Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 60662 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"

#34725 Mar 25, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I won't be bullied and I'll call Patriot AKA Bozo on bullying opponents to "Shut up." This is a forum for argument, bullying and insults have no place.
Hypocrisy and lying too.
Brian_G wrote:
********, you know less about economics than climate. Caveat Emptor,********, you will get yours.
Brian_G wrote:
********, I'm not going to aplogize to you, I am going to find out who is behind the AGW hoax, and make them pay. If it's you, get ready.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#34726 Mar 25, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Not everyone with a college degree is smart and not everyone who doesn't graduate high school is stupid.
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”

&#8213; Isaac Asimov
This issue is controversial.
No it's not.

It hasn't been controversial for decades. You're trying to make it look like a controversy, with the endless repetition of idiotic arguments, in the hope that it will all be he-said-she-said to those who don't know any better.

To the smart people it's obvious you're a clown, but that's not who you're pitching to, is it?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#34727 Mar 26, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
Just a reminder: You're fellow deniers say citing Wiki is verboten.
Wikipedia scores its pages, the quality is listed as 'Start Class' Here's what the score means:

"The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas, usually in referencing. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent; but the article should satisfy fundamental content policies such as notability and BLP, and provide enough sources to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted."

.
gcaveman1 wrote:
So only man can perform experiments? These experiments must be in a lab?
That's right, only humans can perform experiments. Experiments can be done in the field, in a hospital or in the lab; the location isn't important but the procedure to control variables is important.

.
gcaveman1 wrote:
Where is the word deliberate? I don't see it, yet you said that was a requirement.
The word 'goal' means the experiment is deliberate.

I'll repeat the definition so you can learn more:

"An experiment is a orderly procedure carried out with the goal of verifying, falsifying, or establishing the validity of a hypothesis. "

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#34728 Mar 26, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
Hung by your own petard, it seems. Or maybe you didn't read all of the Wiki entry:
"The term "experiment" usually implies a controlled experiment, but sometimes controlled experiments are prohibitively difficult or impossible. In this case researchers resort to natural experiments or quasi-experiments. Natural experiments rely solely on observations of the variables of the system under study, rather than manipulation of just one or a few variables as occurs in controlled experiments. "
"Much research in several important science disciplines, including economics, political science, geology, paleontology, ecology, meteorology, and astronomy, relies on quasi-experiments. For example, in astronomy it is clearly impossible, when testing the hypothesis "suns are collapsed clouds of hydrogen", to start out with a giant cloud of hydrogen, and then perform the experiment of waiting a few billion years for it to form a sun. However, by observing various clouds of hydrogen in various states of collapse, and other implications of the hypothesis (for example, the presence of various spectral emissions from the light of stars), we can collect data we require to support the hypothesis."
<>><><> <><><>< ><><><> <><
Your experiment argument just collapsed....kinda like a supernova, only faster.
"A natural experiment is an empirical study in which the experimental conditions (i.e., which units receive which treatment) are determined by nature or by other factors out of the control of the experimenters and yet the treatment assignment process is arguably exogenous."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_experime...
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#34730 Mar 26, 2013
Corretion their scientific science fiction clowns.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#34731 Mar 26, 2013
Big_Goof is able to divert meaningful discussions about global warming science by saying that it cannot be science without "laboratory experiments". That is his only position. By now he knows that science goes beyond laboratory experiments and uses observation for many things that do not adapt to a laboratory type experimentation. Yet he persists in continuing to post his contention that all science must be performed by laboratory experiment. It is best to ignore his posts by understanding what they are, simply a diversion.

Global warming is a result of adding CO2 to the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels. Science has established that. The discussion should progress to what steps can we take to decrease the effects.
Teddy R

San Francisco, CA

#34732 Mar 26, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me see: did I say experiments were idiotic, or that your idea of an experiment was idiotic?
Add misrepresentation to pearl clutching and fauxtrage as the tools of the troll.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php...
Thanks for linking the UD entries for the two precious little semi-witticisms with which you seem so infatuated of late. Always fun.

I was particularly intrigued by the "clutching pearls" entry:

"A new phrase among the gay Maryland circle."

You infatuation with this phrase becomes clearer, luvvy ...
Reddy Kilowatt

San Francisco, CA

#34733 Mar 26, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
Big_Goof is able to divert meaningful discussions about global warming science by saying that it cannot be science without "laboratory experiments". That is his only position. By now he knows that science goes beyond laboratory experiments and uses observation for many things that do not adapt to a laboratory type experimentation. Yet he persists in continuing to post his contention that all science must be performed by laboratory experiment. It is best to ignore his posts by understanding what they are, simply a diversion.
Global warming is a result of adding CO2 to the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels. Science has established that. The discussion should progress to what steps can we take to decrease the effects.
The answer is obvious.

A crash program to replace large coal-fired electric power generating stations with modern fast-neutron SMRs:

http://phys.org/news/2012-02-small-modular-re...

Green. Carbon-free. Renewable. Sustainable. Commercial-scale reactor designs readily available today.

Problem solved.

Or we can just keep turning up the gain on the AGW "waaaambulance" siren and flapping gums over "the science" and "clutching pearls" waiting for vague pie-in-the-sky "greenie" technologies and/or using AGW as a stalking horse to press under-the-radar anti-corporate/neo-Luddite social re-engineering agendas while we continue to cook the planet.

It's pretty clear which course of action this crowd favors ...

So rock on, "scientists." Just remember - you're the problem because you're not part of the solution.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#34734 Mar 26, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for linking the UD entries for the two precious little semi-witticisms with which you seem so infatuated of late. Always fun.
I was particularly intrigued by the "clutching pearls" entry:
"A new phrase among the gay Maryland circle."
You infatuation with this phrase becomes clearer, luvvy ...
Alas! I've never been to Maryland or had the pleasure of meeting the gay circle there.

I encountered the phrase on the New York Times as used by an economist. It aptly describes posters like brian_g, tina anne and fun facts.
Let me instead go meta; this is an example of why policy debate is so frustrating, and why I’m not polite. The key thing about how the conservative movement handles debate is that it never gives up an argument, no matter how often and how thoroughly it has been refuted. Oh, there will be more sophisticated arguments made too; but the zombie lies will be rolled out again and again, with little or no pushback from the “respectable” wing of the movement.

In comments and elsewhere I fairly often encounter the pearl-clutchers, who want to know why I can’t politely disagree, since we’re all arguing in good faith, right? Wrong.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/t...
SpaceBlues

United States

#34735 Mar 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>If you don't want to provide education, you aren't a scientist. I'm glad that's clear.
.
<quoted text>I don't see the confusion, I've noted there are no experimental tests for climate change mitigation and the only people who disagree seem to think nature, our fossil fuel use and evolution are experiments. I'll be glad to clear up any confusion; experiments are orderly, intended and controlled.
.
<quoted text>I don't feel sorry for SpaceBlues; this is where we differ. He's entitled to his position and I encourage him to post his most compelling arguments. I'm prepared to post and defend my arguments.
Seems fair to me.
You are not a scientist. Stop wishing that there are no scientists who post in this forum.

It is always clear that you push here for uncontrolled and limitless fossil fuel burning. You butcher science terms to confuse the public because you are not of science. Your opinion of scientists has no significance.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#34736 Mar 26, 2013
Reddy Kilowatt wrote:
<quoted text>
The answer is obvious.
A crash program to replace large coal-fired electric power generating stations with modern fast-neutron SMRs:
http://phys.org/news/2012-02-small-modular-re...
Green. Carbon-free. Renewable. Sustainable. Commercial-scale reactor designs readily available today.
Problem solved.
Or we can just keep turning up the gain on the AGW "waaaambulance" siren and flapping gums over "the science" and "clutching pearls" waiting for vague pie-in-the-sky "greenie" technologies and/or using AGW as a stalking horse to press under-the-radar anti-corporate/neo-Luddite social re-engineering agendas while we continue to cook the planet.
It's pretty clear which course of action this crowd favors ...
So rock on, "scientists." Just remember - you're the problem because you're not part of the solution.
Actually, fast neutron uranium or liquid salt thorium generate smaller amounts of MUCH less dangerous waste (which for many is the limiting step). The former can even use what we currently call "waste" as fuel.

We still have a problem, though, in that construction of plants, mining of ore & other necessary activities associated with the industry are carbon-intensive.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#34737 Mar 26, 2013
Erratum:

First sentence should say "...fast neutron uranium or liquid salt thorium REACTORS generate..."
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#34738 Mar 26, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>You are not a scientist. Stop wishing that there are no scientists who post in this forum.
It is always clear that you push here for uncontrolled and limitless fossil fuel burning. You butcher science terms to confuse the public because you are not of science. Your opinion of scientists has no significance.
More and more that’s all the "spacedoutblues” has more and more diarrheas.
SpaceBlues

United States

#34739 Mar 26, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, fast neutron uranium or liquid salt thorium generate smaller amounts of MUCH less dangerous waste (which for many is the limiting step). The former can even use what we currently call "waste" as fuel.
We still have a problem, though, in that construction of plants, mining of ore & other necessary activities associated with the industry are carbon-intensive.
Agreed. Safety is still a problem as well.

Teddy <that was him> does try to bring a twist. Alas an SMR is nonexistent anyhow.
SpaceBlues

United States

#34740 Mar 26, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
Erratum:
First sentence should say "...fast neutron uranium or liquid salt thorium REACTORS generate..."
understood before .. no confusion ...

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#34741 Mar 26, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
Big_Goof is able to divert meaningful discussions about global warming science by saying that it cannot be science without "laboratory experiments". That is his only position.
PAKAB almost has it right, man made catastrophic global warming alarmism is pseudoscience and climate change mitigation by restricting CO2 emissions or sequestering atmospheric CO2 is a hoax without field experiments. Due diligence, test a product before you buy. Be more careful how you spend your money.

.
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
By now he knows that science goes beyond laboratory experiments and uses observation for many things that do not adapt to a laboratory type experimentation.
But not things where they advise policy, if they tell you there's a way to mitigate a man made problem they better show you man made experimental results. There's a difference between purely observational and when you dear to breach a technology or policy to improve a man made or natural situation. Then you need to produce results instead of theory, get a product off the drawing board, through the lab and into the market.

Climate change mitigation is a big zero when it comes to demonstrations and results.

.
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
Yet he persists in continuing to post his contention that all science must be performed by laboratory experiment. It is best to ignore his posts by understanding what they are, simply a diversion.
The tests of climate change mitigation are essential to the policy discussion. Don't buy a pig in a poke. Emitting CO2 is too important a freedom to give up for theory and models.

.
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
Global warming is a result of adding CO2 to the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels. Science has established that. The discussion should progress to what steps can we take to decrease the effects.
Or whether we should increase the effects, that's my plan. I stand for growth, using and producing fossil fuels and emitting carbon. That's to my best welfare and benefit. I really don't understand you, I'm sorry.

I hope carbon dioxide paranoia is a passing fad; I find it tiresome and ugly.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#34742 Mar 26, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
You are not a scientist.
No, I'm not a scientist. But I can tell an experimental test from a computer model from climate history and coincidence.

.
SpaceBlues wrote:
Stop wishing that there are no scientists who post in this forum.
Stop telling me what to wish for, I wish scientists would post, that would be a relief from SB's bullying posts.

.
SpaceBlues wrote:
It is always clear that you push here for uncontrolled and limitless fossil fuel burning.
Good, I believe emitting CO2 is healthy, fun and productive. Fossil fuels work, that's why we buy them. Your utility company powers your home with some fossil fuels and you use them to move yourself and your goods. Don't be down on fossil fuel, appreciate what you've got.

Don't be so ungrateful.

.
SpaceBlues wrote:
You butcher science terms to confuse the public because you are not of science.
I hope I make myself clear, there are no field tests of climate change mitigation, no experiments of man made greenhouse gas emissions changing climate published in peer reviewed journals so I'm a skeptic.

.
SpaceBlues wrote:
Your opinion of scientists has no significance.
My opinion of science has some worth. I hope you'll learn the significance of experiment to the scientific method. Then ask a climate scientist for a compelling experimental test.
SpaceBlues

United States

#34743 Mar 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>No, I'm not a scientist. But I can tell an experimental test from a computer model from climate history and coincidence.
.
.
No, you are not a scientist and you can not differentiate history from science. And you don't understand how science is pursued.

You just overrate yourself but we are not fooled by your wording.
SpaceBlues

United States

#34745 Mar 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Stop telling me what to wish for, I wish scientists would post, that would be a relief from SB's bullying posts.
.
<quoted text>Good, I believe emitting CO2 is healthy, fun and productive. Fossil fuels work, that's why we buy them. Your utility company powers your home with some fossil fuels and you use them to move yourself and your goods. Don't be down on fossil fuel, appreciate what you've got.
Don't be so ungrateful.
.
<quoted text>I hope I make myself clear, there are no field tests of climate change mitigation, no experiments of man made greenhouse gas emissions changing climate published in peer reviewed journals so I'm a skeptic.
.
<quoted text>My opinion of science has some worth. I hope you'll learn the significance of experiment to the scientific method. Then ask a climate scientist for a compelling experimental test.
LOL. You have a thick skull or a shrunken brain or both to call me "bullying" and proceed with bullying me.

What a loser! You can't even tell who's a scientist and who's not. But we know you have no science. Yet you publish to the world to lie about science.

No, your opinion is worth zero, nada, nil.

I proved to you that you are a denier, not a skeptic. Your brain runs on the same very short track. You repeat the same still.

Each day nowadays 90 million tons of man-made CO2 are emitted into our atmosphere. That's not healthy because our global climate is changing to produce dire consequences.

You just lie, year after year, almost 40,000 posts here, already.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#34746 Mar 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>PAKAB almost has it right, man made catastrophic global warming alarmism is pseudoscience and climate change mitigation by restricting CO2 emissions or sequestering atmospheric CO2 is a hoax without field experiments. Due diligence, test a product before you buy. Be more careful how you spend your money.
.
<quoted text>But not things where they advise policy, if they tell you there's a way to mitigate a man made problem they better show you man made experimental results. There's a difference between purely observational and when you dear to breach a technology or policy to improve a man made or natural situation. Then you need to produce results instead of theory, get a product off the drawing board, through the lab and into the market.
Climate change mitigation is a big zero when it comes to demonstrations and results.
.
<quoted text>The tests of climate change mitigation are essential to the policy discussion. Don't buy a pig in a poke. Emitting CO2 is too important a freedom to give up for theory and models.
.
<quoted text>Or whether we should increase the effects, that's my plan. I stand for growth, using and producing fossil fuels and emitting carbon. That's to my best welfare and benefit. I really don't understand you, I'm sorry.
I hope carbon dioxide paranoia is a passing fad; I find it tiresome and ugly.
And you sir, attempt to divert the scientific findings by trying to convince others that they are somehow simply political in nature. You also attempt to divert the conversation by saying that since the science is really politics, that it would be counter productive to attempt to mitigate the effects of CO2. Yours is a false position because you circumvent the actual scientific findings and substitute propaganda instead. The fact is, burning fossil fuels is increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. It has been scientifically determined that CO2 is a GHG. It is implicit in global warming.

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.

Hampton Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min Henry 1,405,445
Hampton Now 😶 1 hr Jackson 10
I remember in Hampton (Jan '08) 2 hr Jackson 810
York County INSIDER - disgruntled people (Sep '08) Wed J TYLER 194
News Is Illinois couple's murder tied to bankruptcy ... (Oct '08) Jul 24 TheGambler 12
I remember in Newport News (Dec '07) Jul 18 Jgfollett 2,342
News Kecoughtan High teacher resigns after drug charges (Nov '07) Jul 14 Brown eyed girl 1124 85

Hampton Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Hampton Mortgages