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

Full story: Newsday

When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore.
Comments
38,681 - 38,700 of 46,292 Comments Last updated 11 min ago
Coal is King

Hopkinsville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#41210
Nov 9, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

More voices from the coalfields:

From Clay City, KY (commenting on the shutdown of the Louisa Power Plant):

“Obama has none of his renewables ready to replace coal fired power plants, no matter how much they talk about alternative energy non of the renewables can replace the cheap power we just lost from the Louisa Power Plant.

If this EPA and administration shut down of most of the coal fired plants is going to work they should have replaced the coal fired plant with one of the renewables they are pushing.

We have hauled a lot of coal to that ole coal fired plant since the 1980's, hauled untold tons since it was built in the 60's.
Kind of a landmark during the 60's when a lot of had to leave for points up north to find work, because this place was a poverty stricken hell hole. It don't make me feel any worse knowing we got over 30 more years of power from it than we were supposed to. It will hurt the southeastern Kentucky just as much or more now than it would have in the 80's. Same damn stupid government policy that finally shut it down is just as wrong now as it was in the 80's.”

From Elkhorn City, KY:

“the whole non coal economy, transistion and change, what you really mean is, starvation and despair, suicide and wife beatings, drunks and drugs, this is what this type of economy creates.
Children growing up with no fathers, because either he has had to leave here to go elsewhere to work, or he runs off and leaves his family to do the best they can.
This is one more example of the downturn of the Country.
Thanks to the politicians, lol.”

From Clay City, KY:

“Natural Gas is not a renewable energy source, it is a carbon fuel. The Obama campaign to make coal more expensive so the renewables will be on equal footing has no relationship with natural gas.

How does pitting one carbon fuel against another fall into his push for using renewable sources.

We got both but employ more with coal than nat gas. As EPA keeps raising the clean air standard soon Natural Won't meet it either, it is just called the transition fuel. The fuel that burns 50% cleaner that bridges the gap between coal and the renewable energy sources.
The chemicals you lick off the glossy 8X10 of your hero Obama is effecting your brain.”
litesong

Monroe, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#41211
Nov 9, 2013
 

Judged:

6

5

4

B as in B as as in S wrote:
.....an extra 5 molecules of CO2 in combination with 999,995 molecules of air.......simply remove 5 molecules of CO2 from every 100000 molecules of air?
So which is it? 5 from 999,995 or 5 in 100,000?

Or is it really 120 in 1,000,000? More likely, is it the potential to be 1000 in 1 million PLUS excess methane that is caused by a feedback loop PLUS excess nitrogen oxides, SF6, & other GHGs plus excess infra-red energy absorbing GHG phase change water vapor, which has an accelerating warming rate controlled by increasing amounts of infra-red energy absorbing, non-phase change GHGs.

No wonder you're flustered. Your percentages are wrong because you have no science or mathematics degrees, & no science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc for your poorly (or non-) earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#41212
Nov 9, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Coal is King wrote:
More voices from the coalfields:
Coal has been in decline due to dirt, deaths and cost for some time. Nothing here but a sad rant.
mike hock

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#41213
Nov 9, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
So which is it? 5 from 999,995 or 5 in 100,000?
Or is it really 120 in 1,000,000? More likely, is it the potential to be 1000 in 1 million PLUS excess methane that is caused by a feedback loop PLUS excess nitrogen oxides, SF6, & other GHGs plus excess infra-red energy absorbing GHG phase change water vapor, which has an accelerating warming rate controlled by increasing amounts of infra-red energy absorbing, non-phase change GHGs.
No wonder you're flustered. Your percentages are wrong because you have no science or mathematics degrees, & no science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc for your poorly (or non-) earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa.
paragraph 1 : reasonable argument based on reasonable (though unverified) conjecture. paragraph 2 : elitist nonsense, which all but nullifies paragraph 1. if you want to make your point, remember occams razor as a guide. otherwise succumb to invincible arrogance, and lose.
B as in B as as in S

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#41214
Nov 9, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
So which is it? 5 from 999,995 or 5 in 100,000?
Or is it really 120 in 1,000,000? More likely, is it the potential to be 1000 in 1 million PLUS excess methane that is caused by a feedback loop PLUS excess nitrogen oxides, SF6, & other GHGs plus excess infra-red energy absorbing GHG phase change water vapor, which has an accelerating warming rate controlled by increasing amounts of infra-red energy absorbing, non-phase change GHGs.
No wonder you're flustered. Your percentages are wrong because you have no science or mathematics degrees, & no science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc for your poorly (or non-) earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa.
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
So which is it? 5 from 999,995 or 5 in 100,000?
Or is it really 120 in 1,000,000? More likely, is it the potential to be 1000 in 1 million PLUS excess methane that is caused by a feedback loop PLUS excess nitrogen oxides, SF6, & other GHGs plus excess infra-red energy absorbing GHG phase change water vapor, which has an accelerating warming rate controlled by increasing amounts of infra-red energy absorbing, non-phase change GHGs.
No wonder you're flustered. Your percentages are wrong because you have no science or mathematics degrees, & no science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc for your poorly (or non-) earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa.
Once again, your opinion is a poor tool for challenging the facts.
Besides that, your opinion is not in concert with the facts.

"120"ppm of CO2 is not mentioned by any scientific academy as lbeing the target of Carbon reduction. Bill McKibben at 350.org clearly states that 350ppm CO2 is the goal; which would be more than achieved by removing 5 parts per 100,000.

The larger points remain.
The FACTS are that an (ambitious) acceptable goal of those who advocate for climate mitigation is: a level of 350ppm.
Now you come along and:
1) Implicitly DENY the FACTS.
2) Counter the FACTS with your inflated OPINION (not endorsed by any science academy in the world BTW)
3) And here's my favorite part... After DENYING the FACTS then challenging them with your opinion you assert that these FACTS are not important as a "likely", "potential" of something that in your opinion might happen at some unspecified time in the future. ;-0

Come now, are you not even a little embarrassed? Or do you really see your opinions you have posted as sound scientific reasoning?

Hope you have a mild winter,
B as in B S as in S
Lea

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#41215
Nov 9, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

B as in B as as in S wrote:
<quoted text><quoted text>
Once again, your opinion is a poor tool for challenging the facts.
Besides that, your opinion is not in concert with the facts.
"120"ppm of CO2 is not mentioned by any scientific academy as lbeing the target of Carbon reduction. Bill McKibben at 350.org clearly states that 350ppm CO2 is the goal; which would be more than achieved by removing 5 parts per 100,000.
The larger points remain.
The FACTS are that an (ambitious) acceptable goal of those who advocate for climate mitigation is: a level of 350ppm.
Now you come along and:
1) Implicitly DENY the FACTS.
2) Counter the FACTS with your inflated OPINION (not endorsed by any science academy in the world BTW)
3) And here's my favorite part... After DENYING the FACTS then challenging them with your opinion you assert that these FACTS are not important as a "likely", "potential" of something that in your opinion might happen at some unspecified time in the future. ;-0
Come now, are you not even a little embarrassed? Or do you really see your opinions you have posted as sound scientific reasoning?
Hope you have a mild winter,
B as in B S as in S
;-)

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#41216
Nov 9, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

5

mike hock wrote:
<quoted text> paragraph 1 : reasonable argument based on reasonable (though unverified) conjecture. paragraph 2 : elitist nonsense, which all but nullifies paragraph 1. if you want to make your point, remember occams razor as a guide. otherwise succumb to invincible arrogance, and lose.
Elitist?

Yes it is.

But not everyone can do basic maths.

And if you can't, what right do you have to say complicated science involving complicated maths is wrong?

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#41217
Nov 9, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

5

Bullshitter wrote:
<quoted text><quoted text>
Once again, your opinion is a poor tool for challenging the facts.
Besides that, your opinion is not in concert with the facts.
"120"ppm of CO2 is not mentioned by any scientific academy as lbeing the target of Carbon reduction. Bill McKibben at 350.org clearly states that 350ppm CO2 is the goal; which would be more than achieved by removing 5 parts per 100,000.
The larger points remain.
The FACTS are that an (ambitious) acceptable goal of those who advocate for climate mitigation is: a level of 350ppm.
Now you come along and:
1) Implicitly DENY the FACTS.
2) Counter the FACTS with your inflated OPINION (not endorsed by any science academy in the world BTW)
3) And here's my favorite part... After DENYING the FACTS then challenging them with your opinion you assert that these FACTS are not important as a "likely", "potential" of something that in your opinion might happen at some unspecified time in the future. ;-0
Come now, are you not even a little embarrassed? Or do you really see your opinions you have posted as sound scientific reasoning?
Hope you have a mild winter,
B as in B S as in S
Litesong correctly pointed out that you have made an order of magnitude error in you percentages, as well as confusing total man made CO2 added to the atmosphere with a percentage of CO2 deemed to be "safe".

120ppm = man made contribution.

50ppm = the reduction needed to reach the "safe" level according to 350.org .
Bullshitter wrote:
CAGW is but a fantasy in the minds of those who desperately want to believe the planet is at risk from an extra 5 molecules of CO2 in combination with 999,995 molecules of air. The whole idea seems so absurd that I had to reread my own words after typing.
So,who is going to deny that the solution to the suggested climate crisis is:
simply remove 5 molecules of CO2 from every 100000 molecules of air?
You have also used the logical fallacy that small numbers can't be important to argue that the solution to AGW is trivial.

5 molecules of CO2 from every 100000 molecules of air is half a trillion tons of CO2, and removing that amount of CO2 is not "simple".

In short, as he points out, you lack any basic grasp of science and your comments are worthless.

Unfortunately, in American political life, such condescension has the scientifically illiterate circling the wagons to defend their misunderstandings.

Our ignorance is as good as your knowledge is their war cry.
stiff

Missouri City, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#41218
Nov 10, 2013
 
MONIKA

Ashburn, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#41219
Nov 10, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Hi friends +919173104831
litesong

Monroe, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#41221
Nov 10, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

B as in B as as in S wrote:
.....your opinion .....your opinion ......your inflated OPINION..... your opinion ......your opinion .......your opinions......
With a one-dimensional confrontation, all you attack is an individual. However, you attack AGW, not at all.

AGW infra-red energy absorbing, non-phase change CO2 potential to become 1000 ppm is greater because of toxic AGW deniers. Of course, AGW is NOT only CO2. But added to CO2 is excess methane that is caused by feedback loops, PLUS excess nitrogen oxides, SF6, & other GHGs PLUS excess infra-red energy absorbing GHG phase change water vapor, which has an accelerating warming rate controlled by increasing amounts of infra-red energy absorbing, non-phase change GHGs.

None of the facts above did you ever attack, because you have no science or mathematics degrees, & no science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra, or pre-calc in your poorly (or non-) earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa.

You reduce everything to opinion. Of course, AGW is NOT opinion, & you argue into a vacuum...... a vacuum that is your non-education.

I am glad you don't understand the above AGW facts. I am not your teacher & I like toxic topix AGW deniers to be as stupid as they have chosen their poor educations to be.
Scientist Emeritus Fellow

Fullerton, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#41222
Nov 10, 2013
 

Judged:

4

3

2

The Philippine typhoon was definitely global warming caused. I just finished the computer analysis of the data. I was up all night. There is no doubt. Check out my published results.
B as in B as as in S

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#41223
Nov 10, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

B as in B as as in S wrote:
.....your opinion .....your opinion ......your inflated OPINION..... your opinion ......your opinion .......your opinions......
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
With a one-dimensional confrontation, all you attack is an individual.
You reduce everything to opinion. Of course, AGW is NOT opinion, & you argue into a vacuum...... a vacuum that is your non-education.
Yes, that is ax acutely the point I was making. Thanks for taking the time and effort to understand.
My post was about the facts that you deny. Facts that every science academy in the world accept.

And yes! The ONLY challenges offered in rebuttal are your opinions.

Again yes. Your opinionated responses do operate in a vacuum of (apparent) deliberate ignorance.

Once again I offer THE SAME fact so that you may reconsider your previous response:

Bill McKibben at 350.org clearly states that 350ppm CO2 is the goal; which would be more than achieved by removing 5 parts per 100,000.

Post Script:
If you still insist on claiming the math is incorrect please show YOUR math in support of that opinion, thx.
B as in B as as in S

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#41224
Nov 10, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

"ax acutely" = is exactly
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#41225
Nov 10, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

5

Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Elitist?
Yes it is.
Science is inherently about an elite. Very few people have the intelligence, focus and clarity to do good research science. They are therefore an 'elite'. The masses are not blocked from doing the same but generally don't have the ability.

But they probably have some skill that THEY do well, so in their careers they would also be an 'elite'. They should just leave science to those who ARE elite scientists.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#41226
Nov 10, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Scientist Emeritus Fellow wrote:
The Philippine typhoon was definitely global warming caused.
It was CAUSED by local weather conditions. AGW may have a role in increasing intensity which is the role that it is expected to have from increasing ocean temperatures. I do not believe you are a scientist or at least currently published. Scientists speak in precision English and make distinctions.
Scientist Emeritus Fellow wrote:
I just finished the computer analysis of the data. I was up all night. There is no doubt. Check out my published results.
"there is no doubt' is not a statement a scientist would make. Yhey say 'very likely', maybe 'extremely likely' but NEVER claim that there is no doubt at all.
B as in B as as in S

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#41227
Nov 10, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Frankly Mr. litesong, I suspect you lack the ability to respond coherently to the facts
and request I posted but would be quite pleased if you proved me wrong.

May your faith in science spare you from the anguish of your fears about CAGW.
Sincerely BS
litesong

Monroe, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#41228
Nov 10, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

B as in B as as in S wrote:
..... that is ax acutely the point I was making. Thanks for taking the time and effort to understand.
I understand you have no science or mathematics points to make & that........

.......you don't understand AGW facts. I am not your teacher & I like toxic topix AGW deniers to be as stupid as they have chosen their poor educations to be.

Manipulating language gets you no closer to truth, science, & mathematics & makes you a toxic topix AGW denier.
Lea

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#41229
Nov 10, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand you have no science or mathematics points to make & that........
.......you don't understand AGW facts. I am not your teacher & I like toxic topix AGW deniers to be as stupid as they have chosen their poor educations to be.
Manipulating language gets you no closer to truth, science, & mathematics & makes you a toxic topix AGW denier.
....now visualizing you stomping your feet, pulling your hair and throwing things around the room, lol.
;-)

p.s. that's the difference is confidence in the facts where you base your opinions or having opinions where the FACTS simply DO NOT SUPPORT.

*hilarious!
litesong

Monroe, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#41230
Nov 10, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Lea wrote:
....now visualizing you
You can never visualize being in a science or mathematics class, or research project, understanding the material & ever incorporating its conclusions into evidences. As a toxic topix AGW denier, you love an untruthful philosophy.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

Lake Forest Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min EasyEed 1,099,659
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 2 hr SevenTee 305,442
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 3 hr TRD 68,345
FL 2010 Florida Governor Race Election Results a "... (Nov '10) 4 hr Jorge 2,956
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 5 hr Frijoles 68,934
FL Who do you support for Attorney General in Flor... (Oct '10) 6 hr Liberal forever 2,121
Missing 5-year-old Florida girl likely was abdu... (Feb '09) 10 hr Anne 96,386
•••
•••
•••

Lake Forest Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Lake Forest People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Lake Forest News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Lake Forest
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••