Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 62981 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.

Mothra

Tempe, AZ

#47207 May 26, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell me something, does every tea bagger ...
Aww... gawd not again.

Is your goad to post at least one really stupid thing each and every day?

Grow up, putz.
Mothra

Tempe, AZ

#47208 May 26, 2014
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
Whiner deniers...
See my previous post.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#47209 May 26, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
See my previous post.
I don't usually read your posts because you have nothing to offer. I categorize you as a troll.
litesong

Everett, WA

#47210 May 26, 2014
motheaten muffed:
...... hold accountable the scientists...... that talk the global warming.....Nerds. Yup... they're nerds.
//////////
litesong wrote:
"motheaten", without science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc in a poorly (or non-) earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa, can't hold scientists accountable, because "motheaten" can't count, scientifically or mathematically.

As always, the ones who can't, call the ones who can, "nerds".
//////////
Mothra muffed:
Still puffing.......your stupid posts?
//////////
litesong wrote:
As always, the ones who can't, call the ones who can, "nerds".

In other words, "motheaten".......st ill without science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra, or pre-calc in a poorly (or non-) earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa, can't hold scientists accountable, because "motheaten" can't count, scientifically or mathematically.
Mothra

Tempe, AZ

#47211 May 26, 2014
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't usually read your posts because you have nothing to offer. I categorize you as a troll.
Just keep on posting.... more CO2 for everyone.

LOL

What a dupe.
Mothra

Tempe, AZ

#47212 May 26, 2014
litesong wrote:
You say something?.... doesn't matter, don't care.

But the world thanks you for the CO2 you just added to the atmosphere.

What a dupe.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#47213 May 26, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
You say something?.... doesn't matter, don't care.
But the world thanks you for the CO2 you just added to the atmosphere.
What a dupe.
Not likely. Most of them will have nutritional deficiencies due to the lower quality of food crops grown in high CO2. http://tinyurl.com/q2kb3wk

Which will then lead to strife, such as wars, civil unrest and refugee movements. http://tinyurl.com/kkl8bx2
Mothra

Tempe, AZ

#47214 May 26, 2014
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Not likely. Most of them will have nutritional deficiencies due to the lower quality of food crops grown in high CO2. http://tinyurl.com/q2kb3wk
Which will then lead to strife, such as wars, civil unrest and refugee movements. http://tinyurl.com/kkl8bx2
<sigh>

Google sarcasm... and then apologize to the world for the CO2 you just added to the atmosphere.

**poof**

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#47215 May 26, 2014
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
Whiner deniers would rather believe Fox and friends than the solid science that provides evidence that global warming is happening and that man is responsible for a major part of it. Why would anyone believe the science when they have Koch cronies to straighten them out? LOL
Maybe you should blame billionaire Tom Steyer for it? There's never been a published experimental test that shows global warming is caused by man made greenhouse gas emission; let's wait for the science to catch up to the hype.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#47216 May 27, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text> Maybe you should blame billionaire Tom Steyer for it? There's never been a published experimental test that shows global warming is caused by man made greenhouse gas emission; let's wait for the science to catch up to the hype.
I'm afraid science has long since passed you by BG , no one except a hand full of ignorant baggers take any notice of your BS as science. Do yourself a favour and watch the video on this site

"How do we know current global warming is human caused, or man made? Is global warming real, or a hoax? Consider the facts: the climate system is indicated to have left the natural cycle path; multiple lines of evidence and studies from different fields all point to the human fingerprint on current climate change; the convergence of these evidence lines include ice mass loss, pattern changes, ocean acidification, plant and species migration, isotopic signature of CO2, changes in atmospheric composition, and many others. The only identifiable cause explaining these changes with confidence is human influence and increased greenhouse gas emissions. Science has simply not found any other cause factor that can account for the scale of the recent increase in radiative forcing and associated warming. "

Now you might come up with a theory that its aliens playing tricks with our climate but I'm going with the 97% consensus.

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/...

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#47217 May 27, 2014
Ozzy, this is your "consensus":
It is now emerging that the clouds of controversy gathered ahead of the current storm. In February, Bengtsson weathered a significant setback. The scientific journal Environmental Research Letters declined to publish a study he had authored predicting a milder greenhouse effect. Peer reviewers described the report's findings as "less than helpful" and added, "actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of 'errors' and worse from the climate-skeptic media side."

Respected German meteorologist Hans von Storch of the Institute for Coastal Research at the Helmholtz Center, described the justification as "scandalous" and accused the journal of politically motivated decision-making not based on scientific standards. In a statement on the IOP Science website, Publisher Nicola Gulley emphasizes that the study was declined on scientific grounds. She argues that Bengtsson's work failed to meet the journal's high standards.

Climate researchers are now engaged in a debate about whether their science is being crippled by a compulsion to conform. They wonder if pressure to reach a consensus is too great. They ask if criticism is being suppressed. No less is at stake than the credibility of research evidence for climate change and the very question of whether climate research is still reliable.

Bengtsson said in an interview with SPIEGEL ONLINE that he wanted to open up the climate change debate by joining GWPF. He said that in view of large gaps in knowledge, the pressure to reach a consensus in climate research "does not make sense".
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/cli...
There is no consensus on climate change mitigation because the experimental work hasn't been done; everyone can agree it is hoax based on pseudoscience.
Marvinb

Masontown, PA

#47218 May 27, 2014

summer is about here its warm??

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#47221 May 27, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Ozzy, this is your "consensus":
<quoted text>
There is no consensus on climate change mitigation because the experimental work hasn't been done; everyone can agree it is hoax based on pseudoscience.
You remind me of Sgt Schultz in Hogans heros, i see nothing, i hear nothing. Despite being buried in the evidence.

And this is why you flat earthers & baggers are traitors to your own country. What chance has Obama got in addressing any damn problem when effectively he has a government who won't pass the time of day let alone any bill. By you allowing for this self destruction to continue with mindless stupidity from the right then the country will end up further and further behind the power houses in Asia.

http://rt.com/usa/160904-pentagon-climate-cha...

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#47222 May 27, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Ozzy, this is your "consensus":
<quoted text>
There is no consensus on climate change mitigation because the experimental work hasn't been done; everyone can agree it is hoax based on pseudoscience.
Professor Lennart Bengtsson, professorial research fellow at the University of Reading, said:

“I do not believe there is any systematic “cover up” of scientific evidence on climate change or that academics’ work is being “deliberately suppressed”, as The Times front page suggests.

http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reac...

“EnvironMENTAList ”

Since: Feb 07

Near Detroit

#47223 May 27, 2014
The 32 years of 95% certainty from science is the only "belief" you remaining "believers" can have not the "beliefs" of a mob of determined "believers".
Prove that science "believes" as much as YOU do and I'll become a "believer". I promise.
Or
Find me one IPCC warning that says; "inevitable" or "eventual" or "proven" or "100%" certain or anything beyond; "could be".
If science can't say it, YOU can't.

truth-facts

Chillicothe, OH

#47225 May 27, 2014
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Professor Lennart Bengtsson, professorial research fellow at the University of Reading, said:
“I do not believe there is any systematic “cover up” of scientific evidence on climate change or that academics’ work is being “deliberately suppressed”, as The Times front page suggests.
http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reac...
Another group manipulating data who work for OBOZO:

Retired officers poised to profit after Pentagon’s alarmist climate change report
Urgent Obama call can funnel funds to projects

CNA Vice Chairman and retired Navy Vice Adm. Lee Gunn is president ... 30 Related U.S. military worries about climate change
Cna Corp.
Pentagon
Center For Climate And Security
Climate And Security

Retired military officers deeply involved in the climate change movement — and some in companies positioned to profit from it — spearheaded an alarmist global warming report this month that calls on the Defense Department to ramp up spending on what it calls a man-made problem.

The report, which the Obama administration immediately hailed as a call to action, was issued not by a private advocacy group but by a Pentagon-financed think tank that trumpets “absolute objectivity.” The research was funded by a climate change group that is also one of the think tank’s main customers.

LIE,CHEAT,STEAL,DECEIVE to fit the Global Warming SCAM. ALL about the benjamins.
truth-facts

Chillicothe, OH

#47226 May 27, 2014
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Professor Lennart Bengtsson, professorial research fellow at the University of Reading, said:
“I do not believe there is any systematic “cover up” of scientific evidence on climate change or that academics’ work is being “deliberately suppressed”, as The Times front page suggests.
http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reac...
The professor got an envelope full of $$$$$$ to say that. LOLOLOLOL
SpaceBlues

United States

#47227 May 27, 2014
mememine69 wrote:
The 32 years of 95% certainty from science is the only "belief" you remaining "believers" can have not the "beliefs" of a mob of determined "believers".
Prove that science "believes" as much as YOU do and I'll become a "believer". I promise.
Or
Find me one IPCC warning that says; "inevitable" or "eventual" or "proven" or "100%" certain or anything beyond; "could be".
If science can't say it, YOU can't.
"Global warming refers to the increase in the Earth's average surface temperature since the Industrial Revolution, primarily due to the emission of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels and land-use change," Yale University researcher Anthony Leiserowitz and colleagues wrote in the new report, "whereas climate change refers to the long-term change of the Earth's climate, including changes in temperature, precipitation and wind patterns over a period of several decades or longer."
Brad

Bolton, CT

#47228 May 27, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>"Global warming refers to the increase in the Earth's average surface temperature since the Industrial Revolution, primarily due to the emission of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels and land-use change," Yale University researcher Anthony Leiserowitz and colleagues wrote in the new report, "whereas climate change refers to the long-term change of the Earth's climate, including changes in temperature, precipitation and wind patterns over a period of several decades or longer."
Lets just say direct effects won't be felt for 1,000 years and tax conservatives,effective immediately.

The ruling class will be pleased.
SpaceBlues

United States

#47229 May 27, 2014
Brad wrote:
<quoted text>
Lets just say direct effects won't be felt for 1,000 years and tax conservatives,effective immediately.
The ruling class will be pleased.
No, let's not because you deny those events that have been already triggered.

Wake up. The ruling class is awake.

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) 12 min Dr Guru 234,525
John Lewis is NOT a hero, he's an idiot who got... 38 min Well Well 13
Are democrats destroyed? 44 min Well Well 256
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 hr moshx 1,483,218
Destructive Liberal Trash 1 hr Joey 2
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 4 hr Susanm 10,101
last post wins! (Apr '13) 6 hr They cannot kill ... 2,181

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages