Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 64147 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.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#46285 Apr 26, 2014
dem wrote:
<quoted text>
Parlaying your success at proving the earth flat you are on to your next project?
Stupid topix scientists are funny.
did i try to convince you the earth was flat, paco??

you're too funny!! if anything is flat....it is your previously sloped head. sorry....i didn't mean to hit you that hard on the other thread, four footer.

perhaps you can tell this forum why you think the science is settled on agw????

haaahhaaahaahhaaa

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#46286 Apr 26, 2014
Drifting to sleep wrote:
<quoted text>
Well im certainly not a hypochondriac like you hippy weirdoes. There are more pressing issues than worrying about something that has yet to be proven. This whole issue is just something to distract people from the real problems we face as a nation.
That and additional taxation, otherwise i agree entirely with your honest post! They're so desperate that now... climate change is somehow a racial issue.

haahaahaaha

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#46287 Apr 26, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>BWAHAHAhahahaha your selfie, pinko!!!
okay.....that was a worthy post. at least to you, right?

haa haa haa

go back to grammar school.....in spite of what your crack addict mom says.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#46288 Apr 26, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Wake up from your ignorance: global warming is raging with ever-increasing dangers.
You don't even understand the polar sunlessness.
http://www.amnh.org/education/resources/rfl/w...
way too much meth....or way too much coke...or way too much pot....or way too much something else.

whatever it was.....you kooks are definitely a trip!!!

haa haa haa

“Amor patriae.”

Since: Feb 08

Eastern Oregon

#46290 Apr 26, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
The one question deniers still never answer is why did they single out climate as fabricated science compared to all the other claims science makes.
What made climate so special they have to dismiss all researchers findings and come up with fabricated theories of their own. That is what makes it so laughable, the very thing they accuse science of doing, they practice trying to dispute the results.
Why climate? Because it's always wrong, always foreboding, and always punitively expensive. These clowns can't foretell, with any degree of certainty, what next months weather is going to be, let alone 50 or 100 years from now.
Mothra

Tempe, AZ

#46291 Apr 26, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
Is the Spongebob marathon over so soon?

You weren't missed.

Go watch the reruns.
Mothra

Tempe, AZ

#46292 Apr 26, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
The one question deniers still never answer is why did they single out climate as fabricated science compared to all the other claims science makes
Why?

What kind of nut are you.... think this whole thread is written only by the global warming disciples?

All them money in the world can't buy you a clue...

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#46293 Apr 26, 2014
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
I suspect it is because it is in variance with capitalism. Environmental concerns are not considered in capitalism unless they can be seen as an immediate threat to the bottom line. The RW has placed the market on the same plane as a religion believing that it can solve all problems. Global warming is one of those problems that the market will not address and this cannot be accepted by the conservatives. The only way they can handle this is to disavow that there is a problem in the first place, making it necessary to demonize the science that demonstrates there is a problem..
^^^Most people don't need to mitigate climate change; that's why there's so little investment in renewable energy and conservation. If this was a true need, then the market would try to satisfy it.
SpaceBlues

United States

#46294 Apr 27, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^Most people don't need to mitigate climate change; that's why there's so little investment in renewable energy and conservation. If this was a true need, then the market would try to satisfy it.
Most people are poor.

Where do you find your funding? From fossil fuel burning aka decarbonization of the earth!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/785...

The team warned that, if carbon levels in the atmosphere continued to rise, there would be less rainfall in already dry areas of southern Europe, North America, parts of Africa and Australia.

The scientists say the oceans are currently slowing down global warming by absorbing heat, but they will eventually release that heat back into the air.

They say politicians must now offset environmental damage already done by man-made pollution.

"People have imagined that if we stopped emitting carbon dioxide the climate would go back to normal in 100 years, 200 year - that's not true," said researcher Susan Solomon, the lead author of the report, quoted by AP news agency.


Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#46296 Apr 27, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^Most people don't need to mitigate climate change; that's why there's so little investment in renewable energy and conservation. If this was a true need, then the market would try to satisfy it.
I see, like removing asbestos from the environment was not a true need, removing lead from gasoline was not a true need, slowing the use of tobacco was not a true need, removing PBC's from the environment was not a true need, preventing salt water from oil wells from entering streams was not a true need, returning the earth to conditions before mined was not a true need, containing the runoff from mines, containing fly ash from coal fired generating plants, etc, etc, etc...

That is why industry fought tooth and nail to keep each from happening.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#46297 Apr 27, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
Most people are poor. Where do you find your funding? From fossil fuel burning aka decarbonization of the earth!....
Most people need shelter, not climate change mitigation. You find funding from proving a need in the market; nobody cares about climate change mitigation because politicians are doing it all, blowing hot air.

Burning fossil fuel isn't "decarbonization", nuclear fission in our Earth's core breaks down radioactive elements into new carbon. Burning fossil fuel means freeing carbon into the air, back to benefit life.
SpaceBlues

United States

#46298 Apr 27, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Most people need shelter, not climate change mitigation. You find funding from proving a need in the market; nobody cares about climate change mitigation because politicians are doing it all, blowing hot air.
Burning fossil fuel isn't "decarbonization", nuclear fission in our Earth's core breaks down radioactive elements into new carbon. Burning fossil fuel means freeing carbon into the air, back to benefit life.
You are out of your mind, if you had any!

Have you not heard of global sea level rise? You think global warming is caused by polticians' hot air! WOW..

Your "decarbonization" comment comes from your dirty pocket.. thus it is not based on science.
SpaceBlues

United States

#46299 Apr 27, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Most people need shelter, not climate change mitigation. You find funding from proving a need in the market; nobody cares about climate change mitigation because politicians are doing it all, blowing hot air.
Burning fossil fuel isn't "decarbonization", nuclear fission in our Earth's core breaks down radioactive elements into new carbon. Burning fossil fuel means freeing carbon into the air, back to benefit life.
http://images.nationalgeograph ic.com/wpf/media-content/photo s/000/779/cache/77962_990x742- cb1395683156.jpg
truth facts

Lewis Center, OH

#46300 Apr 27, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>You are out of your mind, if you had any!
Have you not heard of global sea level rise? You think global warming is caused by polticians' hot air! WOW..
Your "decarbonization" comment comes from your dirty pocket.. thus it is not based on science.
Oh shit,everyone head to the mountains,the seas are rising.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#46301 Apr 27, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^Most people don't need to mitigate climate change; that's why there's so little investment in renewable energy and conservation. If this was a true need, then the market would try to satisfy it.
Market Forces my a$$, if you were running a manufacturing plant dumping your toxic waste into a river with no fear of any penalties. Would you stop out of the kindness of your heart and clean up your act, I don't think so. Which is why we need a carbon tax because while fossil dirty is allowed to flourish totally immune from penalty then clean can never prosper either!
The only businesses that point in the direction of an environmental market depends very much on their customer demographic. Like Apple who rip the country off avoiding taxes but spend big money on renewables to reduce their carbon footprint because of very environmentally aware 20-30 somethings buying their products has a feel good marketing aspect they see as dollar value.

When are you ignorant deniers ever going get a clue.
litesong

Everett, WA

#46302 Apr 27, 2014
false farts wrote:
Oh shit,everyone head to the mountains,the seas are rising.
AGW denier science at its immoral, macho best.

“Amor patriae.”

Since: Feb 08

Eastern Oregon

#46306 Apr 27, 2014
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
AGW denier science at its immoral, macho best.
-May 15, 1989, Associated Press:“Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide [USA] two degrees by 2010.”
-1988 Rob Reiss asked official Climate Scientist Dr. James Hansen how the greenhouse effect was likely to affect the neighborhood below Hansen’s office in NYC in the next 20 years, whereupon Climate scientist James Hansen issues this prediction, to be fullfilled in 20 years, which is to say, doom by 2008:“The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change….There will be more police cars….[since] you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”
-Michael Oppenheimer, 1990, The Environmental Defense Fund:“By 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…”(By 1996) The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers…The Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands.”
-June 11, 1986, Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Space Institute (NASA) in testimony to Congress (according to the Milwaukee Journal):“Hansen predicted global temperatures should be nearly 2 degrees higher in 20 years,‘which is about the warmest the earth has been in the last 100,000 years.’”(prediction for 2006)
-June 2008, Ted Alvarez, Backpacker Magazine Blogs:“you could potentially sail, kayak, or even swim to the North Pole by the end of the summer. Climate scientists say that the Arctic ice…is currently on track to melt sometime in 2008.” In the summer of 2008 he makes a prediction for the summer of 2008! Careless of him. Shortly after this prediction was made, a Russian icebreaker was trapped in the ice of the Northwest Passage for a week. The state of the Northwest passage today, in 2014, is roughly the same as it was in 1921. Some years you can sail through, some years you cannot, and most years if you try it, there is a high risk of getting stuck.
-January 2000 Dr. Michael Oppenheimer of the Environmental Defense Fund commenting (in a NY Times interview) on the mild winters in New York City:“But it does not take a scientist to size up the effects of snowless winters on the children too young to remember the record-setting blizzards of 1996. For them, the pleasures of sledding and snowball fights are as out-of-date as hoop-rolling, and the delight of a snow day off from school is unknown.”
-2008 Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Space Institute (NASA) on a visit to Britain:“The recent warm winters that Britain has experienced are a sign that the climate is changing.” Implying that the warm winters are now going to be typical, a short term implied prediction. Careless of him. Two exceptionally cold winters followed. The 2009-10 winter may be the coldest experienced in the UK since 1683.
-June 30, 1989, Associated Press: U.N. OFFICIAL PREDICTS DISASTER, SAYS GREENHOUSE EFFECT COULD WIPE SOME NATIONS OFF MAP–entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos,” said Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program. He added that governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect. I heard the exact same prediction last night on the television (in 2014), entire nations disappearing, hordes of refugees creating political instability, with the date for doomsday changed from 2000 to 2030.
Hey now

Fullerton, CA

#46307 Apr 27, 2014
truth facts wrote:
<quoted text>Oh shit,everyone head to the mountains,the seas are rising.
I'm just going to move my beach chair back 4 inches every 25 years. lol
Peer review

Fullerton, CA

#46308 Apr 27, 2014
A former NASA scientist has described global warming as "nonsense", dismissing the theory of man-made climate change as "an unsubstantiated hypothesis" and saying that it is "absolutely stupid" to blame the recent UK floods on human activity.

Professor Les Woodcock, who has had a long and distinguished academic career, also said there is "no reproducible evidence" that carbon dioxide levels have increased over the past century, and blamed the green movement for inflicting economic damage on ordinary people.

Professor Woodcock is Emeritus Professor of Chemical Thermodynamics at the University of Manchester and has authored over 70 academic papers for a wide range of scientific journals. He received his PhD from the University of London, and is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry, a recipient of a Max Planck Society Visiting Fellowship, and a founding editor the journal Molecular Simulation.(h/t Climate Depot)
SpaceBlues

Desoto, TX

#46309 Apr 28, 2014
Peer review wrote:
A former NASA scientist has described global warming as "nonsense", dismissing the theory of man-made climate change as "an unsubstantiated hypothesis" and saying that it is "absolutely stupid" to blame the recent UK floods on human activity.
Professor Les Woodcock, who has had a long and distinguished academic career, also said there is "no reproducible evidence" that carbon dioxide levels have increased over the past century, and blamed the green movement for inflicting economic damage on ordinary people.
Professor Woodcock is Emeritus Professor of Chemical Thermodynamics at the University of Manchester and has authored over 70 academic papers for a wide range of scientific journals. He received his PhD from the University of London, and is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry, a recipient of a Max Planck Society Visiting Fellowship, and a founding editor the journal Molecular Simulation.(h/t Climate Depot)
NONSENSE.. where's his evidence?

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) 4 min Not 1,643,519
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 1 hr Maverick 808 105,332
Joe Biden and PLAGIARISM. 1 hr Plagiarizing Joe ... 7
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 4 hr loose cannon 243,008
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 5 hr _Zoey_ 11,540
Oregon the "33rd" state founded by Freemasons.. 9 hr Jesse Rishel 2
Cat's out of the bag. 10 hr Hmmmmmmmmmmm 4

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages