Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 54342 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.

DDDD-25

Corona, CA

#46078 Apr 21, 2014
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Good post but I would use the phrase "sustained theories" or "accepted theories" instead of "proven theories". However, those without scientific discipline have no tools to argue that this science or that science is only a conspiracy. They must get that information from vested interests or other tag along prejudices. How this elevated to a partisan issue portraits how one political party has accepted an attempt by those who believe they may suffer economic loss rather than solid scientific findings. Apparently they are so enamored with market forces that they put it above their responsibility to their constituents. The media is also lax in its reporting when they feed into this bias. They should be held to task for their partisan pandering.
Your whining about the term "proven" only highlights your failure to prove ANYTHING , and.... Accentuates that you are a failed , wanna be , "expert, You have no interest in facts, as they are derived from PROVEN axioms.. Deception be thy middle name.
DDDD-25

Corona, CA

#46079 Apr 21, 2014
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Another radical. Global warming is happening. The Earth is warming. CO2 is a GHG. Burning fossil fuels increases the CO2 in the atmosphere. What don't you understand?
Do you think this is a world wide conspiracy involving ALL the great scientific academies? Where do you get your information?
It is YOU that is Radical. Stupid, too.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#46081 Apr 21, 2014
mdbuilder wrote:
<quoted text>
Russians, huh. Here, these ought to keep you busy for a while.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/06/15/forget...
Now don't skip over these, you might find some evidence of a conspiracy.
Climate Depot cites Voice of Russia.

Revealing.

Both sites are full of lies only believed by the party faithful.

Authoritarians are the same whether teabaggers or totalitarians.

On AGW they are even sharing the same propaganda.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#46082 Apr 21, 2014
DDDD-25 wrote:
<quoted text>
It is YOU that is Radical. Stupid, too.
DDDD-25 wrote:
What is it with you climate change fanatics? In the most arrogant way you possibly can, You put up these posts that berate ANYBODY with a point of view that is not 100% compliant with your own. " Uneducated",
"Moron", etc...
Hypocrite.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#46083 Apr 21, 2014
DDDD-25 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your whining about the term "proven" only highlights your failure to prove ANYTHING , and.... Accentuates that you are a failed , wanna be , "expert, You have no interest in facts, as they are derived from PROVEN axioms.. Deception be thy middle name.
That is the argument of the scientific illiterate. Scientific theories are not proven. Mathematicians provide proofs. Scientists simply find the best explanations from observations and logical applications. For example, prove that the theory that the universe is trending towards maximum entropy or prove the General Theory of Relativity.. They cannot be proven, but so far observations and application support the theories. Most scientific illiterates believe in absolutes but science deals in observation, experimental manipulation and logical application.

Even Einstein's theory of a static universe was shattered when Hubble discovered red shift in the spectra of objects in the universe. The current theory is that of the "Big Bang" but even that is under stress. Nope, scientific theories are not proven. They are simply accepted as the best explanation unless something comes along that disproves them. No one has disproved the theory of AGW as of this time.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#46084 Apr 21, 2014
charles in charge wrote:
<quoted text>
Link me to the similarities between your Rightie corporate crooks and carbon credits, fool. Or just admit you're lying desperately.
answer one question. What does a carbon credit produce besides an imaginary benefit? See the difference? Of course not.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#46085 Apr 21, 2014
charles in charge wrote:
<quoted text>
Laws against murder cause more murders, too. And traffic regulations mean more accidents.
And down is up, and up is down....LOL
that thought process does about completely cover the liberal mindset.

“Amor patriae.”

Since: Feb 08

Eastern Oregon

#46086 Apr 21, 2014
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Climate Depot cites Voice of Russia.
Revealing.
Both sites are full of lies only believed by the party faithful.
Authoritarians are the same whether teabaggers or totalitarians.
On AGW they are even sharing the same propaganda.
You religious fanatics really are all the same. Unbelievers or "deniers" are labeled, anathema. Any deviation from the written word is heresy. Not aligning one's self with your dogma is, in and of itself, a mortal sin, worthy of immediate imprisonment. Or so says some of your high priests.

We heretics are charged with the awesome responsibility of "saving" the planet. We doom our children to a life of heat charged drudgery, being pushed, inexorably, to tiny sweltering islands of humanity by the ever rising seas - unless we conform and, oh yeah, raise taxes. Follow the money.

“Grow the power within yourself”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46087 Apr 21, 2014
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Another radical. Global warming is happening. The Earth is warming. CO2 is a GHG. Burning fossil fuels increases the CO2 in the atmosphere. What don't you understand?
Do you think this is a world wide conspiracy involving ALL the great scientific academies? Where do you get your information?
Yeah yeah, "radical". You think you are soooo clever telling me burning wood leads to CO2. And eating meat really strains the eco system along with Ethanol-corn destroying virgin lands to make more ethanol for a zero-sum carbon exceeding gasolin.

I don't know about "conspiracy". The Global warming fascists are both to stupid and haughty to pull off something like that in an acceptable fashion. However, the entire scientific establishment is falling onto this like a hamster in a wheel. The consensus is staggering, superseding even Saddams election results. And the more normal people question this , the haugtier and nastier you people become.

So, if you care about "global warming" and carbon-credits, why don't you start with no meat, milk, eggs or honey, all combined contributing a lot to your daily excesses. This, along with driving a car. I don't eat any animal products, but Not because I believe in any of this crap. However, YOU as chief pontiff here, need to at least stop eating meat, you selfish, greedy, haughty double-standard tool.

(Of course, if you already are Vegan, give your car away and reduce electricity consumption by at least 95%. Lead by example for once and maybe someone will follow you by choice).
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#46088 Apr 21, 2014
DDDD-25 wrote:
<quoted text>
I see that you are ignorant of how the political system works as well as how the scientific process REALLY works. I know how peer review is supposed to work, but it no longer works because they are now ALL on the same payroll. Stray off the reservation and you are cut off. That's how it works now. I repeat: Anybody who believes that a politico believes more in doing the right thing for all parties concerned, than he does in lying unto his own death for the specific purpose of perpetual re-election, is a moron. A very, very special;, high power moron. One nearly as dense as the matter at the center of a black hole. A person so stupid, he thinks higher taxes are good thing. You really can't get more ignorant than that now, Can you? You should not have children.
politics vs science

Assuming for a moment that climate scientists are right about their crisis predictions on global warming, should then those same scientists be deciding what to do about it? Would not those decisions better be made not by climate scientists but experts in public policy?

This is an extraordinary article that delves into that very issue.

>>I could go on about the consensus or lack thereof on other issues—the relationship between warming and extreme weather events, whether there have been significant changes in extreme weather events, etc.—but the point is I want the field of climate science to do that, so that we can think critically about it and ask questions.

What it shouldn’t be doing—but is—is telling us what political policies, namely fossil fuel policies, to adopt. The question of fossil fuel policy is an interdisciplinary one covering many fields that climate scientists are not experts on.

That means we need botanists to explain to us the potential benefits of increased CO2 in the air for plant growth. We need economists to share their knowledge about the consequences of more expensive energy if fossil fuels are restricted—and the capacity of human beings to adapt to climate change (man-made or not) over a period of decades. We need energy experts to tell us how far away solar, wind, and other alternatives are from providing the benefits of fossil fuels. We need geographers to share their knowledge on whether the climate has become more or less livable as we’ve used fossil fuels.

Having tried to get this information myself from these fields, I believe that if the state of knowledge and agreement in each field were objectively presented, we would conclude that the consequences of continuing to use large amounts of fossil fuels would be overwhelmingly positive to human life, and the consequences of restricting them would be overwhelmingly negative. But right now it’s hard for anyone to know what to conclude, because in today’s “consensus” statements, representatives of scientific fields neither explain the state of knowledge precisely, nor do they stick to their area of specialization.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2014/...

I bet warmists will be quick to respond to those assertions on global warming and completely miss the gist of the argument... that "experts" opinions should be taken in their field of expertise, and that their expertise is limited to their fields.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#46089 Apr 21, 2014
Deniers are traitors to America and accomplices to mass murder to the rest of the world.

“Grow the power within yourself”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46090 Apr 21, 2014
Nope, so many of the leading "experts" in this field has proven themselves to be dishonest, less than forthright and incredibly arrogant and directly nasty.

We do not necessarily have to do something just because someone create a hype and a hoax. There is little if no dissent about this in academia and those who dare raise questions, can kiss their future careers goodbye. The globalist, corporate thugs and their "scientist" henchmen only is trying to stir up something out of nothing by aid of the UN, dictators in third world looking for more handouts and politicians looking for another way to tax people more.

So, "expert opinions" are just as worthless and Al Gore's opinions when they are so politically tainted as they remain. I also will not put up with the Champagne globalists telling me not to be allowed to do what all of them do, excelling in luxury, energy and what have you.

Hippocrates and the followers here are about as critical as a lamb to slaughter, IMHO
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#46091 Apr 21, 2014
gcaveman1 wrote:
Zealot say what?
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#46092 Apr 21, 2014
litesong wrote:
.......but not to sleazy slimy toxic topix AGW denier liars.
//////////
Fair Game wrote:
You couldn't make it up.
//////////
litesong wrote:
But, sleazy slimy toxic topix AGW denier liars make it up.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#46094 Apr 21, 2014
litesong wrote:
Talking to yourself again?... take your meds.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#46095 Apr 21, 2014
gcaveman1 wrote:
Deniers are traitors to America and accomplices to mass murder to the rest of the world.
try to get a conviction on those claims, asshat!
Lol

“Sharia, NOT!”

Since: Jul 10

Chesapeake, VA

#46096 Apr 21, 2014
Socialism is for Sissies wrote:
<quoted text>Wow! You are so full of methane!!
You claim science? Your data is skewed. Explain to me, mental giant, how in the hell can a substance with a severely lower energy density than gasoline cause, as if by magic, the energy density to INCREASE that of gasoline?
This should be interesting coming from a guy that refuses to understand simple physics.
Oh no! A study says I'm right! Biofuels worse for the environment than gasoline usage!
Well what do you gotta say now The Sky is Falling crowd?

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_BIO...
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#46097 Apr 21, 2014
gcaveman1 wrote:
Deniers are traitors to America and accomplices to mass murder.....
//////////
"ratdownthemiddledownwron ggully" gushed:
try to get a conviction on those claims......
//////////
litesong wrote:
"ratdownthemiddledownwron ggully" is sure the jury will not have science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc in poorly (or non-) earned hi skule DEE--plooomaas.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#46098 Apr 21, 2014
litesong wrote:
gcaveman1 wrote:
Deniers are traitors to America and accomplices to mass murder.....
//////////
"ratdownthemiddledownwron ggully" gushed:
try to get a conviction on those claims......
//////////
litesong wrote:
"ratdownthemiddledownwron ggully" is sure the jury will not have science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc in poorly (or non-) earned hi skule DEE--plooomaas.
try to make sense, idiotic bird killer.
geeez.
mothra is right......you need meds, son.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#46099 Apr 21, 2014
litesong wrote:
litesong wrote:
"ratdownthemiddledownwron ggully" is sure the jury will not have science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc in poorly (or non-) earned hi skule DEE--plooomaas.
actually....i'm more sure you don't, numbskull....

lol

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) 23 min shinningelectr0n 1,264,193
News Lollapalooza day two marked by angst, apathy-an... 30 min joey 2
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 33 min Dr Guru 194,660
Please SUBSCRIBE to my YOUTUBE channel for awes... 8 hr The Cloud 1
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 9 hr CrunchyBacon 100,287
News Fatal heat wave 20 years ago changed Chicago's ... 12 hr No8isClassic 8
Can't these people do better? 12 hr Magonigol 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages