Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 61018 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.

Truth Facts

Chillicothe, OH

#45293 Mar 31, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
A total BS post, all you deniers are empty vessels. It's like trying to communicate with stone age man, he still has to invent the wheel and writes his hunting exploits on cave walls. Your posts are no different, always in denial trying to find loop holes with circular arguments about research grants and the "maybe's" but NO SCIENCE! I have news for you deniers all science is done by research grants whether it's private or government. No sane person would offer money for a doomsday message wtf is wrong with you people apart from being clueless!
Here you go jack wagon:

The IPCC's Latest Report Deliberately Excludes And Misrepresents Important Climate Science: This week, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is releasing its latest report, the “Working Group II Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report.” Like its past reports, this one predicts apocalyptic consequences if mankind fails to give the UN the power to tax and regulate fossil fuels and subsidize and mandate the use of alternative fuels. But happily, an international group of scientists I have been privileged to work with has conducted an independent review of IPCC’s past and new reports, along with the climate science they deliberately exclude or misrepresent.

Our group, called the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), was founded in 2003 by a distinguished atmospheric physicist, S. Fred Singer, and has produced five hefty reports to date, the latest being released today (March 31).

So how do the IPCC and NIPCC reports differ? The final draft of the IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers identifies eight “reasons for concern” which media reports say will remain the focus of the final report. The NIPCC reports address each point too, also summarizing their authors’ positions in Summaries for Policymakers. This provides a convenient way to compare and contrast the reports’ findings.
OF course you wont take the time to read the whole report because it goes completely against your agenda.Wacko bird.
Mothra

Tempe, AZ

#45295 Mar 31, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
A total BS post, all you deniers are empty vessels. It's like trying to communicate with stone age man, he still has to invent the wheel and writes his hunting exploits on cave walls. Your posts are no different, always in denial trying to find loop holes with circular arguments about research grants and the "maybe's" but NO SCIENCE! I have news for you deniers all science is done by research grants whether it's private or government. No sane person would offer money for a doomsday message wtf is wrong with you people apart from being clueless!
While warmists routinely cite "funding sources" as a favorite debunking tool against skeptics, when you're faced with the same argument it becomes a non-issue?

It's so much fun to turn warmists own standards back on them.
gcaveman1

Carrollton, TX

#45296 Mar 31, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmm... you didn't use any of those nasty fossil fuels for your trip, did you?
If so, what did you do to offset the additional CO2 your trip created?
An indirect tithe?
d'Oh!
Of course not. We took the mules.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#45297 Mar 31, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Your argument seems to be that it's impossible for 800 scientists to be wrong. Would that be every issue of just global warming?
Did you notice the headline.. "may prove"?
So... those same 800 scientists can't even agree that events "will" happen... just that they "may"? That's the definitive proof?
Wow... warm fuzzies for everybody!
Somebody has obviously not read the report...

Many species will be unable to track suitable climates under mid- and high-range rates of climate change during the 21st century.

Some species will adapt to new climates. Those that cannot adapt sufficiently fast will decrease in abundance or go extinct in part or all of their ranges.

Due to sea-level rise projected throughout the 21st century and beyond, coastal systems and low-lying areas will increasingly experience adverse impacts such as submergence, coastal flooding, and coastal erosion.

Due to projected climate change by the mid 21st century and beyond, global marine-species redistribution and marine-biodiversity reduction in sensitive regions will challenge the sustained provision of fisheries productivity and other ecosystem services.

To be continued...

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#45298 Mar 31, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Speaking of more food...
The new IPCC report claims reducing CO2 emissions will help to provide food security for the future, but the opposite is true. Hundreds of scientific papers prove increased CO2 fertilization markedly increases photosynthetic rates and biomass production of all the world's major crops, in addition to increasing resistance to drought. And there is also the significant body of work that reveals that as the atmosphere's CO2 concentration rises, the various temperatures at which different plants photosynthesize most proficiently rise right along with it.
IPCC decarbonization policies will decrease agricultural production, and lead to more malnourishment and poverty due to higher energy and food prices.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/03/the...
CO2 fertilisation only works where you have enough water and temperatures aren't too high.

The real effect of global warming on agricultural production is here:

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/7387300...
Mothra

Tempe, AZ

#45300 Apr 1, 2014
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
CO2 fertilisation only works where you have enough water and temperatures aren't too high.
The real effect of global warming on agricultural production is here:
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/7387300...
<sigh>

It's been said that a picture is worth a thousand words.

And then there are those from warmist computer models.

You need to stop taking posting tips from Spaceballs.... a random graphic with no documentation?

Yeah... that's a serious argument.

btw... the Shell Foundation is listed as one of their donors. So does that mean all their science should be dismissed?

d'Oh!

“Headline already in use”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#45301 Apr 1, 2014
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/7387300...

Change is good. What's not to love about global warming?

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#45302 Apr 1, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
<sigh>
It's been said that a picture is worth a thousand words.
And then there are those from warmist computer models.
You need to stop taking posting tips from Spaceballs.... a random graphic with no documentation?
Yeah... that's a serious argument.
btw... the Shell Foundation is listed as one of their donors. So does that mean all their science should be dismissed?
d'Oh!
It's from the latest IPCC report, where else?

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#45303 Apr 1, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Speaking of more food...
The new IPCC report claims reducing CO2 emissions will help to provide food security for the future, but the opposite is true. Hundreds of scientific papers prove increased CO2 fertilization markedly increases photosynthetic rates and biomass production of all the world's major crops, in addition to increasing resistance to drought. And there is also the significant body of work that reveals that as the atmosphere's CO2 concentration rises, the various temperatures at which different plants photosynthesize most proficiently rise right along with it.
IPCC decarbonization policies will decrease agricultural production, and lead to more malnourishment and poverty due to higher energy and food prices.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/03/the...
OK, the fact that this is written by people with their back pockets full of cash from the fossil fuel industry makes me doubt this assessment of the science, let's have a look at the science they cite.

*Yes, the temperature at which optimum photosynthesis rises, but it then falls dramatically.

http://ib.berkeley.edu/courses/ib151/IB151Lec...

*You can't look at photosynthesis in isolation: higher temperatures mean more water lost from the soil and root stress.

*Study cited is for a species of tree: you can't draw conclusions for arable crops from that.

*Study cited is *leaf* temperature in full sunlight: you can't draw conclusions about the effect of air temperature from that.

*Study cited is for a northern temperate zone plant: plants in hotter habitats will be nearer the optimum temperature already.

http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/75/4/1022...

*predicted global warming is not the same as land surface air temperature warming, which is higher than the global average.

So yes, there is a lot of scientific literature on CO2 fertilisation, but no, this fossil fuel funded study is not an accurate summary of it.

Northern latitudes will see increased agricultural production by mid century, but southern latitudes will see dramatically reduced production.

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/7387300...
Professor

Fullerton, CA

#45304 Apr 1, 2014
CO2, despite being a minor element of the Earth’s atmosphere, is essential for all life on Earth because it is the food that nourishes all vegetation. The Earth has passed through many periods of high levels of CO2 and many cycles of warming and cooling that are part of the life of the planet.
“Science works by creating theories based on assumptions,” Dr. Ball notes,“then other scientists—performing their skeptical role—test them. The structure and mandate of the IPCC was in direct contradiction of this scientific method. They set out to prove the theory rather than disprove it.”
“The atmosphere,” Dr. Ball notes,“is three-dimensional and dynamic, so building a computer model that even approximates reality requires far more data than exists and much greater understanding of an extremely turbulent and complex system.” No computer model put forth by the IPCC in support of global warming has been accurate, nor ever could be.
Most of the reports were created by a small group of men working within the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia and all were members of the IPCC. The result was “a totally false picture supposedly based on science.”

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#45305 Apr 1, 2014
Professor wrote:
CO2, despite being a minor element of the Earth’s atmosphere, is essential for all life on Earth because it is the food that nourishes all vegetation. The Earth has passed through many periods of high levels of CO2 and many cycles of warming and cooling that are part of the life of the planet.
“Science works by creating theories based on assumptions,” Dr. Ball notes,“then other scientists—performing their skeptical role—test them. The structure and mandate of the IPCC was in direct contradiction of this scientific method. They set out to prove the theory rather than disprove it.”
“The atmosphere,” Dr. Ball notes,“is three-dimensional and dynamic, so building a computer model that even approximates reality requires far more data than exists and much greater understanding of an extremely turbulent and complex system.” No computer model put forth by the IPCC in support of global warming has been accurate, nor ever could be.
Most of the reports were created by a small group of men working within the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia and all were members of the IPCC. The result was “a totally false picture supposedly based on science.”
What else can one expect from a retired geography professor tied to the oil industry?

“Headline already in use”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#45306 Apr 1, 2014
No species has ever been driven extinct by man made climate change and no species has evolved the ability to mitigate climate change either.

That's why climate change mitigation is a hoax and man made catastrophic climate change is pseudoscience.
litesong

Everett, WA

#45307 Apr 1, 2014
[QUOTE who="lyin' brian"]No species has ever been driven extinct by man made climate change [/QUOTE]

"lyin' brian" has made errors of 1 million TIMES, 1000 TIMES, 3000 TIMES, 73 million TIMES, & 2.5 trillion TIMES. "lyin' brian" has no science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc in its poorly earned, but proudly held hi skule DEE-ploooma.
litesong

Everett, WA

#45308 Apr 1, 2014
false farts wrote:
The IPCC's Latest Report Deliberately Excludes And Misrepresents Important Climate Science:
Just Joseph Bast filling webs with its most inaccurate, anti-science pro-oil, energy & re-pubic-lick-un toxicity. "false farts" quotes a paper shuffler to counter science.

"false farts" earns its name, "false farts".
Mothra

Tempe, AZ

#45309 Apr 1, 2014
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, the fact that this is written by people with their back pockets full of cash from the fossil fuel industry makes me doubt this assessment of the science, let's have a look at the science they cite.
Thanks... just wanted to get a warmist to admit that funding from fossil fuel companies doesn't discount science.

d'Oh!
Mothra

Tempe, AZ

#45310 Apr 1, 2014
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
What else can one expect from a retired geography professor tied to the oil industry?
As usual we expect no rational argument from you... and you deliver.

btw, your warmist bud above just vindicated oil industry funding.

d'Oh!
Mothra

Tempe, AZ

#45311 Apr 1, 2014
litesong wrote:
It's Tuesday... did you take your meds?
litesong

Everett, WA

#45312 Apr 1, 2014
gcaveman1 wrote:
We took the mules.
How did you like the Grand Canyon. I hiked in myself.
Truth Facts

Chillicothe, OH

#45313 Apr 1, 2014
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Just Joseph Bast filling webs with its most inaccurate, anti-science pro-oil, energy & re-pubic-lick-un toxicity. "false farts" quotes a paper shuffler to counter science.
"false farts" earns its name, "false farts".
Just shows your immaturity ass hat.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#45314 Apr 1, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks... just wanted to get a warmist to admit that funding from fossil fuel companies doesn't discount science.
d'Oh!
No one will notice you dodged any discussion of the science, will they?

Or made any attempt to defend the obvious flaws.

Keep you virginity as far as actually talking about the science. Wise move. If you tried to talk about the science, you'd just demonstrate you utter inability to spot good from bad.

Keeping your virginity, you keep you excuse: there were some science that said global warming wasn't a threat.

Acknowledge that somebody pointed out to you that that science is junk and you can't use the excuse.

So walk away quietly.

With a trolling remark you think will be a distraction.

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 FYVM 1,417,728
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 8 min Jacques in Orlean... 222,356
TRUMP Media Facts 10 min HRC in trouble 1
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 2 hr SweLL GirL 9,372
last post wins! (Dec '10) 2 hr Red_Forman 2,414
last post wins! (Apr '13) 2 hr Red_Forman 1,449
Double Word Game (Dec '11) 3 hr whatimeisit 3,024
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 9 hr Go Blue Forever 103,437

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages