Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 63943 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: Jul 11

Location hidden

#39930 Sep 28, 2013
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
The point is:
The experts can not have it both ways...
Science experts predict that CAGW will cause the oceans to become colder and the oceans to become warmer.
Science experts predict that CAGW will cause Europe to become colder and Europe to become warmer.
If Climate Scientists predict every possible future of Earth's climate is that proof that they are right. After all, one of the forecasts were correct.
As the web site says, you guys jump on anything regardless of the massive amount of factual information presented telling the opposite of what you wish to hear or see. Arguing about words like precise being used or precisely , its a joke.
If a computer model monitored your driving style & determined you shouldn't hold a lic, would you expect it to mark the tree that you are going to run into or name the granny you are going to hit crossing the road. Yet this is what deniers expect here, it's that sort of crap that removes any chance of gaining credibility.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#39931 Sep 29, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>
Mann is still a Nobel-winning scientist, grief.
well where is his prize, son? i'm sure you can provide evidence of that, too, huh?

unless you're lying.....which you are.

prove me wrong!! where is the nobel prize you insist he won? i guess everyone who is a citizen in the eu are all nobel 'winners', too, in your crazy world?
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#39932 Sep 29, 2013
Seth Borenstein writes, "in science, 95 percent certainty is often considered the gold standard for certainty."

One IPCC climate scientist interviewed by Borenstein said the panel even thought about boosting some places to "virtually certain" and 99 percent.

For instance, Jeff Severinghaus, a geoscientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, stated that through the use of radioactive isotopes, scientists are more than 99 percent sure that much of the carbon in the air has human fingerprints on it. Even more, because of basic physics, scientists are 99 percent certain that carbon traps heat in what is called the greenhouse effect.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/95...
Retired Farmer

Hopkinsville, KY

#39933 Sep 29, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
Seth Borenstein writes, "in science, 95 percent certainty is often considered the gold standard for certainty."
One IPCC climate scientist interviewed by Borenstein said the panel even thought about boosting some places to "virtually certain" and 99 percent.
For instance, Jeff Severinghaus, a geoscientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, stated that through the use of radioactive isotopes, scientists are more than 99 percent sure that much of the carbon in the air has human fingerprints on it. Even more, because of basic physics, scientists are 99 percent certain that carbon traps heat in what is called the greenhouse effect.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/95...
Caveman, you might as well give it up.

The deniers (and worse the folks that think global warming will be a good thing) won't be convinced otherwise until the water of the Gulf of Mexico reaches all the way up to Memphis.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#39934 Sep 29, 2013
Retired Farmer wrote:
<quoted text>
Caveman, you might as well give it up.
The deniers (and worse the folks that think global warming will be a good thing) won't be convinced otherwise until the water of the Gulf of Mexico reaches all the way up to Memphis.
The deniers ignore the sealevel rise and other effects at their own peril. Sure the rivers will back up and run over their banks everywhere... unpredictibly, too..
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#39935 Sep 29, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
Seth Borenstein writes, "in science, 95 percent certainty is often considered the gold standard for certainty."
One IPCC climate scientist interviewed by Borenstein said the panel even thought about boosting some places to "virtually certain" and 99 percent.
For instance, Jeff Severinghaus, a geoscientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, stated that through the use of radioactive isotopes, scientists are more than 99 percent sure that much of the carbon in the air has human fingerprints on it. Even more, because of basic physics, scientists are 99 percent certain that carbon traps heat in what is called the greenhouse effect.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/95...
Thank you for posting this. I did it several days ago while calling it a modern uncle tomming.

It is 100 percent in MY book.
Mothra

United States

#39936 Sep 29, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Thank you for posting this. I did it several days ago ....
Your long lost credibility is reason not to pay attention to whatever you post.

Hypocrite.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#39937 Sep 29, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Your long lost credibility is reason not to pay attention to whatever you post.
Hypocrite[name calling].
LIAR.

Desert the bs.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#39938 Sep 29, 2013
Deniers should get off the planet because they don't accept the greenhouse effect.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#39939 Sep 29, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Your long lost credibility is reason not to pay attention to whatever you post.
Hypocrite.
Did you see where I proved 'spacey' lied again and again......and the little lapdog still keeps insisting that 'it' is correct?

Credibility and rational thinking.....two things that don't exist on 'spacedblues' planet!
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#39940 Sep 29, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Thank you for posting this. I did it several days ago while calling it a modern uncle tomming.
It is 100 percent in MY book.
As we've noted before, the chances of your house being destroyed by fire or tornado are diminishingly small (far less than 5%), yet we still buy homeowner's insurance.
litesong

Everett, WA

#39941 Sep 29, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Deniers should get off the planet because they don't accept the greenhouse effect.
"slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig dirtling" is "eart hling(alien has no affinity to Earth)". It has been shown that it comes for a star system beyond the Alpha Centauri system. "slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig dirtling" did return to its system to get its physical system rejuvenated & now is back for more.
litesong

Everett, WA

#39942 Sep 29, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Deniers should get off the planet because they don't accept the greenhouse effect.
//////////
litesong wrote:
"slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig dirtling" is "eart hling(alien has no affinity to Earth)". It has been shown that it comes for a star system beyond the Alpha Centauri system. "slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig dirtling" did return to its system to get its physical system rejuvenated & now is back for more.
//////////
litesong continues:
All know about the comprehensive toxic topix AGW denier, "middleofthedownwronggull y". Many do NOT know that the gully mentioned, is an alien gully.
Mothra

United States

#39943 Sep 29, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>LIAR.
Desert the bs.
You saying I'm lying that you have no credibility?

Global warming hypocrite... does that ring a bell?

But do tell us how everyone should cut the CO2 emissions but not you.

Run along, sonny. Adults are talking here.
Mothra

United States

#39944 Sep 29, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Deniers should get off the planet because they don't accept the greenhouse effect.
Says the 'denier' of Mann's Nobel Prize and his own global warming hypocrisy.

Run along, sonny. Adults are talking here.
Mothra

United States

#39945 Sep 29, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>Did you see where I proved 'spacey' lied again and again......and the little lapdog still keeps insisting that 'it' is correct?
Credibility and rational thinking.....two things that don't exist on 'spacedblues' planet!
Absolutely... and if he had any warmist friends they suggest he drop the subject.

Hmmm... proves one thing doesn't it?
Mothra

United States

#39946 Sep 29, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
As we've noted before, the chances of your house being destroyed by fire or tornado are diminishingly small (far less than 5%), yet we still buy homeowner's insurance.
psst... mortgage providers require homeowners insurance as terms of the loan, so 'buying' it isn't optional.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#39947 Sep 29, 2013
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
The point is:
The experts can not have it both ways...
They don't. The end point of science is theory. And the only theory here is AGW. Papers on climate change that say Europe will warm or Europe will cool are 'preliminary thoughts' and speculation based on particular lines of investigation. They are not theory and will be challenged until science is satisfied that it has the final answer and establishes more theory.

You are claiming that the jury cannot reach a verdict because the defense and prosecution are saying different things... as the best analogy I can make.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#39948 Sep 29, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
They don't. The end point of science is theory. And the only theory here is AGW. Papers on climate change that say Europe will warm or Europe will cool are 'preliminary thoughts' and speculation based on particular lines of investigation. They are not theory and will be challenged until science is satisfied that it has the final answer and establishes more theory.
You are claiming that the jury cannot reach a verdict because the defense and prosecution are saying different things... as the best analogy I can make.
tainted evidence that goes counter to eye witness accounts doesn't usually win a conviction. ergo, co2 must be acquitted of these heinous accusations.
dont drink the koolaid

Savage, MN

#39949 Sep 29, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
They don't. The end point of science is theory. And the only theory here is AGW. Papers on climate change that say Europe will warm or Europe will cool are 'preliminary thoughts' and speculation based on particular lines of investigation.
You are claiming that the jury cannot reach a verdict because the defense and prosecution are saying different things... as the best analogy I can make.
That seems to suggest that any weather event anywhere on Earth will be perceived as evidence of AGW if a model or study forecasted it ...and it appears that authors of studies have forecasted about every possible weather event one can imagine.

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
President Trump's first 100 days - Roadmap to D... (Nov '16) 11 min Dudley 4,796
Drop a Word, Add a Word (Jan '10) 3 hr Alyssa76 17,308
john peppercorn the prophet 6 hr Ricardo montobomb 1
Jets win total? 6 hr Ricardo montobomb 22
Successful Healthcare Reform In U. S. 9 hr Frank Underwood 1
Add a word, Drop a word (Dec '09) 9 hr Princess Hey 18,532
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 9 hr John-K 316,313

Jackson-Heights Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Jackson-Heights Mortgages