Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 64829 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

#46037 Apr 19, 2014
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>all caps create create additional co2 emissions, didn't you know that, dog pecker gnat?
As does Al Gore taking his snake oil road show to Hawaii.

Oh... but wait... he bought his carbon-credit indulgences to the sacred Church of Climate Scientology.

Now months after the latest IPCC gloom and doom report and it's business as usual, and only a "crisis" when convenient.
litesong

Everett, WA

#46038 Apr 19, 2014
charles in charge wrote:
More amazingly disingenuous crapola from Topix' worst poster.
//////////
"ratdownthemiddledownwron ggully" gushed:
sit, lap dog, sit.
.....giving litesong an erection!
/////////
litesong wrote:
"ratdownthemiddledownwron ggully"discovered "charles in charge" wasn't a lap dog, when "ratdownthemiddledownwron ggully" was torn asunder, parted from (its) genitals.
litesong

Everett, WA

#46039 Apr 19, 2014
motheaten wrote:
Climate Scientology
Its funny when re-pubic-lick-uns pretend they have any functioning science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc from poorly (or non-) earned hi skule DEE-plooomaas.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#46041 Apr 19, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not the same science.
And for you not to know that shows just how stupid you are.
Pehaps you could explain to us, how environmental science has credibilty and climate science doesn't. How do you make that judgement ??? Is it because when you pee in the snow & it turns yellow you figure that can't be good drinking water compared to what comes out of your car exhaust which is totally harmless according to your lot.Yet at the same time won't leave the car running with the garage door shut. Multiply that in the billions, then add all industry, and power generation and you still declare it of no impact. Right now the class is laughing at you!
Los Angeles

Fullerton, CA

#46042 Apr 19, 2014
It's quite clear. Fracking and nuclear: 2 good solutions
==========
UN climate chiefs have backed fracking as part of the solution to global warming – but warned that a massive expansion of green energy will be crucial to prevent devastating extremes of climate change.

In a report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found it was still just possible to limit the rise in average global temperatures to 3.6F (2C) by 2100, the level beyond which experts say the effects will be "dangerous".

The IPCC warns that sticking within the limit will be a "huge challenge", requiring urgent global action to transform energy, industry and transport systems to cut greenhouse gas emissions, which have been rising ever-faster despite policies supposed to tackle climate change.
The world must at least treble its use of green and low-carbon sources of power, such as solar farms, wind farms and nuclear reactors by 2050.

However, the report finds there is also a role for gas to replace much dirtier coal plants.

Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of the working group that drew up the report, said it was “quite clear” that shale gas – extracted through the controversial process of fracking -“can be very consistent with low carbon development and decarbonisation”.
litesong

Everett, WA

#46044 Apr 19, 2014
los angeles wrote:
.....fracking as part of the solution to global warming ......
No, to the blind in Los Angeles.
//////////
Study Finds Methane Leaks 1,000 Times EPA Estimates During Marcellus Drilling
The first paper to directly measure methane plumes above shale gas drilling sites in Pennsylvania has recorded methane leaks far more powerful than government estimates. Methane is especially important because its global warming effects are at their strongest during the first 20 years after it enters the atmosphere - in other words, during the small window of time available for reducing emissions, desmogblog reports. Desmogblog
Mothra

Tempe, AZ

#46046 Apr 20, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Pehaps you could explain to us, how environmental science has credibilty and climate science doesn't.
Actually, I was demonstrating how your ridiculous gross generalities trip you up once again.

I knew that my statement would bring you on back to thread to argue that two different sciences are now the same.

Do stop... you embarrass yourself.
Los Angeles

Fullerton, CA

#46047 Apr 20, 2014
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
No, to the blind in Los Angeles.
//////////
Study Finds Methane Leaks 1,000 Times EPA Estimates During Marcellus Drilling
The first paper to directly measure methane plumes above shale gas drilling sites in Pennsylvania has recorded methane leaks far more powerful than government estimates. Methane is especially important because its global warming effects are at their strongest during the first 20 years after it enters the atmosphere - in other words, during the small window of time available for reducing emissions, desmogblog reports. Desmogblog
More studies that prove government estimates are wildly inaccurate. I always suspected that was the case. Thanks!

Since: Dec 06

Charlie's

#46048 Apr 20, 2014
Los Angeles wrote:
It's quite clear. Fracking and nuclear: 2 good solutions
==========
UN climate chiefs have backed fracking as part of the solution to global warming – but warned that a massive expansion of green energy will be crucial to prevent devastating extremes of climate change.
In a report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found it was still just possible to limit the rise in average global temperatures to 3.6F (2C) by 2100, the level beyond which experts say the effects will be "dangerous".
The IPCC warns that sticking within the limit will be a "huge challenge", requiring urgent global action to transform energy, industry and transport systems to cut greenhouse gas emissions, which have been rising ever-faster despite policies supposed to tackle climate change.
The world must at least treble its use of green and low-carbon sources of power, such as solar farms, wind farms and nuclear reactors by 2050.
However, the report finds there is also a role for gas to replace much dirtier coal plants.
Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of the working group that drew up the report, said it was “quite clear” that shale gas – extracted through the controversial process of fracking -“can be very consistent with low carbon development and decarbonisation”.
The paradox is that turning to low GHG emitting energy may need much energy and subsequent GHG releases at first, thus we'll see rise of atmospheric CO2 rate for long years, a reason why I bet on more climatic disorder

Since: Dec 06

Charlie's

#46049 Apr 20, 2014
Los Angeles wrote:
More studies that prove government estimates are wildly inaccurate. I always suspected that was the case. Thanks!
Anyways, gaz loss in gaz industries from extraction, to final use is about 10.5%. About 7% for energy use in pipe lines,(CH4 then replaced by CO2 emissions) and 3.5% loss in gaz distribution networks.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#46050 Apr 20, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Here you acknowledge that science tells you not to throw nasties into the water supply because it can upset the environment or more important make the water toxic. But the same science that tells you the pollution from fossil fuels is also harmful to the environment is about money not about the environment at all. Do you even begin to realize how stupid you sound
They don't have a clue! It is unproductive to argue with the mentally defective. It is a one sided argument because facts and logic are not tools that are available to the scientific illiterate. While there are a very few real scientific skeptics of the prevailing climate science, the vast crowd of the denier community are totally dependent upon the propaganda of the vested interests and their minions.
litesong

Everett, WA

#46051 Apr 20, 2014
"lost in angeles" lied:
UN climate chiefs have backed fracking as part of the solution to global warming –
//////////
litesong wrote:
Study Finds Methane Leaks 1,000 Times EPA Estimates During Marcellus Drilling
The first paper to directly measure methane plumes above shale gas drilling sites in Pennsylvania has recorded methane leaks far more powerful than government estimates. Methane is especially important because its global warming effects are at their strongest during the first 20 years after it enters the atmosphere - in other words, during the small window of time available for reducing emissions, desmogblog reports. Desmogblog
//////////
"lost in Angeles" coughed:
I always suspected that was the case. Thanks!
//////////
litesong wrote:
Tho you "suspected", this information was prominent in AGW forums. You're not informed, & have the arrogance of the uninformed. Also, tho you "suspected", you posted the opposite, thinking that was a slam against AGW.
litesong

Everett, WA

#46052 Apr 20, 2014
litesong wrote:
If you invest in CO2 cartridges, you might make money.
//////////
"ratdownthemiddledownwron ggully" gushed:
not a bad idea....and one gets paid for the investment.
//////////
litesong wrote:
Several extra factors may limit your payola.
Mothra

Tempe, AZ

#46053 Apr 20, 2014
litesong wrote:
Been a while since I asked.... taking your meds?

“Amor patriae.”

Since: Feb 08

Eastern Oregon

#46055 Apr 20, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Pehaps you could explain to us, how environmental science has credibilty and climate science doesn't. How do you make that judgement ??? Is it because when you pee in the snow & it turns yellow you figure that can't be good drinking water compared to what comes out of your car exhaust which is totally harmless according to your lot.Yet at the same time won't leave the car running with the garage door shut. Multiply that in the billions, then add all industry, and power generation and you still declare it of no impact. Right now the class is laughing at you!
That's assuming everyone gives environmental science credibility. When any "science" is imposed on a free society, it has to be viewed with skepticism. Your logic is an example of how onerous regulations occur. This climate today is cleaner than it's been since the formation of the planet. We aren't even close to the amount of noxious gases and atmospheric particulates that have historically enveloped this planet. Yet, in spite of all those "greenhouse gases" and "airborne carcinogens", life has grown and flourished. Follow the money.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#46056 Apr 20, 2014
litesong wrote:
litesong wrote:
If you invest in CO2 cartridges, you might make money.
//////////
"ratdownthemiddledownwron ggully" gushed:
not a bad idea....and one gets paid for the investment.
//////////
litesong wrote:
Several extra factors may limit your payola.
I'm blessed and have all that I could hope for in an entire lifetime!
Peace be with you, litesong! Happy Easter.....even if you don't celebrate it.
Los Angeles

Fullerton, CA

#46057 Apr 20, 2014
litesong wrote:
"lost in angeles" lied:
UN climate chiefs have backed fracking as part of the solution to global warming –
//////////
litesong wrote:
Study Finds Methane Leaks 1,000 Times EPA Estimates During Marcellus Drilling
The first paper to directly measure methane plumes above shale gas drilling sites in Pennsylvania has recorded methane leaks far more powerful than government estimates. Methane is especially important because its global warming effects are at their strongest during the first 20 years after it enters the atmosphere - in other words, during the small window of time available for reducing emissions, desmogblog reports. Desmogblog
//////////
"lost in Angeles" coughed:
I always suspected that was the case. Thanks!
//////////
litesong wrote:
Tho you "suspected", this information was prominent in AGW forums. You're not informed, & have the arrogance of the uninformed. Also, tho you "suspected", you posted the opposite, thinking that was a slam against AGW.
LOL. lightweight: "far more powerful than government estimates. "

You still relying on government estimates?

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#46060 Apr 20, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, I was demonstrating how your ridiculous gross generalities trip you up once again.
I knew that my statement would bring you on back to thread to argue that two different sciences are now the same.
Do stop... you embarrass yourself.
Science is science no matter what form it comes in. All science must rely on other sciences to prove a discovery or state a fact. It will rely on physics , proven theories of other discoveries to come up with new ones. As has happened all through history, what makes denier science like some mythical religious belief is the total dismissal of a proven stated fact. The mapping of the Human Genome Project was no different than climate science. It was a project all countries that could afford it were involved in and NO ONE owned the results. That single project allows all sorts of scientific endevour to follow in curing disease etc. Climate science is no different it is a world wide project for the good of mankind. Yet in your blind ignorance you try and tell us that it is a world wide conspiracy, fake science etc etc etc. Who is being manipulated here, if Pfizer thought the genome project was a threat to it's profits then you can bet your life it would have used that same ignorance to mount a campaign to stop it. There were no web sites set up by the Koch bros, no fake research institutes to discredit their findings and you know why ???? Because everyone would benefit from the results. But climate science poses a threat or perceived threat to all fossil fuel industry so like the gun lobby they ban together, rope in the ignorant like your lot and go to town. That is where the real money trail lies!
Mothra

Tempe, AZ

#46061 Apr 20, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Science is science no matter what form it comes in.
[blather omitted unread]
Really?

Then why did you just attempt to separate two different 'sciences'?

"Pehaps you could explain to us, how environmental science has credibilty and climate science doesn't.

Just admit your gross generality has failed once again, and quit trying to claim you said otherwise... an adult would

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#46062 Apr 20, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Science is science no matter what form it comes in. All science must rely on other sciences to prove a discovery or state a fact. It will rely on physics , proven theories of other discoveries to come up with new ones. As has happened all through history, what makes denier science like some mythical religious belief is the total dismissal of a proven stated fact. The mapping of the Human Genome Project was no different than climate science. It was a project all countries that could afford it were involved in and NO ONE owned the results. That single project allows all sorts of scientific endevour to follow in curing disease etc. Climate science is no different it is a world wide project for the good of mankind. Yet in your blind ignorance you try and tell us that it is a world wide conspiracy, fake science etc etc etc. Who is being manipulated here, if Pfizer thought the genome project was a threat to it's profits then you can bet your life it would have used that same ignorance to mount a campaign to stop it. There were no web sites set up by the Koch bros, no fake research institutes to discredit their findings and you know why ???? Because everyone would benefit from the results. But climate science poses a threat or perceived threat to all fossil fuel industry so like the gun lobby they ban together, rope in the ignorant like your lot and go to town. That is where the real money trail lies!
Good post but I would use the phrase "sustained theories" or "accepted theories" instead of "proven theories". However, those without scientific discipline have no tools to argue that this science or that science is only a conspiracy. They must get that information from vested interests or other tag along prejudices. How this elevated to a partisan issue portraits how one political party has accepted an attempt by those who believe they may suffer economic loss rather than solid scientific findings. Apparently they are so enamored with market forces that they put it above their responsibility to their constituents. The media is also lax in its reporting when they feed into this bias. They should be held to task for their partisan pandering.

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
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 13 min URineIdiot 345,495
Yankee talk back 4, or is it 5 (Aug '08) 17 min jimi-yank 345,091
we love you president trump!!! 1 hr American 1
De nero is a despicable low life 1 hr Kill methheads 2
Mets talkback (Dec '07) 1 hr jimi-yank 47,731
President Trump's first 100 days - Roadmap to D... (Nov '16) 1 hr Nemo 7,744
News Bernie Sanders won't endorse own son's US House... 1 hr Shirvell s Shrivel 6

Jackson-Heights Jobs

Personal Finance

Jackson-Heights Mortgages