Big Oil, from the beginning, knew that ethanol wouldn't burn efficiently in low compression ratio gasoline engines. Big Oil knew the "ethanol in gasoline" industry would use MORE oil than it would save. Big Oil wanted "ethanol in gasoline", which is why your chosen website is lying...... & you don't care if it lies.
Its so funny, that we agree on a subject, but you hate me so much, you desire more potshots at me(altho you miss all the time).
Indeed, "ratdownthemiddle", "middleofthedownwronggull y" earns its name "ratdownthemiddle", "middleofthedownwronggull y".
LOL

what are you smoking?

big oil has never been for rfs!! it's an expense to them and cuts their market share, loon!!

pssssst....if you want people to play nice, you should simply say "you don't understand" when its obvious instead of calling others liars.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#45114 Mar 27, 2014

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#45115 Mar 27, 2014
The Dept. of Energy states that ethanol reduces GHG emissions by 19%!

Isn't that what you people stand for.....or do you even know?

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#45116 Mar 27, 2014
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>

Its so funny, that we agree on a subject, but you hate me so much, you desire more potshots at me(altho you miss all the time).
Indeed, "ratdownthemiddle", "middleofthedownwronggull y" earns its name "ratdownthemiddle", "middleofthedownwronggull y".
i don't hate anyone.....especially total strangers!

maybe it would serve you better to remove your emotions when posting on topix, son.

lol

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#45117 Mar 27, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Have medical scientists ever argued their science was "settled" based on "consensus"?
You embarrass yourself but are too thick to see otherwise.
I do love holding warmists to their own standards.
LOL
Absolutely! This is where you are 100% wrong, if any new drug coming onto the market that prevents a certain disease then it must be approved by consensus. In other-words it must work for a start and it is safe for consumption. This applies to every science finding, whether its a new planet that has been found or genetic modified crops. All face a peer review, so as much as you WISH it were not so, I'm afraid the science is in. Warming is real and it is man made!

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) 1 min President Trump 1,394,464
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 3 min Jacques in Orleans 216,472
last post wins! (Apr '13) 5 min Hatti_Hollerand 1,103
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 44 min Cheftell 70,700
News Mexico 'Voice' contestant shot dead in Chicago 1 hr bozo 3
last post wins! (Dec '10) 1 hr Red_Forman 2,127
News Man who shot 3-year-old boy was celebrating gan... 1 hr bozo 1
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 14 hr AngryLeak 102,441
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages