Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 53972 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.

Retired Farmer

Paducah, KY

#39405 Sep 18, 2013
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#39406 Sep 18, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>you're welcome!! when it comes to ridiculous and ludicrous....you have no peer.
your feigned knowledge of science is the only thing that surpasses those traits.
LOL
Aww your interest in my qualities are overwhelmed by your lacking them, i.e. errr well I'm beyond your event horizons, LOL.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#39407 Sep 18, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Aww your interest in my qualities are overwhelmed by your lacking them, i.e. errr well I'm beyond your event horizons, LOL.
are you a chronic attention seeker......or really that dim?

one question, please......what 'qualities' do you actually think you possess? seriously!!

science is certainly out of the question.
witty....NOT.
creative....not exactly.

boring.....BINGO!!!!

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#39408 Sep 18, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh wow... another 'follow the oil money' drone.
Like I've posed to other warmists, IF you are going to use money sources as an argument against some research and scientists, be prepared to explain all the billions of dollars spent via public coffers on behalf of warmists scientists.
Until you do, I call bullshyt!
That's laughable coming from you who posted about funding for climate science research indicating that it's a waste of time.
I counted with a post regarding corporate funding protecting their fossil fuel interests and its all BS.
Well tell me, how much private funding from corporate goes to climate research as opposed to funding to counter that research.
Then when you find the answer to that, it might just explain why governments have to get involved when the very idea that any research coming up with the wrong results may put a huge dent in profits.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#39409 Sep 18, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>are you a chronic attention seeker......or really that dim?
one question, please......what 'qualities' do you actually think you possess? seriously!!
science is certainly out of the question.
witty....NOT.
creative....not exactly.
boring.....BINGO!!!!
Thanks for your interest in me.

Like I said before, I'm beyond your event horizons, LOL.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#39410 Sep 18, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
That's laughable coming from you who posted about funding for climate science research indicating that it's a waste of time.
I counted with a post regarding corporate funding protecting their fossil fuel interests and its all BS.
Well tell me, how much private funding from corporate goes to climate research as opposed to funding to counter that research.
Then when you find the answer to that, it might just explain why governments have to get involved when the very idea that any research coming up with the wrong results may put a huge dent in profits.
Ditto. Don't forget national security.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#39411 Sep 18, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Aww your interest in my qualities is overwhelmed by your lacking them, i.e. errr well I'm beyond your event horizons, LOL.
Corrected.

Since: Sep 13

Chicago, IL

#39413 Sep 18, 2013
like Tony said I didn't even know that a stay at home mom able to make $8082 in 1 month on the computer. did you see this link >>>>>>> JOBS75.com
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#39414 Sep 18, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
That's laughable coming from you who posted about funding for climate science research indicating that it's a waste of time.
I counted with a post regarding corporate funding protecting their fossil fuel interests and its all BS.
Well tell me, how much private funding from corporate goes to climate research as opposed to funding to counter that research.
Then when you find the answer to that, it might just explain why governments have to get involved when the very idea that any research coming up with the wrong results may put a huge dent in profits.
IF you are going to use money sources as an argument against some research and scientists, be prepared to explain all the billions of dollars spent via public coffers on behalf of warmists scientists.

Until you do, I call bullshyt!

(You didn't add anything in your reply, so why should I?)
gcaveman1

Laurel, MS

#39415 Sep 18, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Pivot again with you. If you say I misread the chart, then you need to explain what the chart is saying. You can do this by answering the questions I posted.
1. So do you really believe that Munich RE a re-insurer who tracks natural disasters around the world (to include storms, hurricanes, tornados, forest fires, droughts floods, and extreme temperatures) only tracked 14 natural disasters worldwide in 1993? If you believe that, then Munich Re is saying there were only 3 natural disasters worldwide in 2009. Do you also believe that to be true?

http://350orbust.com/2010/03/01/icebergs-ice-...
Are you paying attention? Are you recording this? I want you to know that I am about to show you to be a COMPLETE fool!

1. What does the chart show? "Numbers", not "Numbers(in hundreds)."

Chart the first: Title: Great Weather Catastrophes, 1950-2009; "X" axis: Years; "Y" axis: Number.
Chart the second: Title: Weather Catastrophes Worldwide, 1980-2011; "X" axis: Years; "Y" axis: Number (in hundreds).

Two different charts; one dumbass.

And he still wants to debate what they say!
gcaveman1

Laurel, MS

#39416 Sep 18, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>

2. If each bar represents a total count for worldwide disasters in a single year, how does the count change for that single year whether the chart starts at 1950 or starts in 1980?
2. Because they're two different charts, dumbass?

Are you paying attention while I screw your little butthole?
gcaveman1

Laurel, MS

#39417 Sep 18, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>

3. According to caveman:“How the bars could change using different numbers of years or time periods is exemplified by Hurricane Camille was once number one before 2005. It became #2 following Katrina. Extend the chart to 2012 and you pick up Sandy, which is now #1 (I think), making the other two fade back. As the years go on and the storms get stronger, Camille may drop off the chart at some distant date.”
Can you even explain how a hurricane that was counted in the natural disasters in 2005 would fade back and drop off the chart? Why would a hurricane that was counted in 2005 be dropped off the count of natural disasters in 2005?
OK, dumass, let's borrow a page from David Letterman; you know Letterman, right?

And let's reduce the numbers to 10, so you can keep up (hopefully).

You have your top ten list. Then something really BIG comes up and you need to add it to the list. You drop #10, move everything down, and make the new event #1. Voila! Number 9 is now number 10, number 8 is now number nine, number seven is now number 8; do I have to go on or is it beginning to dawn on you?

That's right, you're getting it, just one more little leap and you'll have it!

Are you recording this? Are you paying attention?
gcaveman1

Laurel, MS

#39418 Sep 18, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>

If I'm misreading the chart then it should be really easy for you to answer the questions, especially the first question. If you won't answer the questions, then it is safe to say you are misreading the chart.
http://350orbust.com/2010/03/01/icebergs-ice-...
I hope I have answered your dumbass questions.

"If I'm misreading the chart..." HA!

Try "misreading the CHARTS", try misreading the graphs.

And you suggest that we are misreading the graphs. Typical substitution of blame, a sign of a serious personality disorder, if not serious mental illness.

Did you enjoy all this as much as I did?

You're fucked.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#39419 Sep 18, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Thanks for your interest in me.
did you say the same thing while in grade school as other kids were pushing your head into mud puddles during recess?

LOL
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#39420 Sep 18, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>did you say the same thing while in grade school as other kids were pushing your head into mud puddles during recess?
LOL
LOL. Meanwhile...

National Weather Service meteorologist in charge Nezette Rydell said Boulder was sandwiched between two systems. To the west of Colorado, a low pressure system stalled out, pulling late-season monsoonal flow from the eastern Pacific and Gulf of California. Meanwhile, a high-pressure system to our northeast helped lock it in place long enough to rain, rain and rain some more.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39421 Sep 18, 2013
B as in B S as in S wrote:
<quoted text>
Every attempt to engage in a discussion about a specific issue results in avoidence behaviors... "Talk to the hand" being the latest.
May your faith give you peace
|
See posts #39372 and 39400.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#39422 Sep 19, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, dumass, let's borrow a page from David Letterman; you know Letterman, right?
And let's reduce the numbers to 10, so you can keep up (hopefully).
You have your top ten list. Then something really BIG comes up and you need to add it to the list. You drop #10, move everything down, and make the new event #1. Voila! Number 9 is now number 10, number 8 is now number nine, number seven is now number 8; do I have to go on or is it beginning to dawn on you?
That's right, you're getting it, just one more little leap and you'll have it!
Are you recording this? Are you paying attention?
The website that posted the 1950-2009 graph said this about the graph:

“As the graph below indicates, the increase in disasters closely tracks the rise in global temperatures, which rose most sharply in the 1990s and continued to rise, but more gradually, in the past decade.”

So you and fairgame go ahead with your delusional thinking that somehow this is a “top ten” list that gets disasters added and subtracted if it makes you feel better.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#39423 Sep 19, 2013
B as in B S as in S wrote:
<quoted text>
The question and explanations in behalf of our friend from Mississippi are clear and articulate. Perhaps we are observing an extreme case of "Cognitive Avoidance".
Earlier I said stupidity. But I take that back after reading his latest posts to me. Highlights include:

"Because they're two different charts, dumbass?"

"Are you paying attention while I screw your little butthole?"

"You're f*cked."

Not a stupid mind, but a sick mind.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#39424 Sep 19, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>LOL. Meanwhile...
National Weather Service meteorologist in charge Nezette Rydell said Boulder was sandwiched between two systems. To the west of Colorado, a low pressure system stalled out, pulling late-season monsoonal flow from the eastern Pacific and Gulf of California. Meanwhile, a high-pressure system to our northeast helped lock it in place long enough to rain, rain and rain some more.
and this has what to do with climate change?
litesong

Monroe, WA

#39425 Sep 19, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
To the west of Colorado, a low pressure system stalled out, pulling late-season monsoonal flow from the eastern Pacific and Gulf of California. Meanwhile, a high-pressure system to our northeast helped lock it in place long enough to rain, rain and rain some more.
Was wondering what happened to our Pacific Northwest "pineapple express" rainfall.

A couple years ago, the "pineapple express" stalled against our Washington state Cascade Mountains. One slope in particular took the brunt of the storm, accumulating 2 & more inches of rain per hour. After 4 days, the total rainfall against that 1 to 2 square mile slope was 130 inches.

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.

Jackson-Heights Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
N Faunch, fraud, conman, liar, cocaine addict. 10 min Brandy S 3
Impeach OBAMA Now 15 min vicious tendencies 2
Mets talkback (Dec '07) 44 min TMAN_Mets 35,999
Time to go? 1 hr Equinox 667
Drop a Word, Add a Word (Jan '10) 2 hr Whiny1 10,329
Will ISIS destroy the Great Pyramids and the Sp... 2 hr wtf 1
Will Greek banks take 30% of their depositors b... 2 hr Bad banks 1
More from around the web

Jackson-Heights People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Jackson-Heights Mortgages