Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 58822 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.

Slow

AOL

#34475 Feb 24, 2013
Slow, very slow moving
Daniel557

Tulsa, OK

#34476 Feb 24, 2013
I wish more people were aware of the fact that it’s now relatively cheap to run a home solar power system. Some people are even taking themselves off the grid altogether now… There are some great guides out there on how to do this, some of which are listed on this site www.diyenergyreview.com if you’re interested?
PHD

Overton, TX

#34477 Feb 25, 2013
The above #34473 is overdue its diaper change. It must have another BS rash.
lucy

UK

#34478 Feb 25, 2013
Guys please take notice of the racism in usa its been proven obama wants the white race out of usa check out the proof on www.youtube.com/lucygreytv

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#34479 Feb 25, 2013
lucy wrote:
Guys please take notice of the racism in usa its been proven obama wants the white race out of usa check out the proof on www.youtube.com/lucygreytv
Seems that you are just another hater. Simmer down and smell the roses. Quit going to those places that exist by trying to stir up trouble.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#34480 Feb 26, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Like I said, you're talking to the wrong guy. If you have HALF a gonad & disagree with Wiki, then YOU sign of there & tell them exactly how they're wrong. If you have facts & logic on your side, in the small-D democratic environment of Wiki, you'll prevail.
Otherwise, around here, S.T.F.U. PERIOD.
No, Wiki is NOTHING like the Enquirer. You, however, appear to be not only a coward, but psychotically detached from reality. PERIOD.
Really, then lets look at what William Connolley was doing at Wikipedia. He was an editor and was deleting or changing entries that he disagreed with and banned those with opposing views. The straw that broke wikipedia's back was comments attributed to one individual that he had not said. He tried to remove the inaccurate quote only to have Connolley replace it (a common tactic on Wikipeida) and had to resort to legal action before they would remove it to only have Connolley replace it again. Finally Wikipedia had to remove Connelley. Considering that he had entered or edited over five thousand entries on the subject of climate change means that unless Wikipeida would dump the entire subject and start over it will be haunted by those errors for decades.

Of course those are not the only entries that have been found to be biased. Wikipedia has a host of people intentionally editing in favor of one agenda or another. The reason why professors will not accept it as a source.

And for your small-D democratic environment of wikipedia has become stagent. The number of people contributing has cease to increase and the same stale individuals are now the ones making entries, turning it into more of a dictatorship in the flavor of China or the former USSR.

http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/education...

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#34481 Feb 27, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Really, then lets look at what William Connolley was doing at Wikipedia. He was an editor and was deleting or changing entries that he disagreed with and banned those with opposing views. The straw that broke wikipedia's back was comments attributed to one individual that he had not said. He tried to remove the inaccurate quote only to have Connolley replace it (a common tactic on Wikipeida) and had to resort to legal action before they would remove it to only have Connolley replace it again. Finally Wikipedia had to remove Connelley. Considering that he had entered or edited over five thousand entries on the subject of climate change means that unless Wikipeida would dump the entire subject and start over it will be haunted by those errors for decades.
Thank goodness for people like him trying to keep morons like you off Wikpedia.

You already have your own version anyway- the science denial Conservapedia- where you can read the views of cranks and charlatans on everything from quantum physics to evolution to global warming.

Wikipedia reflects the scientific consensus from the scientific literature, and long may it do so. No, your ignorance is not as good as their knowledge.

Piss off back to the dark ages where you belong.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#34482 Feb 27, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Really, then lets look at what William Connolley was doing at Wikipedia. He was an editor and was deleting or changing entries that he disagreed with and banned those with opposing views. The straw that broke wikipedia's back was comments attributed to one individual that he had not said. He tried to remove the inaccurate quote only to have Connolley replace it (a common tactic on Wikipeida) and had to resort to legal action before they would remove it to only have Connolley replace it again. Finally Wikipedia had to remove Connelley. Considering that he had entered or edited over five thousand entries on the subject of climate change means that unless Wikipeida would dump the entire subject and start over it will be haunted by those errors for decades.
Of course those are not the only entries that have been found to be biased. Wikipedia has a host of people intentionally editing in favor of one agenda or another. The reason why professors will not accept it as a source.
And for your small-D democratic environment of wikipedia has become stagent. The number of people contributing has cease to increase and the same stale individuals are now the ones making entries, turning it into more of a dictatorship in the flavor of China or the former USSR.
http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/education...
Your source for this information is Mark Moran. That disqualifies you.

Your still very sloppy in you writing. I'll bet your house is a mess too.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#34483 Feb 27, 2013
Teener's living right there in the worst of it and yet she continues to deny.

<><><>< ><><><> <><><>< ><><>

Built at sea level on reclaimed wetland, Norfolk has faced floods throughout its 400-year history. But as the Atlantic Ocean warms and expands, and parts of the city subside, higher tides and fiercer storms seem to hit harder than they used to.

Dealing with this increased threat has put Norfolk at the forefront of American cities taking the lead on coping with intense weather, from floods to droughts to killer heat, without waiting for the federal government to take the lead.

In Norfolk, home to the largest U.S. Naval base and the second biggest commercial port on the U.S. Atlantic coast, floods are a perennial problem that has worsened in recent decades, Assistant City Manager Ron Williams Jr told Reuters.

The relative sea level around Norfolk has risen 14.5 inches (.37 meter) since 1930, when the low-lying downtown area routinely flooded. The floods are worse now, because the water doesn't have to rise as high to send the river above its banks and into the streets, Williams said.

At the same time, severe storms are more frequent.

"We've had more major storms in the past decade than we've had in the previous four decades," he said.

Extreme rainfall events have increased too.

<><><>< ><><><> <><><>< ><><><>

But then, that how stupid people drown.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#34484 Feb 27, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Really, then lets look at what William Connolley was doing at Wikipedia. He was an editor and was deleting or changing entries that he disagreed with and banned those with opposing views. The straw that broke wikipedia's back was comments attributed to one individual that he had not said. He tried to remove the inaccurate quote only to have Connolley replace it (a common tactic on Wikipeida) and had to resort to legal action before they would remove it to only have Connolley replace it again. Finally Wikipedia had to remove Connelley. Considering that he had entered or edited over five thousand entries on the subject of climate change means that unless Wikipeida would dump the entire subject and start over it will be haunted by those errors for decades.
Of course those are not the only entries that have been found to be biased. Wikipedia has a host of people intentionally editing in favor of one agenda or another. The reason why professors will not accept it as a source.
And for your small-D democratic environment of wikipedia has become stagent. The number of people contributing has cease to increase and the same stale individuals are now the ones making entries, turning it into more of a dictatorship in the flavor of China or the former USSR.
http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/education...
And? So?

You think it's somehow odd that there are editing wars, or that one person was found to be biased? The mere fact that the editing war occurred, & that much of what Connolley said was removed, makes my point that Wiki tends to move toward the truth.

It's arrantly ABSURD to compare Wiki to a communist state where the party has control over everything. Wiki is a DEMOCRATIC environment where anyone can sign on, the exact opposite of totalitarian control.

Wiki is still a good starting place because they link to other sources. You can check everything they say.

You're STILL complaining in the wrong place. If you think Wiki is wrong, then YOU should sign on there & tell them just that.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#34485 Feb 27, 2013
Erratum:

I should have included, in my first long paragraph, the caveat "assumming your account of what happened with Connolley is correct." I'm not necessarily conceding that, given what I know about your other posts & how much you misunderstand scientific facts.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#34486 Feb 27, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
Teener's living right there in the worst of it and yet she continues to deny.
<><><>< ><><><> <><><>< ><><>
Built at sea level on reclaimed wetland, Norfolk has faced floods throughout its 400-year history. But as the Atlantic Ocean warms and expands, and parts of the city subside, higher tides and fiercer storms seem to hit harder than they used to.
Dealing with this increased threat has put Norfolk at the forefront of American cities taking the lead on coping with intense weather, from floods to droughts to killer heat, without waiting for the federal government to take the lead.
In Norfolk, home to the largest U.S. Naval base and the second biggest commercial port on the U.S. Atlantic coast, floods are a perennial problem that has worsened in recent decades, Assistant City Manager Ron Williams Jr told Reuters.
The relative sea level around Norfolk has risen 14.5 inches (.37 meter) since 1930, when the low-lying downtown area routinely flooded. The floods are worse now, because the water doesn't have to rise as high to send the river above its banks and into the streets, Williams said.
At the same time, severe storms are more frequent.
"We've had more major storms in the past decade than we've had in the previous four decades," he said.
Extreme rainfall events have increased too.
<><><>< ><><><> <><><>< ><><><>
But then, that how stupid people drown.
Here's Norfolk after Sandy, which didn't hit Norfolk.... except.......
http://www.breakingnews.com/item/ahZzfmJyZWFr...

Not even my car that I just switched to 17 inch tires would have been saved. & my little 25 year old Ford Festiva would have been toast...... soggy toast.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#34487 Feb 27, 2013
A study described at http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2013/02/26/...

Facts to denialists are like throwing gas on a fire; they use them to build more denialism.

<><><>< ><><><> <>

Concerning climate denial, a case in point is the response to events surrounding the illegal hacking of personal emails by climate scientists, mainly at the University of East Anglia, in 2009. Selected content of those emails was used to support the theory that climate scientists conspired to conceal evidence against climate change or manipulated the data (see, e.g., Montford, 2010; Sussman, 2010). After the scientists in question were exonerated by 9 investigations in 2 countries, including various parliamentary and government committees in the U.S. and U. K., those exonerations were re-branded as a whitewash”(see, e.g., U.S. Representative Rohrabacher’s speech in Congress on 8 December 2011), thereby broadening the presumed involvement of people and institutions in the alleged conspiracy.

...the authors discuss implications for science communication, and, unlike most people, I think they actually understand the problem. That is, you can’t fix this problem with more communication, and more data. The nature of the conspiracy theorist is that all additional data and all contradictory data will only be used to demonstrate further evidence of conspiracy, that the conspiracy is even larger, or that the data are fraudulent. The “self-sealing” nature of the conspiracy theory, as the authors describe it, makes it fundamentally immune to penetration by logic, reason, or additional information.

<><><>< ><><><> <><>

Very interesting read.

The implication is that deniers are very frightened people; afraid of the threat to their lifestyle, their job, their SUV and Ski-Doo; scared of change, scared of the new and the unknown.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#34488 Feb 27, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
A study described at http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2013/02/26/...
Facts to denialists are like throwing gas on a fire; they use them to build more denialism.
<><><>< ><><><> <>
Concerning climate denial, a case in point is the response to events surrounding the illegal hacking of personal emails by climate scientists, mainly at the University of East Anglia, in 2009. Selected content of those emails was used to support the theory that climate scientists conspired to conceal evidence against climate change or manipulated the data (see, e.g., Montford, 2010; Sussman, 2010). After the scientists in question were exonerated by 9 investigations in 2 countries, including various parliamentary and government committees in the U.S. and U. K., those exonerations were re-branded as a whitewash”(see, e.g., U.S. Representative Rohrabacher’s speech in Congress on 8 December 2011), thereby broadening the presumed involvement of people and institutions in the alleged conspiracy.
...the authors discuss implications for science communication, and, unlike most people, I think they actually understand the problem. That is, you can’t fix this problem with more communication, and more data. The nature of the conspiracy theorist is that all additional data and all contradictory data will only be used to demonstrate further evidence of conspiracy, that the conspiracy is even larger, or that the data are fraudulent. The “self-sealing” nature of the conspiracy theory, as the authors describe it, makes it fundamentally immune to penetration by logic, reason, or additional information.
<><><>< ><><><> <><>
Very interesting read.
The implication is that deniers are very frightened people; afraid of the threat to their lifestyle, their job, their SUV and Ski-Doo; scared of change, scared of the new and the unknown.
Why are they very angry?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#34489 Feb 27, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
A study described at http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2013/02/26/...
Facts to denialists are like throwing gas on a fire; they use them to build more denialism.
<><><>< ><><><> <>
Concerning climate denial, a case in point is the response to events surrounding the illegal hacking of personal emails by climate scientists, mainly at the University of East Anglia, in 2009. Selected content of those emails was used to support the theory that climate scientists conspired to conceal evidence against climate change or manipulated the data (see, e.g., Montford, 2010; Sussman, 2010). After the scientists in question were exonerated by 9 investigations in 2 countries, including various parliamentary and government committees in the U.S. and U. K., those exonerations were re-branded as a whitewash”(see, e.g., U.S. Representative Rohrabacher’s speech in Congress on 8 December 2011), thereby broadening the presumed involvement of people and institutions in the alleged conspiracy.
...the authors discuss implications for science communication, and, unlike most people, I think they actually understand the problem. That is, you can’t fix this problem with more communication, and more data. The nature of the conspiracy theorist is that all additional data and all contradictory data will only be used to demonstrate further evidence of conspiracy, that the conspiracy is even larger, or that the data are fraudulent. The “self-sealing” nature of the conspiracy theory, as the authors describe it, makes it fundamentally immune to penetration by logic, reason, or additional information.
<><><>< ><><><> <><>
Very interesting read.
The implication is that deniers are very frightened people; afraid of the threat to their lifestyle, their job, their SUV and Ski-Doo; scared of change, scared of the new and the unknown.
Agree, caveman, very interesting study. On an open forum, though, there are reasons to challenge deniers:

1. There are always lurkers, some of whom will have open minds. They may appreciate solid reasoning & links.

2. Climate is such a planetary emergency that we may have to force some deniers into action. If we wait for current deniers to die off & be replaced by children who've been exposed to climate science from a young age, it may be too late. By then we may have already passed tipping points.

We may have already guaranteed partial collapse of ice sheets & corresponding sea level rise of 12-15 meters or more. The droughts may collapse agriculture long before that happens.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#34490 Feb 27, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Why are they very angry?
Because they are slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pigs AND alleged & proud threateners.
gcaveman1

Louin, MS

#34492 Feb 28, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Agree, caveman, very interesting study. On an open forum, though, there are reasons to challenge deniers:
1. There are always lurkers, some of whom will have open minds. They may appreciate solid reasoning & links.
2. Climate is such a planetary emergency that we may have to force some deniers into action. If we wait for current deniers to die off & be replaced by children who've been exposed to climate science from a young age, it may be too late. By then we may have already passed tipping points.
We may have already guaranteed partial collapse of ice sheets & corresponding sea level rise of 12-15 meters or more. The droughts may collapse agriculture long before that happens.
Oh, I still believe in putting the information out there, just in case there are any fence-sitters. There are always those who have just become aware that something is not right with the weather or the climate, and are looking for answers.

And some deniers will gradually convert to green energy because of the economics, even if they don't change their mindset. The appeal of free or cheap electricity or hot water is pretty much universal.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#34493 Feb 28, 2013
ANCHORAGE, Alaska -- Royal Dutch Shell will not drill for oil in Alaska's Arctic seas this year, the company said Wednesday in a widely expected decision that follows a series of high-profile setbacks in 2012.

Both critics and supporters of Shell's controversial Arctic offshore foray welcomed its decision to give up on drilling there for 2013 while the company tries to get its drill ships ready and answers to U.S. investigators.

Michael LeVine, senior Pacific counsel for environmental group Oceana in Juneau, Alaska, said Shell and the government agencies regulating the company faced a "crisis of confidence."

"The decisions to allow Shell to operate in the Arctic Ocean clearly were premature," LeVine said in a statement. "The company is not prepared and has absolutely no one but itself to blame for its failures."
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#34494 Feb 28, 2013
LONDON -- Energy companies should not drill for crude oil in Arctic waters because the environmental risks are too high, Total SA Chief Executive Officer Christophe de Margerie told the Financial Times on Wednesday.

The newspaper, which operated behind a pay wall, described de Margerie's comments as the first time a major oil company has publicly criticized offshore exploration in the Arctic.

The risk of an oil spill in such an environmentally sensitive area was simply too high, according to de Margerie.

"Oil on Greenland would be a disaster. A leak would do too much damage to the image of the company," he said.

Earlier this month, Gazprom OAO delayed the start of oil production at its Prirazlomnoye field, the first Russian Arctic offshore oil deposit to be developed, due to safety concerns.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#34495 Feb 28, 2013
(Reuters)- BP Plc took chances drilling its doomed Macondo well long before it ruptured in 2010, a well design and pressure expert said on Wednesday in the second day of testimony in the civil trial over the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

Alan Huffman, chief technology officer for Fusion Petroleum Technologies Inc, said BP forged ahead with drilling the well in 2009 outside the margin considered safe in the industry and by regulators.

He said there was a "kick" in the well during one of many intervals in drilling, which indicates pressure was unstable and there could be a rupture or other problem. Rather than stop drilling, the work forged ahead with another interval.

"It is truly egregious to drill that extra 100 feet knowing you could lose the well in the process," Huffman testified.

He said the well was "dangerous and fragile" and "they should not have drilled ahead at all."

BP's legal team had yet to cross-examine Huffman, who testified on behalf of the U.S. Justice Department, Gulf states affected by the spill, and plaintiffs suing BP and its partners.

In this first of the trial's three phases, U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier will seek to allocate blame between well owner BP, driller Transocean Ltd, cement services provider Halliburton Co and others, unless a settlement cuts the trial short.

The April 2010 blowout caused an explosion that killed 11 men and sent more than 4 million barrels of crude spewing into the Gulf.

<><><>< ><><><> <><><>< >

And they say green energy is too expensive.

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.

Newington Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 40 min Mohammad 70,462
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 1 hr cpeter1313 310,969
News Trump Brings Fiery Message To Thousands in Hart... 5 hr cliton 15
so who is going to be the next president??? 7 hr Teri 1
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 12 hr Another Black kil... 20,184
Do you believe in prayer. Sat Teri 1
News Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) Apr 29 Zionism is racism 72,025
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Newington Mortgages