Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 63948 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.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#46864 May 16, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Study suggesting global warming is exaggerated was rejected for publication in respected journal because it was 'less than helpful' to the climate cause, claims professor
Professor Lennart Bengtsson claims his study on global warming has been rejected as it might fuel climate scepticism
Says he suspects an intolerance of dissenting views on climate science
Paper suggests that climate is less sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously thought
By BEN SPENCER
PUBLISHED: 02:10 GMT, 16 May 2014 | UPDATED: 05:33 GMT, 16 May 2014
A scientific study which suggests global warming has been exaggerated was rejected by a respected journal because it might fuel climate scepticism, it was claimed last night.
The alarming intervention, which raises fears of ‘McCarthyist’ pressure for environmental scientists to conform, came after a reviewer said the research was ‘less than helpful’ to the climate cause.
Professor Lennart Bengtsson, a research fellow at the University of Reading and one of five authors of the study, said he suspected that intolerance of dissenting views on climate science was preventing his paper from being published.
‘The problem we now have in the climate community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of a climate activist,’ he told the Times.
Prof Bengtsson’s paper suggests that the Earth’s environment might be much less sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously thought.
...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-26300...
"The publisher of the Environmental Research Letters journal last night said Professor Bengtsson’s paper had been rejected because it contained errors and did not sufficiently advance the science.

A spokesman for IOP Publishing said:‘The paper, co-authored by Lennart Bengtsson, was originally submitted to Environmental Research Letters as a research Letter.

‘This was peer-reviewed by two independent reviewers, who reported that the paper contained errors and did not provide a significant advancement in the field, and therefore failed to meet the journal’s required acceptance criteria.

‘As a consequence, the independent reviewers recommended that the paper should not be published in the journal which led to the final editorial decision to reject the paper.’ "

Just the usual denier conspiracist ideation:

"Among American Conservatives, but not Liberals, trust in science has been declining since the 1970's. Climate science has become particularly polarized, with Conservatives being more likely than Liberals to reject the notion that greenhouse gas emissions are warming the globe. Conversely, opposition to genetically-modified (GM) foods and vaccinations is often ascribed to the political Left although reliable data are lacking. There are also growing indications that rejection of science is suffused by conspiracist ideation, that is the general tendency to endorse conspiracy theories including the specific beliefs that inconvenient scientific findings constitute a “hoax.”"

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F1...

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#46865 May 16, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Yegads... you argue like the balls in a pachinko machine.
Cuckoo... cuckoo.
And you don't argue AT ALL, because you have nothing to stand on except snide remarks.
But day by day each one of you flat earther's sinks a lil deeper into the mud of ignorance.

“Amor patriae.”

Since: Feb 08

Eastern Oregon

#46866 May 16, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
And you don't argue AT ALL, because you have nothing to stand on except snide remarks.
But day by day each one of you flat earther's sinks a lil deeper into the mud of ignorance.
Is hypocrisy part of your nature or is it an essential requirement of all liberals?
SpaceBlues

Tomball, TX

#46867 May 16, 2014
mdbuilder wrote:
<quoted text>
Is hypocrisy part of your nature or is it an essential requirement of all liberals?
n summary, several attributes of the cognition underlying conspiracist ideation run counter to conventional scientific thinking. The prominence of conspiracist ideation in the rejection of science should therefore not be unexpected. Knowledge of its involvement is crucial to permit scientists and communicators to respond appropriately to the rejection of evidence by segments of the public.

“Amor patriae.”

Since: Feb 08

Eastern Oregon

#46868 May 16, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>n summary, several attributes of the cognition underlying conspiracist ideation run counter to conventional scientific thinking. The prominence of conspiracist ideation in the rejection of science should therefore not be unexpected. Knowledge of its involvement is crucial to permit scientists and communicators to respond appropriately to the rejection of evidence by segments of the public.
You sound pretty danged smart when using someone else's words.
Science, in and of itself, doesn't guarantee infallibility. The truth of the matter is quite the opposite. Scientists have been wrong infinitely more often than right. The notion that a group of like minded academics, herded in a specific direction by fear of losing a lucrative livelihood, will arrive at unbiased conclusions, is absurd. Follow the money.
litesong

Everett, WA

#46869 May 16, 2014
mdbuilder wrote:
solar hot air units, they just aren't used around here.
Yet, some areas of mid-southern & eastern Oregon have two plus times the sun of less fortunate regions of the country. Mid-southern & eastern Oregon are excellent places for solar.

“Amor patriae.”

Since: Feb 08

Eastern Oregon

#46870 May 16, 2014
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet, some areas of mid-southern & eastern Oregon have two plus times the sun of less fortunate regions of the country. Mid-southern & eastern Oregon are excellent places for solar.
There are areas more conducive to solar augmentation than others. But that's the problem. Solar and wind don't work everywhere, all the time. Conventional energy does. Producers in Oregon have been forced to include "green" energy sources in their power grid, at necessarily higher prices to the consumer. We had no say in the matter. We either pay the higher power bill or get shut off. I'm sure you think this is perfectly acceptable. I call it extortion.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#46871 May 16, 2014
mdbuilder wrote:
<quoted text>
You sound pretty danged smart when using someone else's words.
Science, in and of itself, doesn't guarantee infallibility. The truth of the matter is quite the opposite. Scientists have been wrong infinitely more often than right. The notion that a group of like minded academics, herded in a specific direction by fear of losing a lucrative livelihood, will arrive at unbiased conclusions, is absurd. Follow the money.
You don't.

Infallibility? Infinitely? Herded by whom? Lucrative livelihood?

Don't say anything, mudbuilder

“Amor patriae.”

Since: Feb 08

Eastern Oregon

#46872 May 16, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>You don't.
Infallibility? Infinitely? Herded by whom? Lucrative livelihood?
Don't say anything, mudbuilder
Good Lord, don't you even have a dictionary?
Aphelion

Palm Bay, FL

#46873 May 16, 2014
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
"The publisher of the Environmental Research Letters journal last night said Professor Bengtsson’s paper had been rejected because it contained errors and did not sufficiently advance the science.
A spokesman for IOP Publishing said:‘The paper, co-authored by Lennart Bengtsson, was originally submitted to Environmental Research Letters as a research Letter.
‘This was peer-reviewed by two independent reviewers, who reported that the paper contained errors and did not provide a significant advancement in the field, and therefore failed to meet the journal’s required acceptance criteria.
‘As a consequence, the independent reviewers recommended that the paper should not be published in the journal which led to the final editorial decision to reject the paper.’ "
Just the usual denier conspiracist ideation:
"Among American Conservatives, but not Liberals, trust in science has been declining since the 1970's. Climate science has become particularly polarized, with Conservatives being more likely than Liberals to reject the notion that greenhouse gas emissions are warming the globe. Conversely, opposition to genetically-modified (GM) foods and vaccinations is often ascribed to the political Left although reliable data are lacking. There are also growing indications that rejection of science is suffused by conspiracist ideation, that is the general tendency to endorse conspiracy theories including the specific beliefs that inconvenient scientific findings constitute a “hoax.”"
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F1...
The research, if made public, would be a huge challenge to the finding of the UN’s Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that the global average temperature would rise by up to 4.5C if greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were allowed to double.

The paper suggested that the climate might be less sensitive to greenhouse gases than had been claimed by the IPCC in its report last September, and recommended that more work be carried out ‘to reduce the underlying uncertainty’.

The five contributing scientists submitted the paper to Environmental Research Letters – a highly regarded journal – but were told it had been rejected. A scientist asked by the journal to assess the paper under the peer review process reportedly wrote:‘It is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of “errors” and worse from the climate sceptics media side.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-26300...
Bloody Bill Anderson

Nortonville, KY

#46874 May 16, 2014
mdbuilder wrote:
<quoted text>
There are areas more conducive to solar augmentation than others. But that's the problem. Solar and wind don't work everywhere, all the time. Conventional energy does. Producers in Oregon have been forced to include "green" energy sources in their power grid, at necessarily higher prices to the consumer. We had no say in the matter. We either pay the higher power bill or get shut off. I'm sure you think this is perfectly acceptable. I call it extortion.
Your argument might be valid if Oregon had its own self-contained stand alone power system. It does not. Oregon is part of the Western Interconnection, an integrated power grid that covers the entire western United States and western Canada.

http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/smart/imag...

Electric power used in Oregon is fed into that grid system from places like southern California, Arizona, and New Mexico, which are excellent locations for solar generated electricity. Power is also fed into it from excellent wind power locations on the western High Plains. Hydro-electric power from dams -- which Oregon has in abundance but the Southwest and Plains does not -- feeds "green" power into the grid at night, when the solar systems in the deserts to the south are dormant. The solar systems and hydro-electric cams in the Pacific Northwest feed power to the Plains when there is no wind to turn the windmills (which is extremely rare).
Blonde coed

Corona Del Mar, CA

#46875 May 16, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>BINGO..
Bravo..
Don't just applaud. Do it today! Call your solar company now!

You can do it! Don't be afraid. You'll save money and the earth!

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#46876 May 16, 2014
Aphelion wrote:
<quoted text>
The research, if made public, would be a huge challenge to the finding of the UN’s Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that the global average temperature would rise by up to 4.5C if greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were allowed to double.
The paper suggested that the climate might be less sensitive to greenhouse gases than had been claimed by the IPCC in its report last September, and recommended that more work be carried out ‘to reduce the underlying uncertainty’.
The five contributing scientists submitted the paper to Environmental Research Letters – a highly regarded journal – but were told it had been rejected. A scientist asked by the journal to assess the paper under the peer review process reportedly wrote:‘It is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of “errors” and worse from the climate sceptics media side.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-26300...
Wouldn’t rely on the Mail for anything except the latest word on celebrity bottoms if I were you.

http://ioppublishing.org/newsDetails/statemen...
Washington DC

Corona Del Mar, CA

#46877 May 16, 2014
Since you people started posting years ago, the climate change situation has become much much worse.

I hate to break it to you. Posting is not helping.

“Amor patriae.”

Since: Feb 08

Eastern Oregon

#46878 May 16, 2014
Bloody Bill Anderson wrote:
<quoted text>
Your argument might be valid if Oregon had its own self-contained stand alone power system. It does not. Oregon is part of the Western Interconnection, an integrated power grid that covers the entire western United States and western Canada.
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/smart/imag...
Electric power used in Oregon is fed into that grid system from places like southern California, Arizona, and New Mexico, which are excellent locations for solar generated electricity. Power is also fed into it from excellent wind power locations on the western High Plains. Hydro-electric power from dams -- which Oregon has in abundance but the Southwest and Plains does not -- feeds "green" power into the grid at night, when the solar systems in the deserts to the south are dormant. The solar systems and hydro-electric cams in the Pacific Northwest feed power to the Plains when there is no wind to turn the windmills (which is extremely rare).
That may well be, but where I live, the Feds and the State have colluded to remove four hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River. The cost of removal, as well as any collateral damage, was added to our power bills some years ago. We, the taxpayers, had no say in this one either. Are we to expect wind and solar to take up the slack, at the same rates? Ain't gonna happen. Remember, those dams are paid for. The "Green" sources are not.
Truth Facts

Chillicothe, OH

#46879 May 16, 2014
Washington DC wrote:
Since you people started posting years ago, the climate change situation has become much much worse.
I hate to break it to you. Posting is not helping.
Really?
Washington DC

Corona Del Mar, CA

#46880 May 16, 2014
Truth Facts wrote:
<quoted text>Really?
Yes really.

You must take real concrete action. Sell your car and take public transportation.

Buy solar panels.

No more air conditioning this summer. You don't really need it, do you? People lived for centuries without a/c.

Get to work this weekend.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#46881 May 16, 2014
mdbuilder wrote:
<quoted text>
Is hypocrisy part of your nature or is it an essential requirement of all liberals?
Why don't you give us your best shot on how climate change became a liberal idea ?
SpaceBlues

United States

#46882 May 16, 2014
mdbuilder wrote:
<quoted text>
Good Lord, don't you even have a dictionary?
Self-contradicting, poster.. go away to your mudbuilding.

“Amor patriae.”

Since: Feb 08

Eastern Oregon

#46883 May 16, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't you give us your best shot on how climate change became a liberal idea ?
"Never let a good disaster go to waste."
They saw an opportunity to grow government so they took the ball and ran with it. What is the recipe for saving the planet? Who will orchestrate the transformation of Earth?

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 hr Cheech the Conser... 1,583,198
Please 3 hr ThomasA 7
Jonny's Towing is Chicagoland's Most Crooked Co... (Feb '17) 3 hr Ricardo montobomb 73
News Uber driver accused of locking female rider ins... 5 hr Silly Midbags 2
sex crimes time to tell 5 hr Silly Boobaps 2
last post wins! (Apr '13) 6 hr Hatti_Hollerand 2,610
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 7 hr SweLL GirL 11,182

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages