Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 64133 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

#46195 Apr 23, 2014
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Hypocrite.
I'm just treating the AGW fascists the way they treat ALL who may disagree with them. Like a big pack of little yap-yap dogs, all trained by the same political propagandist. Here dummy, dummy.... kibbles for you when you finally learn to agree with me! Repeat after me, The sky is falling, the sky is falling!!! We only have 2 weeks till we all burn up!! Oh Jesus, take the wheel.(!!!)
DDDD-25

Corona, CA

#46196 Apr 23, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Politicos and AGW "scientists"... I can't decide which is the more offensive group of wanton liars. If you believe anything that either of those groups have to say about ANYTHING, then you fall into that group of very, very, special morons. High power ones!! Don't you think the world would be a better place if they all just ran off a cliff and did a header on the rocks? You know, like male lemmings after sex. Wouldn't that be great? a firkin laugh riot. Epic!! And the taxes on the backs of working people would finally be REDUCED, not perpetually increased as you would have it.
litesong

Everett, WA

#46198 Apr 23, 2014
mudbuilder wrote:
It's spoken for. But you're welcomed to pass through. Any time.
The transplanted euro got itself a piece of the Native Tribal lands that were fairly stolen(& possibly killed for). Now the transplanted euro's got commands to keep anyone from squattin', even the Native Tribes. When you're called to Heaven, just tell God you ain't goin','cause you got eastern Or-EE-gone, already.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#46199 Apr 23, 2014
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
The transplanted euro got itself a piece of the Native Tribal lands that were fairly stolen(& possibly killed for). Now the transplanted euro's got commands to keep anyone from squattin', even the Native Tribes. When you're called to Heaven, just tell God you ain't goin','cause you got eastern Or-EE-gone, already.
just when everyone thought you couldn't be more stupid or less relevant........you post this tripe.

good grief, son, grow a pair....man up....and try to educate yourself. your life will not improve until you do at least 2 out of 3.

i fear for my country when i know mullets like you exist on our shores.
litesong

Everett, WA

#46200 Apr 24, 2014
ratdownthemiddledownwronggully wrote:
everyone thought you....
Nobody wants to visit your down wrong gully & you're getting lonesome.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#46201 Apr 24, 2014
DDDD-25 wrote:
<quoted text>
No one has disproved the agw theory, and more importantly, NO ONE HAS PROVED IT, EITHER. As for Einstein, Observation proved his math was correct. Half a trillion AGW rocket scientists have failed to do the same with their theory of AGW. With the equipment available to him at the time of his static universe theory, and the data available, the static theory was reasonable, and there was no controversy. Given the choice between who to believe in, I'll take Einstein over the entire world wide pool of AGW "scientists". You know, the ones already exposed as frauds?. Do I mean you? Well, yeah....Einstein smarter than the whole lot of you wanna-be scientists combined.
Well Einstein thought up the theory of the Atomic bomb too, but it was just that until they dropped one. There are lots of examples throughout history, what caused the black plague why we need to treat drinking water etc etc. But you deniers single out climate as a worldwide conspiracy science has fabricated. WHY ?? If you question that why not other science like what causes Aids or cancer from smoking. Why did you feel the need to question this as opposed to everything else that science claims. Is the smoking ban in public places a liberal idea as well ? Science also tells you if you are exposed to loud noise for long enough you will suffer hearing loss, but a 20 something that can hear now might say it's BS. Only it's a bit late as a 55+ who can't hear the beep on his mobile when a message comes in. Climate claims are no different than any of those others, the most probable cause by more than a 95% margin is man. To argue otherwise is exactly the same as that 20 something rattling the windows in the neighbourhood driving by with his car audio at full volume believing his immune.
Welp

Torrance, CA

#46202 Apr 24, 2014
People are so ignorant.
Los Angeles

Fullerton, CA

#46203 Apr 24, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Well Einstein thought up the theory of the Atomic bomb too, but it was just that until they dropped one. There are lots of examples throughout history, what caused the black plague why we need to treat drinking water etc etc. But you deniers single out climate as a worldwide conspiracy science has fabricated. WHY ?? If you question that why not other science like what causes Aids or cancer from smoking. Why did you feel the need to question this as opposed to everything else that science claims. Is the smoking ban in public places a liberal idea as well ? Science also tells you if you are exposed to loud noise for long enough you will suffer hearing loss, but a 20 something that can hear now might say it's BS. Only it's a bit late as a 55+ who can't hear the beep on his mobile when a message comes in. Climate claims are no different than any of those others, the most probable cause by more than a 95% margin is man. To argue otherwise is exactly the same as that 20 something rattling the windows in the neighbourhood driving by with his car audio at full volume believing his immune.
You forgot to include reproductive settled science. It really is a baby inside the womb.

“Amor patriae.”

Since: Feb 08

Eastern Oregon

#46204 Apr 24, 2014
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Your only argument is because the climate changed in the past, man cannot do anything to change it today. That is a null argument. It cannot be predicted with certainty what will happen in the future because there are so many variables( volcanoes, asteroids, nuclear war, collapse of society, galactic clouds, etc.). However, the theory of AGW predicts with 95% certainty that if the variables remain the same except for the introduction of increasing CO2 into the atmosphere, the planet will warm.
I am not sure of your reasoning that this is tantamount to creating the Earth. Explain.
"...the theory... that the variables remain the same..." Doesn't that strike you as just slightly illogical? Don't you think "95% certainty" would afford even 1% accuracy in your predictions? You can't proclaim this theory of yours as settled science then defer to the vagaries of climate for your egregiously inaccurate predictions. That is saying the formula is unassailable, but the answer keeps coming out wrong.

“Amor patriae.”

Since: Feb 08

Eastern Oregon

#46205 Apr 24, 2014
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
The transplanted euro got itself a piece of the Native Tribal lands that were fairly stolen(& possibly killed for). Now the transplanted euro's got commands to keep anyone from squattin', even the Native Tribes. When you're called to Heaven, just tell God you ain't goin','cause you got eastern Or-EE-gone, already.
Like it or not,'survival of the fittest' is the single indisputable truth responsible for every organism on this planet.

We agree on this, at least, Easter Oregon is Heaven on Earth.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#46206 Apr 24, 2014
mdbuilder wrote:
<quoted text>
"...the theory... that the variables remain the same..." Doesn't that strike you as just slightly illogical? Don't you think "95% certainty" would afford even 1% accuracy in your predictions? You can't proclaim this theory of yours as settled science then defer to the vagaries of climate for your egregiously inaccurate predictions. That is saying the formula is unassailable, but the answer keeps coming out wrong.
It is obvious that either you are ignorant of the scientific process or are simply being dishonest. Or perhaps you do not understand the relationship between weather and climate.

There is never certainty in science. All science can do is to make the best explanation with the evidence at hand. What you are saying is that since there is not 100% certainty in science, throw everything out. Where would we be if this was how science did business.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#46207 Apr 24, 2014
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody wants to visit your down wrong gully & you're getting lonesome.
nobody wants to read your repetitive idiocy, son.
Why do you waste co2 needlessly and murder innocent little birds?

“Amor patriae.”

Since: Feb 08

Eastern Oregon

#46208 Apr 24, 2014
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
It is obvious that either you are ignorant of the scientific process or are simply being dishonest. Or perhaps you do not understand the relationship between weather and climate.
There is never certainty in science. All science can do is to make the best explanation with the evidence at hand. What you are saying is that since there is not 100% certainty in science, throw everything out. Where would we be if this was how science did business.
LOL. There's that default cop-out again.

It appears there's enough certainty in your theory to demand radical lifestyle changes exacerbated by crippling taxes. All without demonstrable scientific PROOF!!!

Face it, the essence of your argument is, "better safe than sorry." I don't buy it.
litesong

Everett, WA

#46209 Apr 24, 2014
litesong wrote:
The transplanted euro got itself a piece of the Native Tribal lands that were fairly stolen(& possibly killed for). Now the transplanted euro's got commands to keep anyone from squattin', even the Native Tribes. When you're called to Heaven, just tell God you ain't goin','cause you got eastern Or-EE-gone, already.
//////////
mudbuilder bluffed:
'survival of the fittest'....... Easter Oregon is Heaven on Earth.
/////////
litesong wrote:
mudbuilder incorporates science ideas(survival of the fittest) & religion(Easter) to justify euros & transplanted euros, in their genocide of 15,000 NATIVE TRIBES & cultural destruction of 15,000 more NATIVE TRIBES, world wide. As excellent as eastern Oregon is, it isn't Heaven on Earth, & euros & transplanted euros living there, make it less so. Dragging the Name of the Easter Jesus Christ into the your broken sleazy slimy steenking toxic topix AGW denier liar philosophy, neither demeans the Christ or justifies euro & transplanted euro genocide.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#46210 Apr 24, 2014
mdbuilder wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL. There's that default cop-out again.
It appears there's enough certainty in your theory to demand radical lifestyle changes exacerbated by crippling taxes. All without demonstrable scientific PROOF!!!
Face it, the essence of your argument is, "better safe than sorry." I don't buy it.
It is not 100% certain that if you breathe asbestos dust that you will get lung cancer. The probability is much lower than the bar that you measure global warming. Do you disregard the science and blithely breathe asbestos dust? Or ignore the science that shows tobacco a health hazard? Or do you prescribe to the idea of, "better safe than sorry?"

I am sorry that you do not understand that there are no proofs in science.

Since the market has no viable mechanism to protect the environment, some other device must be employed. Perhaps cost basis would be better if power plants etc. exceeded prescribed levels if we could fix a value on the cost of global warming. Industry would have to pay for each unit of CO2 emitted much like ranchers pay a grazing fee on public land.
Blonde coed

Corona Del Mar, CA

#46211 Apr 24, 2014
Such beautiful weather through most of the US today! What's it look like in your area?

Nothing too extreme. Water levels look good. Ocean water is a bit chilly, but that's to be expected.

Feeling carefree! To bad it's a school day. Can't wait for Friday night!

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#46212 Apr 24, 2014
If global warming means more extreme weather then it means more extremely beautiful weather too. What's not to love about global warming?
dem

United States

#46213 Apr 24, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
If global warming means more extreme weather then it means more extremely beautiful weather too. What's not to love about global warming?
Spoken like a true toothless fkn idiot.
reach out

AOL

#46214 Apr 24, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Well Einstein thought up the theory of the Atomic bomb too, but it was just that until they dropped one. There are lots of examples throughout history, what caused the black plague why we need to treat drinking water etc etc. But you deniers single out climate as a worldwide conspiracy science has fabricated. WHY ?? If you question that why not other science like what causes Aids or cancer from smoking. Why did you feel the need to question this as opposed to everything else that science claims. Is the smoking ban in public places a liberal idea as well ? Science also tells you if you are exposed to loud noise for long enough you will suffer hearing loss, but a 20 something that can hear now might say it's BS. Only it's a bit late as a 55+ who can't hear the beep on his mobile when a message comes in. Climate claims are no different than any of those others, the most probable cause by more than a 95% margin is man. To argue otherwise is exactly the same as that 20 something rattling the windows in the neighbourhood driving by with his car audio at full volume believing his immune.
agree !
litesong

Everett, WA

#46215 Apr 24, 2014
dem wrote:
Spoken like a true toothless fkn idiot.
Not sure if "lyin' brian" is toothless, but it has no science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc in its poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa. What "lyin' brian" DOES have is an immorality of 4 alleged threats & 3 proud threats, as well as errors of 1 million TIMES, 1000 TIMES, 3000 TIMES, 73 million TIMES & 2.5+ trillion TIMES, proving its idiocy.

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) 2 min Incognito4Ever 1,643,041
Joe Biden and PLAGIARISM. 1 hr Cuz King-s Dead 5
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 2 hr loose cannon 243,003
Live From "Earth II"....? 13 hr 2 MANY 2 LIST 3
Blue State in HUGE trouble sez George Will 13 hr Amazing Skulduggery 6
Help me 13 hr Silverback Rape 8
Cat's out of the bag. 13 hr HMmmmmmmmmmmmmmm 3

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages