Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 60100 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.

justhefacts

United States

#46949 May 17, 2014
U.S pop. is approx 311 million out of 7+ billion on the planet, U.S could fall off the map and go to the Stone Age and that wont save a planet or stop global warming. Now for the math challenged Dems

Earth is approx 4.5 billion years old. Earth survived many ice ages. Earth survived Millions of Volcanoes and Millions of years in Acid rains and Global warming. Earth survived continental drift, one landmass splitting around the glob. The whole Ocean roes out of the ice age and changed ding ding. Talk about oceans rising geee!!!!

So Dems REALLY think you can save a WHOLE planet when you cant even get your Dem Ghettos to pick up the trash and save a street from being polluted.

The planet will run out of FOOD FIRST because of global birth ratios too high PEROID!!!!!

That birth problem exist in America’s because of the Dems Welfare baby factories contributing to that Global food issue and carbon footprint, global warming

So why do you dems spend tons of money and advertise going green yet you don’t put a simple add like in the 70s “Keep America Beautiful” commercial which shows trash floating at the shore line that looks EXACTLY like the Dems street Ghettos voter base
http://www.youtube.com/watch ...

Why because the Dems voter base are Hugh street polluters not to mention the Dem Welfare Births rates in Carbon footprint, global warming in generations,

The world biggest polluter was Pres Clinton in 2000 signing the China Trade act that historically lowered the U.S. Import tax causing the recession and also let China take off in manufacturing with NO real pollution laws in place. Again Dems didn’t have the intelligence too think ahead!!!!

So what say you Dems brainwashing people to vote Dem and stop global warming which is a Ruse….

Really do you Dems know how stupid and unintelligent you all look not understanding simple basic.
justhefacts

United States

#46950 May 17, 2014
yep keep arguing about Co2 etc and going green or weather there is global warming or not.

NONE of this matters when one has to eat but theses too many mouths feed ans we go to war over FOOD!!!!!!!!..

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#46951 May 18, 2014
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>..........
why has there been no experimental test taken by government to provide us with the evidence that what is claimed will have the beneficial effects you believe?
why has no government stated that co2 emissions have possible benefits?
why has government not pointed out the disadvantages of a carbon tax?
those aren't self interest questions, son! i worry about poor people and their plight if fossil fuels are made unaffordable to them. don't you?
I don't know about you but if you had a gas leak in your house & you could smell it, then the first thing you would do is turn off the gas and open a few windows. Rather than just light a match to see what is going on. Do we really need an experiment for that to find which is the better choice ?
So its the same when turning off the greenhouse gases. If it was shown to do us harm continuing to leave the tap running it doesn't take Einstein to figure turning it off or reducing the flow might at least keep the status quo until entirely clean solutions are found. To me its a no brainer, but you know us warmists are really radical in our solutions.

As for the cost, well that is the whole point. If the cost of clean ends up beating the cost of dirty, problem solved! If I am penalised for owing a big a$$ SUV or truck , so be it. That will encourage me to look for more efficient ways of powering them or a total alternative that is more cost effective. That is a carbon tax at work.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#46952 May 18, 2014
Man made Carbon Dioxide emissions are like a warm blanket.

What's not to love about global warming?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#46953 May 18, 2014
justhefacts wrote:
U.S pop. is approx 311 million out of 7+ billion on the planet, U.S could fall off the map and go to the Stone Age and that wont save a planet or stop global warming. Now for the math challenged Dems
Earth is approx 4.5 billion years old. Earth survived many ice ages. Earth survived Millions of Volcanoes and Millions of years in Acid rains and Global warming. Earth survived continental drift, one landmass splitting around the glob. The whole Ocean roes out of the ice age and changed ding ding. Talk about oceans rising geee!!!!
So Dems REALLY think you can save a WHOLE planet when you cant even get your Dem Ghettos to pick up the trash and save a street from being polluted.
The planet will run out of FOOD FIRST because of global birth ratios too high PEROID!!!!!
That birth problem exist in America’s because of the Dems Welfare baby factories contributing to that Global food issue and carbon footprint, global warming
So why do you dems spend tons of money and advertise going green yet you don’t put a simple add like in the 70s “Keep America Beautiful” commercial which shows trash floating at the shore line that looks EXACTLY like the Dems street Ghettos voter base
http://www.youtube.com/watch ...
Why because the Dems voter base are Hugh street polluters not to mention the Dem Welfare Births rates in Carbon footprint, global warming in generations,
The world biggest polluter was Pres Clinton in 2000 signing the China Trade act that historically lowered the U.S. Import tax causing the recession and also let China take off in manufacturing with NO real pollution laws in place. Again Dems didn’t have the intelligence too think ahead!!!!
So what say you Dems brainwashing people to vote Dem and stop global warming which is a Ruse….
Really do you Dems know how stupid and unintelligent you all look not understanding simple basic.
So your position is all political. No room for science and reason. BTW, it was a Republican who opened China to the world, President Nixon. The USA may have a population of less than five percent of the world but we emit nearly a quarter of CO2 plus our consumption of products from China and other countries accounts for a good deal more. So our efforts to reduce CO2 are important.
SpaceBlues

United States

#46954 May 18, 2014
justhefacts wrote:
yep keep arguing about Co2 etc and going green or weather there is global warming or not.
NONE of this matters when one has to eat but theses too many mouths feed ans we go to war over FOOD!!!!!!!!..
You rush to war over anything, hater.
Mothra

Tempe, AZ

#46955 May 18, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know about you but if you had a gas leak in your house & you could smell it, then the first thing you would do is turn off the gas and open a few windows. Rather than just light a match to see what is going on. Do we really need an experiment for that to find which is the better choice ?
So its the same when turning off the greenhouse gases. If it was shown to do us harm continuing to leave the tap running it doesn't take Einstein to figure turning it off or reducing the flow might at least keep the status quo until entirely clean solutions are found. To me its a no brainer, but you know us warmists are really radical in our solutions.
As for the cost, well that is the whole point. If the cost of clean ends up beating the cost of dirty, problem solved! If I am penalised for owing a big a$$ SUV or truck , so be it. That will encourage me to look for more efficient ways of powering them or a total alternative that is more cost effective. That is a carbon tax at work.
So...? Like all warmists you insist on others 'reduce the flow' in other's houses, but your own?

<crickets>

Where is your biting criticism of those supporting global warming who don't act like it's the crisis you claim it to be?

btw, "Rather than just light a match to see what is going on"... an absurd comparison. Your writing sucks.
Mothra

Tempe, AZ

#46956 May 18, 2014
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
So your position is all political. No room for science and reason....
Science and reason?

Yegads are you thick. Did scientists write the IPCC Summary? Nope. All sorts of fingers in that pie, but that's what makes the press releases.

Warminsts have a HUGE credibility problem, refuse to address it and insist on letting "science" do their talking. But it really is just 'talk'. Any action? Any accountability? Any self-criticism?

<crickets>

Question: Do you post more or less often when you learn of more 'science' that supports global warming?

If you really believed the "science", you'd post less.
Mothra

Tempe, AZ

#46957 May 18, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>You rush to war over anything, hater.
You say the dumbest things, hypocrite.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#46958 May 18, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know about you but if you had a gas leak in your house & you could smell it, then the first thing you would do is turn off the gas and open a few windows. Rather than just light a match to see what is going on. Do we really need an experiment for that to find which is the better choice ?
So its the same when turning off the greenhouse gases. If it was shown to do us harm continuing to leave the tap running it doesn't take Einstein to figure turning it off or reducing the flow might at least keep the status quo until entirely clean solutions are found. To me its a no brainer, but you know us warmists are really radical in our solutions.
As for the cost, well that is the whole point. If the cost of clean ends up beating the cost of dirty, problem solved! If I am penalised for owing a big a$$ SUV or truck , so be it. That will encourage me to look for more efficient ways of powering them or a total alternative that is more cost effective. That is a carbon tax at work.
http://www.c3headlines.com/201 4/05/those-stubborn-facts-noaa -confirms-co2-having-no-impact -on-us-21st-century-temperatur es.html

if the climate is so dire....how will taxing a slightly larger vehicle alter the climate in any meaningful way? "a big a$$ suv or truck" that is so hilarious!! are you that obnoxious lady on youtube in the parking lot that went viral?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#46959 May 18, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Science and reason?
Yegads are you thick. Did scientists write the IPCC Summary? Nope. All sorts of fingers in that pie, but that's what makes the press releases.
Warminsts have a HUGE credibility problem, refuse to address it and insist on letting "science" do their talking. But it really is just 'talk'. Any action? Any accountability? Any self-criticism?
<crickets>
Question: Do you post more or less often when you learn of more 'science' that supports global warming?
If you really believed the "science", you'd post less.
Actually, the IPCC Summary is a compilation of many scientific studies. Sure, our credibility problem is that we actually believe what all the great scientific academies throughout the entire world have found rather than what the fossil fuel industry propagandizes. BTW, if I were to find a study that negates what the climate scientists have found, I would wholeheartedly embrace it. It would be a great relief. I do not want the future of our grandchildren to suffer because of our stupidity. It is certain that the market forces and individual human efforts are not going to solve the problems. That is the reason that we need social forces to help solve these problems.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#46960 May 18, 2014
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text> http://www.c3headlines.com/2014/05/those-stub...
if the climate is so dire....how will taxing a slightly larger vehicle alter the climate in any meaningful way? "a big a$$ suv or truck" that is so hilarious!! are you that obnoxious lady on youtube in the parking lot that went viral?
Money seems to be the greatest motivator for the current generation. Folks of this generation really believe that they can exist autonomously. That they are totally responsible for their quality of life. However, they stand on the shoulders of those before them and upon the opportunities provided by a social order that exists because of a democratic form of central government. Taxing excesses is something that they understand. Money talks. However, they hate this because they really believe that they are autonomous and should make their own decisions irregardless of how it will affect others.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#46961 May 18, 2014
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, the IPCC Summary is a compilation of many scientific studies. Sure, our credibility problem is that we actually believe what all the great scientific academies throughout the entire world have found rather than what the fossil fuel industry propagandizes. BTW, if I were to find a study that negates what the climate scientists have found, I would wholeheartedly embrace it. It would be a great relief. I do not want the future of our grandchildren to suffer because of our stupidity. It is certain that the market forces and individual human efforts are not going to solve the problems. That is the reason that we need social forces to help solve these problems.
you'll never become enlightened unless you stop relying on blind faith.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog
Mothra

Tempe, AZ

#46962 May 18, 2014
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, the IPCC Summary is a compilation of many scientific studies. Sure, our credibility problem is that we actually believe what all the great scientific academies throughout the entire world have found rather than what the fossil fuel industry propagandizes. BTW, if I were to find a study that negates what the climate scientists have found, I would wholeheartedly embrace it. It would be a great relief. I do not want the future of our grandchildren to suffer because of our stupidity. It is certain that the market forces and individual human efforts are not going to solve the problems. That is the reason that we need social forces to help solve these problems.
"Actually, the IPCC Summary is a compilation of many scientific studies." A half answer-- who wrote the summary report? Just the scientists? Nope.

"Sure, our credibility problem is that we actually believe what ..."

Actually, no. Your credibility problem lies not in what you "believe", but how warmists act on that belief.

Again, you criticize those "evil" fossil fuel companies, but not each other for using them despite your claimed "beliefs".

One need not look any further than Topix for proof of that. Where are you warmists criticizing litesong for his nonsense babble, and spaceballs for his mindless factoids? Are they not using those same fossil fuels and creating more CO2 with each post? Is global warming a crisis or not?

And need I again mention President Obama and Al Gore? Where are your criticisms of them for their 'contributions' of CO2 to the atmosphere despite their so-called adherence to the "science".

THAT is your credibility problem in a nutshell.

But I'll bet that you'll still be posting more and puffing out more CO2 very soon.

"BTW, if I were to find a study that negates what the climate scientists have found, I would wholeheartedly embrace it."

And that is nothing but bullshyt. Where have you ever expressed any skepticism of the "consensus" "settled science"?
Bloody Bill Anderson

Cadiz, KY

#46963 May 18, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Man made Carbon Dioxide emissions are like a warm blanket.
What's not to love about global warming?
How about the High Plains, America's breadbasket, turning into a desert?

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#46964 May 18, 2014
The High Plains has a "cold semi-arid" climate—Köppen BSk—receiving between 10–20 inches (250–510 mm) of precipitation annually.

Due to low moisture and high elevation, the High Plains commonly experiences wide ranges and extremes in temperature. The temperature range from day to night usually exceeds 40 °F (22 °C), and 24-hour temperature shifts in excess of 40 °C (72 °F) are possible[citation needed]. The region is known for the steady, and sometimes intense, winds that prevail from the west. The winds add a considerable wind chill factor in the winter.
Bloody Bill Anderson

Cadiz, KY

#46965 May 18, 2014
Yes, the High Plains has a cold semi-arid climate. It gets enough rainfall that it is naturally a grassland. That, plus irrigation from underground aquifers that are recharged by precipitation, mostly in the form of snow in the winter, in the Rocky Mountains, make it ideal wheat country. But in the past, during warm phases, it was a hot arid desert climate. The Sand Hills of Nebraska, for example, are old sand dunes.

Anybody that contends that pouring more CO2 into the atmosphere that will bring on another one of those desert phases, or boost a natural one, is a damned idiot. The world would be a better place if somebody walked up to him with a baseball bat and knocked his stupid brains out!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#46966 May 18, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>

But I'll bet that you'll still be posting more and puffing out more CO2 very soon.
That seems to be the best support that you have for your position..... LOL

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#46967 May 18, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>

And need I again mention President Obama and Al Gore? Where are your criticisms of them for their 'contributions' of CO2 to the atmosphere despite their so-called adherence to the "science".
THAT is your credibility problem in a nutshell.
LOL, more of your empty criticisms. That is just more rationalization because you have no real evidence to support your position.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#46968 May 18, 2014
Bloody Bill Anderson wrote:
Yes, the High Plains has a cold semi-arid climate. It gets enough rainfall that it is naturally a grassland. That, plus irrigation from underground aquifers that are recharged by precipitation, mostly in the form of snow in the winter, in the Rocky Mountains, make it ideal wheat country. But in the past, during warm phases, it was a hot arid desert climate. The Sand Hills of Nebraska, for example, are old sand dunes.
Anybody that contends that pouring more CO2 into the atmosphere that will bring on another one of those desert phases, or boost a natural one, is a damned idiot. The world would be a better place if somebody walked up to him with a baseball bat and knocked his stupid brains out!
is that what you do to your spouse when you disagree?

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) 3 min TeaRumpster 1,395,561
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 11 min SweLL GirL 8,894
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 13 min Woj 216,806
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 49 min Go Blue Forever 102,488
Who's this Fauxcahontas? 1 hr ReadAllAbout IT 25
Guess I'm voting for the businessman. 1 hr HRC is a douche-bag 18
Paul Weston from 12Tribe Films. 2 hr NO UNvetted Illegals 4
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages