Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 54341 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.

No Warming

Waverly, OH

#46688 May 11, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
You still reading those graphs standing on your head, no wonder you have a distorted view on science.
How much has earth warmed over the last 16 years ? Stand or sit any way you like.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#46689 May 11, 2014
No Warming wrote:
<quoted text>
How much has earth warmed over the last 16 years ? Stand or sit any way you like.
Ahh one of those cherry pickers looking at flatlines , well check the graph back and look at the up & down swings, then look at the mean line trending always upwards. You may as well ask what was that flat line in the mid 80's or back in the 16 th century. It means nothing in the scheme of things. Thats why if you googled no change all the hits you will get is right wing blogs & denier cheery picked graphs. NOT ONE scientific organisation will put their name to your belief.

If you think we have flatlined, why hasn't the weather patterns flat lined as well. Look at what your President has to say about it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/articl...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/articl...
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#46690 May 11, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
You still reading those graphs standing on your head, no wonder you have a distorted view on science.
Oh look... another post from a global warming hypocrite.

Does anyone care?

Not the warmists... they thrive on hypocrisy.
No Warming

Waverly, OH

#46691 May 11, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Ahh one of those cherry pickers looking at flatlines , well check the graph back and look at the up & down swings, then look at the mean line trending always upwards. You may as well ask what was that flat line in the mid 80's or back in the 16 th century. It means nothing in the scheme of things. Thats why if you googled no change all the hits you will get is right wing blogs & denier cheery picked graphs. NOT ONE scientific organisation will put their name to your belief.
If you think we have flatlined, why hasn't the weather patterns flat lined as well. Look at what your President has to say about it.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/articl...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/articl...
You wont answer that question, how about where is the missing heat ?
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#46692 May 11, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Ahh one of those cherry pickers looking at flatlines , well check the graph back and look at the up & down swings, then look at the mean line trending always upwards. You may as well ask what was that flat line in the mid 80's or back in the 16 th century. It means nothing in the scheme of things. Thats why if you googled no change all the hits you will get is right wing blogs & denier cheery picked graphs. NOT ONE scientific organisation will put their name to your belief.
If you think we have flatlined, why hasn't the weather patterns flat lined as well. Look at what your President has to say about it.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/articl...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/articl...
You mean Liar of the Year. Yeah... there's a credible source.
No Warming

Waverly, OH

#46693 May 11, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Ahh one of those cherry pickers looking at flatlines , well check the graph back and look at the up & down swings, then look at the mean line trending always upwards. You may as well ask what was that flat line in the mid 80's or back in the 16 th century. It means nothing in the scheme of things. Thats why if you googled no change all the hits you will get is right wing blogs & denier cheery picked graphs. NOT ONE scientific organisation will put their name to your belief.
If you think we have flatlined, why hasn't the weather patterns flat lined as well. Look at what your President has to say about it.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/articl...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/articl...
The missing heat from Kevin Trenberths email

In the Climatic Research Unit email controversy an unlawfully disclosed email from Trenberth about this paper was widely misrepresented: he wrote "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."
----------

That was 5 years ago, still No Warming !
litesong

Everett, WA

#46694 May 11, 2014
"motheaten" muffed:
Zealot say what?
Meh... still don't care.
&,

Zealot say what?
Yeah... who cares?
//////////
litesong wrote:
The continuous words of "motheaten", to its hi skule counsellor,who tried to get it to take science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra & pre-calc for its poorly (or non-) earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#46695 May 11, 2014
No Warming wrote:
<quoted text>
You wont answer that question, how about where is the missing heat ?
Check the escalator graph on this page, it shows how you look at graphs looking for flatlines between any time period but totally ignore the overall trend upwards.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php...
No Warming

Waverly, OH

#46697 May 12, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Check the escalator graph on this page, it shows how you look at graphs looking for flatlines between any time period but totally ignore the overall trend upwards.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php...
You cant answer simple questions yet I'll give you one more, 97% of climate scientists agree that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would warm earth. On average by how much ?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#46698 May 12, 2014
Earth's CO2 atmosphere is the results of 4.5 billion years of progress. It has doubled a dozen times; doubling Earth's CO2 volume is trivial. IF man's CO2 emissions cause climate disruption then we are already mitigating climate against catastrophic global cooling, the well known and observed, natural ice age climate scenario. The only difference between global cooling and man made catastrophic climate disruption is good documentation for natural ice ages but no experimental evidence of either man made global climate change or climate change mitigation.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#46699 May 12, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Aww gee... another hypocrite warmist.
But please demonstrate some intellectual honestly and quit calling global warming any sort of crisis.
I know... I know.... you won't adhere to any of the mountainous "science" you keep posting about a crisis. You'll keep posting making yourself a bigger and bigger hypocrite.
No matter to me... I'll enjoy mocking you and the other phony warmists.
Whack...whaack...whaacckkk...j ust keeps bouncing back no matter how hard I whack 'em!

“Amor patriae.”

Since: Feb 08

Eastern Oregon

#46701 May 12, 2014
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Your reality is rather limited. You flutter around around your incandescent light bulb. If you don't change your ways you will get burned. Then it will be a crisis for you. It will be too late for you to care then!
Rest easy. The predicted doom stemming from all our imminent disasters, has a built-in twenty to fifty year grace period - reset yearly.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#46702 May 12, 2014
gcaveman1 wrote:
You guys might want to check out some arguments you shouldn't use anymore
yeah.....sort of like jfk,jr. claiming that our kids may never see snow in washington dc anymore......<cough>.... ..or they might just see a HELL of a lot of the stuff!

lol
Jamaal

Los Angeles, CA

#46704 May 12, 2014
Be cautious about relying on the temperature numbers from 100 years ago or back before 1920. My great-grandfather was part of the crew that collected that data and he said the thermometers were particularly unreliable and often broken. Some were laying on their sides when they arrived for the reading. This was in the Cincinnati and St. Louis section. He and his co-workers would sometimes just make a good guess at the figures, but hardly precise. By the way, Grandpa thought William Howard Taft was a much better president than Woodrow Wilson.
Hunter

United States

#46705 May 12, 2014
Test
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#46707 May 12, 2014
Jamaal wrote:
Be cautious about relying on the temperature numbers from 100 years ago or back before 1920. My great-grandfather was part of the crew that collected that data and he said the thermometers were particularly unreliable and often broken. Some were laying on their sides when they arrived for the reading. This was in the Cincinnati and St. Louis section. He and his co-workers would sometimes just make a good guess at the figures, but hardly precise. By the way, Grandpa thought William Howard Taft was a much better president than Woodrow Wilson.
So you come from a long line of cheaters...

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#46708 May 12, 2014
Alvis Walker wrote:
<quoted text>
I have always said this. I know the liberal agenda. Take their "climate change" with a grain of salt.
No wonder they say the tea baggers mainly consist of fat old white people who can't remember what happened 7 days ago let alone 7 yrs back. Because back in 2007 climate change was supported by both sides of politics and a need to address it. The view then was it was a global problem, but Obama also failed when he gave in to big end of town and did not sign the Kyoto agreement. You can be assured the US will sign the next one on emissions reduction levels.
On top of that we have the tea baggers who rose from the grave like zombies after Obama was elected it and suddenly the climate threat became a "liberal" idea. lol Funny how a GFC in 2008 can change the weather just like that. This is why the right side of politics has lost all credibility, they send the country into wars based on lies, they send the country broke looking after the big end of town, now they want to destroy the planet for the same reason. Well I'm sorry the right side of politics has had a broken moral compass for a number of years now & the tea party sure as hell will only take them further off track.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#46709 May 12, 2014
Jamaal wrote:
Be cautious about relying on the temperature numbers from 100 years ago or back before 1920. My great-grandfather was part of the crew that collected that data and he said the thermometers were particularly unreliable and often broken. Some were laying on their sides when they arrived for the reading. This was in the Cincinnati and St. Louis section. He and his co-workers would sometimes just make a good guess at the figures, but hardly precise. By the way, Grandpa thought William Howard Taft was a much better president than Woodrow Wilson.
This is exactly what i mean by moronic no brainier posts by "grandpa's" temp readings. Well Hellooo, science doesn't need grandpa's misguided unreliable thermometers. It has ice cores it can read just as well in more precise terms and may soon hit the holy grail and go back long before man was running around in caves.

For your information one of the world's biggest insurers doesn't think climate change is a scam.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2014...
No Warming

Waverly, OH

#46710 May 12, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Earth's CO2 atmosphere is the results of 4.5 billion years of progress. It has doubled a dozen times; doubling Earth's CO2 volume is trivial. IF man's CO2 emissions cause climate disruption then we are already mitigating climate against catastrophic global cooling, the well known and observed, natural ice age climate scenario. The only difference between global cooling and man made catastrophic climate disruption is good documentation for natural ice ages but no experimental evidence of either man made global climate change or climate change mitigation.
I agree, point I was trying to make is that the warming crowd is always clamoring about the 97% consensus. They either don't understand or refuse to acknowledge what the 97% represent, its certainly far from consensus.
litesong

Everett, WA

#46711 May 12, 2014
no heat in my brain wrote:
They.....don't understand..... what the 97% represent.......
"teeny-minded anne" said 97% of scientists said there was no AGW. Since she ain't here no longer, you can take up her cheerleading rah. Without heat in your brain, you can do that.

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 BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 10 min Dr Guru MD CEO CFO 194,742
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 hr sonicfilter 1,264,683
Best value kit'chens of europe reviews 5 hr selamet 1
Ask Amy August 3 6 hr mrs gladys kravitz 9
Music Artists A to Z (Feb '14) 7 hr _Zoey_ 443
Word (Dec '08) 7 hr _Zoey_ 5,383
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 8 hr _Zoey_ 6,260
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 14 hr PEllen 100,306
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages