• Sections
Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 59532 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.

gcaveman1
#34279 Feb 15, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
My home is heated by gas, electric, and solar. When the sun shines (which it does quite a bit in central Mississippi), my gas and coal (electric) bills go down.
My water is heated by coal (electric). When the sun shines, my water is heated or pre-heated by solar.
I have hot water and heat all the time, but my bills are lower because of solar.
That's something you and your sister, valley girl, less than a box of rocks Teener, don't understand and it's incredibly simple. Use more solar, use less fossil fuel.
Repeat after me: Use more solar, use less fossil fuel.
Use more solar, use less fossil fuel.
Use more solar, use less fossil fuel.
Use more solar, use less fossil fuel.
Use more solar, use less fossil fuel.
Use more solar, use less fossil fuel.
Are you starting to get it now?
It's as simple as coupon clipping, Granny Teener.

It's saving more of your precious CO2 to use another day, Brain*G.

It's something a 3rd grader catches onto easily. You have three cookies and Alice gives you one of hers. How many cookies do you have now?

Or if you claim to be a grown man, we could pose the problem as such: You are building a house. You need 350 2x4's. Two by fours cost \$3.01 apiece. Your best friend Jerry has 200 2x4's Left over from building his house. He doesn't need them and says he'll give them to you. How much could you save accepting Jerry's free 2x4's?

You guys really need to tighten up on that logic thing.

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!
gcaveman1
#34280 Feb 15, 2013
flack wrote:
At any given moment there are twenty active volcanoes on the Earth.
At any given moment there are twenty million people farting.
gcaveman1
#34281 Feb 15, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry - you do NOT pay the real cost of your oil. You are forcing people in the future to pay for your profligacy. Period.
But whatever. Go ahead & be as irresponsible & selfish as you want. You WILL do what YOU want, I'm sure. I also know I won't change your mind (lurkers?).
Yes, 500 million years ago, that carbon was in the atmosphere as CO2. The earth's temperatures were moderate, however, because the sun was some 4% dimmer. In case you didn't know, that matters.
Then there were the dinosaurs, who (for much of that time) had CO2 levels some ~5 times ours. Temps were much higher. And sea level was 70 meters (SEVENTY METERS,~250 ft) higher.
That carbon has been in the earth for 300 million years or more. We have released a significant fraction of it in less than 2 centuries. You hallucinate that that'll have NO effect? Are you psychotic?
CO2 is not "weightless"; by saying that you're proving your PROFOUND scientific ignorance. It's actually heavier than air.
Icepacks break up suddenly, even under natural forcings, then take thousands of years to re-accumulate. We are driving CO2 up 10,000 times faster than natural sources do. Once the Greenland & Antarctic icepacks start breaking up, we won't be able to stop them.
There is at least as much carbon (both as methane & carbon dioxide) in the Arctic permafrost, & on the Siberian continental shelf, as in the rest of the atmosphere combined. If a significant fraction of that carbon is released (10%? 20%? 30%? we don't know when we'll reach the point of no return), there'll be a positive feedback cycle that will release it all & lead inexorably to an ice-free earth.
You may have noticed another topix thread where the permafrost is melting, & releasing methane, at a much faster rate than expected.
It's true that we might be very lucky, & we won't see dramatic changes. However, we also may see droughts by mid-century severe enough to cause agricultural collapse, famine, disease, wars, & the deaths of billions of people.
Hmmm - how much are a few billion people "worth"? If sea levels are 75 meters higher (yes, the Marianas Trench was deeper when the dinos were around) & trillions of dollars of land & infrastructure are flooded, what will that "cost"? How much is Florida "worth"?
No, China won't "foreclose" on our climate debt; the earth will foreclose on all of us. The risks are far, far, far, far, FAR greater than a comparatively TINY \$20 T debt.
I don't know how old you are; you, or your progeny, will realize I'm right.
Of course you are right. You are even right on!

But then, you're probably a National Public Radio guy.
gcaveman1
#34282 Feb 15, 2013
mememine69 wrote:
Prove me wrong:
Science is confident in claiming deadly comet hits are imminent and have never said the same for a deadly climate change crisis. Science didnÂ’t tell lies about climate change, it was you climate change believers and lazy news editors and politicians that lied and said that a crisis will happen because science has never said any crisis will happen, only might happen. Not one IPCC warning is not qualified with Â“maybesÂ”. ItÂ’s been 27 years of; Â“Help my planet could be on fire maybe?Â”
You as a planet lover should be happy a crisis was exaggerated and former climate change believers are better planet lovers. We donÂ’t rely on fear like neocons.
So ya gotta change your tack a little, now that the Prez has mentioned AGW in the SOTU.

Even tho the Prez is not the important guy, it's the scientists who have been saying it for years.

We're scaring your children with the threat of death by CO2; you're scaring us with your ignorance.
gcaveman1
#34283 Feb 15, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
"brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver" dispatches the oil trucks at his 2-bit oil can job.
Is that what he does? I wondered.

I thought one time he might be a Republican newcular Injun ear.

He loves gas, tho, you can tell. Smells of it too.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#34284 Feb 15, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course you are right. You are even right on!
But then, you're probably a National Public Radio guy.
Hey, NPR's not so bad! You can learn a lot of stuff from them.

Actually, I do try to read as much of the science as I can. Also, you can learn a lot from other people - IF they truly know the science. There are some very well-informed amateurs. Of course, there are also a WHOLE lot of poorly-informed amateurs.

AGW/CC denial has to be really powerful to distort the facts so much. There are no well-informed, truly honest AGW/CC deniers.
gcaveman1
#34285 Feb 16, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, NPR's not so bad! You can learn a lot of stuff from them.
Actually, I do try to read as much of the science as I can. Also, you can learn a lot from other people - IF they truly know the science. There are some very well-informed amateurs. Of course, there are also a WHOLE lot of poorly-informed amateurs.
AGW/CC denial has to be really powerful to distort the facts so much. There are no well-informed, truly honest AGW/CC deniers.
No, NPR is great. I, too, am one of those National Public Radio guys.

It makes you a lot smarter than watching "Jersey Shore" does.

Judged:

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Apr 09

#34286 Feb 16, 2013
Yah, I learn a lot from Click N Clack!
PHD
#34287 Feb 16, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>You are in deep hallucination. You don't own Topix, do you?
Posters are participating in a science forum called Global Warming. They don't care about you. They are not for you or your posts. They are not competing for anything like what you assume wrongfully.
Posters are communicating with each other. They are not coming back for you. Not even tina.
Correction, posters like you are participating in scientific science fiction. They don't care about your cut and paste useless babble. You have "pinheadlitesout and the wallop10 AKA walloped again and again that are willing to respond to your ethanol drinking hallucinations. Try the drinking topic you would score your first "A". Ever wonder why no responds to your new topic until I create a spark?

Judged:

4

4

4

Report Abuse Judge it!

“EnvironMENTAList ”

Since: Feb 07

Near Detroit

#34288 Feb 16, 2013
Former Climate Change Believers Are Better Planet Lovers!
Science is certain comet hits are imminent yet science has never said a climate change crisis is imminent, only Â“likelyÂ” and Â“potentiallyÂ” etc. A Â“climate crisisÂ” would be like a comet hit, only worse so how close to the point of no return will science take us before they say the ultimate crisis Â“WILLÂ” happen, not just might happen?
Not one single IPCC warning is without Â“maybesÂ”,Â“Help my planet could be on fire maybe?Â” Since 27 more years of Â“maybeÂ” is unsustainable, science needs to be crystal clear about it being a real crisis or not. Like why would we WANT this misery to be true?
If it were a crisis, they would have said so. Deny that!

Judged:

2

2

2

Report Abuse Judge it!

“EnvironMENTAList ”

Since: Feb 07

Near Detroit

#34289 Feb 16, 2013
Common Ground on Climate Change Belief:
Let deniers, former believers and believers all agree that when science finally says a climate change crisis is imminent, not just Â“likelyÂ” we shall all agree the danger is in fact real.
Agreed?

Judged:

2

2

2

Report Abuse Judge it!
PHD
#34290 Feb 16, 2013
mememine69 wrote:
Former Climate Change Believers Are Better Planet Lovers!
Science is certain comet hits are imminent yet science has never said a climate change crisis is imminent, only Â“likelyÂ” and Â“potentiallyÂ” etc. A Â“climate crisisÂ” would be like a comet hit, only worse so how close to the point of no return will science take us before they say the ultimate crisis Â“WILLÂ” happen, not just might happen?
Not one single IPCC warning is without Â“maybesÂ”,Â“Help my planet could be on fire maybe?Â” Since 27 more years of Â“maybeÂ” is unsustainable, science needs to be crystal clear about it being a real crisis or not. Like why would we WANT this misery to be true?
If it were a crisis, they would have said so. Deny that!
You can't deny scientific science fiction. They also use my opinion, prediction, could be, should be and forecast.

Judged:

3

2

2

Report Abuse Judge it!
Antonio
#34291 Feb 16, 2013
Such a farce
gcaveman1
#34292 Feb 16, 2013
The federal government is facing significant financial risks related to extreme weather events, and states and cities can no longer depend on it for extra help after such events occur, the Republican chairman of House Oversight and Government Reform Committee said Friday.

The warning from Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., came at a press conference about the release of a new report by the Government Accountability Office, which identified Â“climate changeÂ” on its 2013 list of items presenting high risk to the federal government.

The report said the federal government faces financial challenges from climate change, including the costs of weather-related damage to property it owns, losses through flood insurance and crop support programs, and costs of emergency aid in disasters.

The report is a biennial assessment of government operations it deems at high risk for fraud, waste, abuse and mismanagement or as otherwise "needing broad-based transformation." Some of its other recommendations:

Develop a better understanding of how a changing climate will affect the large federal flood and crop insurance programs. For instance, the report said, sea-level rise and long-term erosion should be considered when flood maps are updated.
Develop a federal approach to providing climate data to state and local governments so they can make better decisions.
Develop better criteria for FEMA to assess a jurisdiction's ability to recover on its own after a disaster.

<><><>< ><><><> <><><>< ><><><> <>

Darrell Issa has always been one of Congress's biggest climate dumbasses, but he's accepting it now because he sees it as a way to pull federal aid out from under cities and states. Gotta cut that spending, he insists, even if it drives states into bankruptcy.

I don't know the numbers, but I would guess that if Louisiana, Mississippi, or New Jersey had to bear alone the cost of their recent climate disasters, they and their citizens would suffer tremendous economic hardship.

Judged:

2

2

2

Report Abuse Judge it!
PHD
#34293 Feb 16, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
The federal government is facing significant financial risks related to extreme weather events, and states and cities can no longer depend on it for extra help after such events occur, the Republican chairman of House Oversight and Government Reform Committee said Friday.
The warning from Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., came at a press conference about the release of a new report by the Government Accountability Office, which identified Â“climate changeÂ” on its 2013 list of items presenting high risk to the federal government.
The report said the federal government faces financial challenges from climate change, including the costs of weather-related damage to property it owns, losses through flood insurance and crop support programs, and costs of emergency aid in disasters.
The report is a biennial assessment of government operations it deems at high risk for fraud, waste, abuse and mismanagement or as otherwise "needing broad-based transformation." Some of its other recommendations:
Develop a better understanding of how a changing climate will affect the large federal flood and crop insurance programs. For instance, the report said, sea-level rise and long-term erosion should be considered when flood maps are updated.
Develop a federal approach to providing climate data to state and local governments so they can make better decisions.
Develop better criteria for FEMA to assess a jurisdiction's ability to recover on its own after a disaster.
<><><>< ><><><> <><><>< ><><><> <>
Darrell Issa has always been one of Congress's biggest climate dumbasses, but he's accepting it now because he sees it as a way to pull federal aid out from under cities and states. Gotta cut that spending, he insists, even if it drives states into bankruptcy.
I don't know the numbers, but I would guess that if Louisiana, Mississippi, or New Jersey had to bear alone the cost of their recent climate disasters, they and their citizens would suffer tremendous economic hardship.
EXCELLENT !!!!
gcaveman1
#34294 Feb 16, 2013
mememine69 wrote:
Former Climate Change Believers Are Better Planet Lovers!
Science is certain comet hits are imminent yet science has never said a climate change crisis is imminent, only Â“likelyÂ” and Â“potentiallyÂ” etc. A Â“climate crisisÂ” would be like a comet hit, only worse so how close to the point of no return will science take us before they say the ultimate crisis Â“WILLÂ” happen, not just might happen?
Not one single IPCC warning is without Â“maybesÂ”,Â“Help my planet could be on fire maybe?Â” Since 27 more years of Â“maybeÂ” is unsustainable, science needs to be crystal clear about it being a real crisis or not. Like why would we WANT this misery to be true?
If it were a crisis, they would have said so. Deny that!
Maybe the last time there were no "maybes" or "likelys" was when Newton claimed to have figured it all out. Then Einstein came along. You don't understand the openess of science.

No physicist today claims that Einstein's work is the last word. There are always mysteries and questions.

There are mysteries and questions about climate change, but that doesn't negate the whole theory or the body of work already known.

If climatologists had crystal balls, they'd say what you think they should. Until then, you're just sounding like a fool.

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#34295 Feb 16, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe the last time there were no "maybes" or "likelys" was when Newton claimed to have figured it all out. Then Einstein came along. You don't understand the openess of science.
No physicist today claims that Einstein's work is the last word. There are always mysteries and questions.
There are mysteries and questions about climate change, but that doesn't negate the whole theory or the body of work already known.
If climatologists had crystal balls, they'd say what you think they should. Until then, you're just sounding like a fool.
Somehow I bet Darryl Issa would very much like New Jersey & New York to pay their own way, but maybe not the reliable red states...

Newtonian physics are entirely included as a special case of Einsteinian physics (though the converse is not true). Still, both general relativity & quantum mechanics have been verified many times over for the very large & very small, respectively, but they are completely incompatible.

If one of the versions of string theory proves correct, GT & QM should be special cases of that theory.

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#34296 Feb 17, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
At any given moment there are twenty million people farting.
With 7 billion people I imagine it's a lot more than that.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#34297 Feb 17, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Somehow I bet Darryl Issa would very much like New Jersey & New York to pay their own way, but maybe not the reliable red states...
Newtonian physics are entirely included as a special case of Einsteinian physics (though the converse is not true). Still, both general relativity & quantum mechanics have been verified many times over for the very large & very small, respectively, but they are completely incompatible.
If one of the versions of string theory proves correct, GT & QM should be special cases of that theory.
Erratum:

Oops, I meant GR instead of GT in the last paragraph. GR = general relativity.
SpaceBlues
#34298 Feb 17, 2013
flack wrote:
<quoted text> With 7 billion people I imagine it's a lot more than that.
One out of every 350 men, women, and children???

You just flick flack, that's all.

#### Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

### Fort Lauderdale Discussions

Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min My New Alias RULES 1,383,762
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 25 min Ize Found 70,608
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) Fri cpeter1313 311,215
Missing 5-year-old Florida girl likely was abdu... (Feb '09) Thu Tzu 98,045
South Florida ports see mixed results in first ... May 24 Jayne 1
Review: OPTICIAN, Dr. Gary Enker World Eyeglass... (Feb '10) May 19 ScamWatch 11
Review: US Dental Depot Inc - Dental Supplies (Nov '12) May 19 ScamWatch 12
More from around the web