Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 63946 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.

litesong

Everett, WA

#43752 Feb 21, 2014
social disease wrote:
We might forgive.....
"social disease can't forgive its lack of science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra & pre-calc in its poorly(or non-) earned hi skule DEE-ploomaa.
Truth Facts

Chillicothe, OH

#43754 Feb 21, 2014
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I do. We know "false farts" has no new science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc in its poorly (or non-) earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa.
blah,blah,blah,dirty little troll
litesong

Everett, WA

#43757 Feb 21, 2014
[QUOTE who="ratdownthemiddle ", "middleofthedownwronggull y"].......retards are so.......[/QUOTE]

We know "ratdownthemiddle", "middleofthedownwronggull y" can only say something non-scientific, because "ratdownthemiddle", "middleofthedownwronggull y" never had science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra & pre-calc in its poorly(or non-) earned hi skule DEE-ploomaa. We also know that "ratdownthemiddle", "middleofthedownwronggull y" is disrespectful of those less fortunate them itself. "ratdownthemiddle", "middleofthedownwronggull y" could also be a slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig.
Mothra

Tempe, AZ

#43759 Feb 21, 2014
Socialism is for Sissies wrote:
<quoted text>I believe this :"We might forgive these modelers if their forecasts had not been so consistently and spectacularly wrong. From the beginning of climate modeling in the 1980s, these forecasts have, on average, always overstated the degree to which the Earth is warming compared with what we see in the real climate."
The article clearly reflects that as scientists they must step back and take a look based upon facts and not speculative models that hurt their cause. Something a lot of us have said for years. Note that the models get redefined as more facts become know.
Science must demand FACTS AND NOT GRANTS based upon the sky is falling emotions.
When every single model overestimates warming how can anyone argue there isn't a bias towards a preconceived "scientific" consensus?
Mothra

Tempe, AZ

#43760 Feb 21, 2014
THAT white guy wrote:
<quoted text> I thought you Liberals only cared about instilling high self esteem and celebrating diversity.
Only 'approved' diversity is celebrated.

Liberals are such phonies.
litesong

Everett, WA

#43761 Feb 21, 2014
motheaten wrote:
only 'approved' diversity is celebrated.
....... as opposed to unapproved slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rottitng) racist pukey proud pig white guys.....
litesong

Everett, WA

#43764 Feb 21, 2014
[QUOTE who="ratdownthemiddle ", "middleofthedownwronggull y"]the reason so many of them vote twice.......[/QUOTE]

After re-pubic-lick-uns corralled racists to vote against candidate & Pres. Obama, re-pubic-lick-uns surmised that Pres. Obama won both times, because the re-pubic-lick-un racists forgot to vote twice. Every good re-pubic-lick-un knows that. The decreasing percentage re-pubic-lick-uns are keeping their power now, only by really creative gerrymandering.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#43765 Feb 21, 2014
Socialism is for Sissies wrote:
<quoted text>I believe this :"We might forgive these modelers if their forecasts had not been so consistently and spectacularly wrong. From the beginning of climate modeling in the 1980s, these forecasts have, on average, always overstated the degree to which the Earth is warming compared with what we see in the real climate."
The article clearly reflects that as scientists they must step back and take a look based upon facts and not speculative models that hurt their cause. Something a lot of us have said for years. Note that the models get redefined as more facts become know.
Science must demand FACTS AND NOT GRANTS based upon the sky is falling emotions.
The only thing worse than the models are the "sceptics" predictions.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Pred...

As to why the models are off, science now has a pretty good idea.
"We show that a pronounced strengthening in Pacific trade winds over the past two decades is sufficient to account for the cooling of the tropical Pacific and a substantial slowdown in surface warming," said the study, led by scientists from the University of New South Wales in Australia.

"The net effect of these anomalous winds is a cooling in the 2012 global average surface air temperature of 0.1-0.2 degrees Celsius, which can account for much of the hiatus in surface warming since 2001."

The study's authors, including scientists from other research centres and universities in the United States, Hawaii and Australia, used weather forecasting and satellite data and climate models to make their conclusions.

"This hiatus could persist for much of the present decade if the trade winds trends continue, however, rapid warming is expected to resume once the anomalous wind trends abate," the study said.

"If the anomalously strong trade winds begin to abate in the next few years, the model suggests the present hiatus will be short-lived, with rapid warming set to resume soon after the wind trends reverse," it added.
http://www.trust.org/item/20140209174016-vo0m...

You have a few more years to peddle this crap. Knock yourself out.
Mothra

Tempe, AZ

#43766 Feb 21, 2014
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>HONESTLY!!! Have you ever seen a model that underestimated actual data?
Proof is in the pudding!!! These people are really reaching now. Talk about 'intellectual' dishonesty.
Computer models can be made to do whatever you design them to do. Don't like the results?

Tweak it.

Ta-da!

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#43767 Feb 21, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
When every single model overestimates warming how can anyone argue there isn't a bias towards a preconceived "scientific" consensus?
Did you ever wonder about those living close to the Chernobyl Plant yet survived following the nuke meltdown. That's exactly the way you deniers treat the science of climate change. You pick out the survivors and declare it isn't happening. Completely ignoring the 1000's dead.
I mean they have computer models mapping the universe now, maybe they might miss a couple of planets and in the end does it really matter ? According to your lot it does, and that's why you keep coming up with these BS arguments like Al Gore says the Ice will keep melting for the next 20 yrs but if it stops at 18 he is wrong! That's pretty damn lame trying to tell us we can ignore the past as if it never happened.
Traffic

Chicago, IL

#43768 Feb 21, 2014
Global Warming? LMAO....what a joke.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#43769 Feb 21, 2014
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>really?? where's yours?
weather and climate is ever changing... you quacks like to exploit misfortunes.
debate that, sasquatch!!
lol
Hey, its your choice to be as ignorant as you want, no one is forcing you to believe anything.
University

Corona Del Mar, CA

#43770 Feb 21, 2014
oneear69 wrote:
<quoted text> Hey, its your choice to be as ignorant as you want, no one is forcing you to believe anything.
And which politician are you whole heartedly supporting in your efforts to combat climate change? It's time to name names.

Hmmmmm?

Well?

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#43771 Feb 21, 2014
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>you need to go back and read your own material, son!
scientists haven't agreed on anything except speculation......especially where grant money is concerned. i haven't seen a scientist say anything more than might or may!!
i haven't seen a scientist stick his neck out showing what man made co2 emission reductions will do in altering climate!!
have you, make believe smarty??
Do you know the meaning of science, the scientific method, alchemy, manipulation.variables Do you know how to tell the difference between, science, and politics. Are you any good at simple math.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#43772 Feb 21, 2014
Socialism is for Sissies wrote:
<quoted text>So, you believe what the consensus says then, correct?
Well this article is for you and those in your consensus.
Here's the background on the authors: McNider and Christy are professors of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and fellows of the American Meteorological Society. Mr. Christy was a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore. Mr. Christy was a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Al Gore.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142...
So you too, are using politicians to have a science debate. Perhaps you 2 should step outside your nationalism, and see what global scientists are saying. Its really not that hard, the means are right in front of you. PS, don't use wikipedia, or any kind of christian science(I can't believe they put those 2 words together), they seem to be a little politically biased.
GE dumps GLOBAL WARMING

Dover, OH

#43773 Feb 21, 2014
In a watershed moment and a huge victory over environmentalists, General Electric has agreed to stop projects that are designed solely for the purpose of carbon dioxide reductions to please those who lobby for climate change concessions.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/...
Truth Facts

Chillicothe, OH

#43774 Feb 21, 2014
GE dumps GLOBAL WARMING wrote:
In a watershed moment and a huge victory over environmentalists, General Electric has agreed to stop projects that are designed solely for the purpose of carbon dioxide reductions to please those who lobby for climate change concessions.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/...
Bout time someone stood up to the GW natzi's.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#43775 Feb 21, 2014
GE dumps GLOBAL WARMING wrote:
In a watershed moment and a huge victory over environmentalists, General Electric has agreed to stop projects that are designed solely for the purpose of carbon dioxide reductions to please those who lobby for climate change concessions.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/...
Yea for GE,
Can the world’s biggest corporations act with impunity? When it comes to General Electric (GE)-- the eighth largest U.S. corporation, with $146.9 billion in sales and $13.6 billion in profits in 2012 -- the answer appears to be “yes.”

Let us begin with a small-scale case in upstate New York, where in late September 2013 GE announced that it would close its electrical capacitor plant in the town of Fort Edward. Some 200 workers will lose their jobs and, thereafter, will have little opportunity to obtain comparable wages, pensions, or even employment in this economically distressed region. Ironically, the plant has been highly profitable. Earlier in the year, the local management threw a party to celebrate a record-breaking quarter. But the high-level financial dealings of a vast multinational operation like GE are mysterious, and the company merely announced that the Fort Edward plant was “non-competitive.” The United Electrical Workers (UE), the union that has represented the workers there for the past 70 years, has already begun a vigorous campaign of resistance to the plant closing, but it is sure to be an uphill battle.

If we dig deeper into the record, a broader pattern of corporate misbehavior emerges. Indeed, the Fort Edward factory is one of two GE plants that polluted the communities at Fort Edward and nearby Hudson Falls, as well as a 197-mile stretch of the Hudson River, with 1.3 million pounds of cancer-causing PCBs for several decades. Worried about the dangers of PCBs, workers asked managers about them, and were told that these toxins were perfectly safe -- in fact, that the workers should rub the PCBs on their heads to combat baldness! When the extent of this environmental disaster began to be revealed in the 1970s, GE began a lengthy campaign to deny it and, later, a multimillion dollar public relations campaign to prevent remedial action by the Environmental Protection Administration. GE lost this battle, for the EPA insisted upon the dredging of the Hudson River and ordered GE to pay for it. Thus, the Hudson Valley became the largest Superfund cleanup site in the United States, with a project that will take decades to complete.

GE has produced other environmental disasters, as well. Three GE nuclear reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power site in Japan melted down and exploded on March 31, 2011. This was the world’s worst nuclear accident in three decades, and quickly spread radioactive contamination nearly 150 miles. Indeed, the stricken reactors are still sending 300 tons a day of radioactive water flooding into the Pacific Ocean. Dr. Helen Caldicott, who has studied nuclear power for decades, has estimated that up to 3.5 million people could eventually die from cancer thanks to the Fukushima radiation release. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, when these boiling water nuclear reactors were installed, GE’s engineers and management knew that their design was flawed. But the company kept selling them to unsuspecting utilities around the world, including many in the United States. As a result, there are still 35 GE boiling water reactors operating in this country, most of them located near population centers east of the Mississippi River. Currently, in fact, more than 58 million Americans live within 50 miles of a GE nuclear reactor.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#43776 Feb 21, 2014
GE dumps GLOBAL WARMING wrote:
In a watershed moment and a huge victory over environmentalists, General Electric has agreed to stop projects that are designed solely for the purpose of carbon dioxide reductions to please those who lobby for climate change concessions.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/...
Can the world’s biggest corporations act with impunity? When it comes to General Electric (GE)-- the eighth largest U.S. corporation, with $146.9 billion in sales and $13.6 billion in profits in 2012 -- the answer appears to be “yes.”

Let us begin with a small-scale case in upstate New York, where in late September 2013 GE announced that it would close its electrical capacitor plant in the town of Fort Edward. Some 200 workers will lose their jobs and, thereafter, will have little opportunity to obtain comparable wages, pensions, or even employment in this economically distressed region. Ironically, the plant has been highly profitable. Earlier in the year, the local management threw a party to celebrate a record-breaking quarter. But the high-level financial dealings of a vast multinational operation like GE are mysterious, and the company merely announced that the Fort Edward plant was “non-competitive.” The United Electrical Workers (UE), the union that has represented the workers there for the past 70 years, has already begun a vigorous campaign of resistance to the plant closing, but it is sure to be an uphill battle.

If we dig deeper into the record, a broader pattern of corporate misbehavior emerges. Indeed, the Fort Edward factory is one of two GE plants that polluted the communities at Fort Edward and nearby Hudson Falls, as well as a 197-mile stretch of the Hudson River, with 1.3 million pounds of cancer-causing PCBs for several decades. Worried about the dangers of PCBs, workers asked managers about them, and were told that these toxins were perfectly safe -- in fact, that the workers should rub the PCBs on their heads to combat baldness! When the extent of this environmental disaster began to be revealed in the 1970s, GE began a lengthy campaign to deny it and, later, a multimillion dollar public relations campaign to prevent remedial action by the Environmental Protection Administration. GE lost this battle, for the EPA insisted upon the dredging of the Hudson River and ordered GE to pay for it. Thus, the Hudson Valley became the largest Superfund cleanup site in the United States, with a project that will take decades to complete.

GE has produced other environmental disasters, as well. Three GE nuclear reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power site in Japan melted down and exploded on March 31, 2011. This was the world’s worst nuclear accident in three decades, and quickly spread radioactive contamination nearly 150 miles. Indeed, the stricken reactors are still sending 300 tons a day of radioactive water flooding into the Pacific Ocean. Dr. Helen Caldicott, who has studied nuclear power for decades, has estimated that up to 3.5 million people could eventually die from cancer thanks to the Fukushima radiation release. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, when these boiling water nuclear reactors were installed, GE’s engineers and management knew that their design was flawed. But the company kept selling them to unsuspecting utilities around the world, including many in the United States. As a result, there are still 35 GE boiling water reactors operating in this country, most of them located near population centers east of the Mississippi River. Currently, in fact, more than 58 million Americans live within 50 miles of a GE nuclear reactor.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#43777 Feb 21, 2014
Can the world’s biggest corporations act with impunity? When it comes to General Electric (GE)-- the eighth largest U.S. corporation, with $146.9 billion in sales and $13.6 billion in profits in 2012 -- the answer appears to be “yes.”

Let us begin with a small-scale case in upstate New York, where in late September 2013 GE announced that it would close its electrical capacitor plant in the town of Fort Edward. Some 200 workers will lose their jobs and, thereafter, will have little opportunity to obtain comparable wages, pensions, or even employment in this economically distressed region. Ironically, the plant has been highly profitable. Earlier in the year, the local management threw a party to celebrate a record-breaking quarter. But the high-level financial dealings of a vast multinational operation like GE are mysterious, and the company merely announced that the Fort Edward plant was “non-competitive.” The United Electrical Workers (UE), the union that has represented the workers there for the past 70 years, has already begun a vigorous campaign of resistance to the plant closing, but it is sure to be an uphill battle.

If we dig deeper into the record, a broader pattern of corporate misbehavior emerges. Indeed, the Fort Edward factory is one of two GE plants that polluted the communities at Fort Edward and nearby Hudson Falls, as well as a 197-mile stretch of the Hudson River, with 1.3 million pounds of cancer-causing PCBs for several decades. Worried about the dangers of PCBs, workers asked managers about them, and were told that these toxins were perfectly safe -- in fact, that the workers should rub the PCBs on their heads to combat baldness! When the extent of this environmental disaster began to be revealed in the 1970s, GE began a lengthy campaign to deny it and, later, a multimillion dollar public relations campaign to prevent remedial action by the Environmental Protection Administration. GE lost this battle, for the EPA insisted upon the dredging of the Hudson River and ordered GE to pay for it. Thus, the Hudson Valley became the largest Superfund cleanup site in the United States, with a project that will take decades to complete.

GE has produced other environmental disasters, as well. Three GE nuclear reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power site in Japan melted down and exploded on March 31, 2011. This was the world’s worst nuclear accident in three decades, and quickly spread radioactive contamination nearly 150 miles. Indeed, the stricken reactors are still sending 300 tons a day of radioactive water flooding into the Pacific Ocean. Dr. Helen Caldicott, who has studied nuclear power for decades, has estimated that up to 3.5 million people could eventually die from cancer thanks to the Fukushima radiation release. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, when these boiling water nuclear reactors were installed, GE’s engineers and management knew that their design was flawed. But the company kept selling them to unsuspecting utilities around the world, including many in the United States. As a result, there are still 35 GE boiling water reactors operating in this country, most of them located near population centers east of the Mississippi River. Currently, in fact, more than 58 million Americans live within 50 miles of a GE nuclear reactor.

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 Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min Incognito4Ever 1,582,690
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 53 min Freedomofexpression 316,359
News Developer Resubmits Plan In Wethersfield (Jun '08) Sun Warning 44
News While Somers writes, her representatives work Sat Lori Hopkins-Cava... 1
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) Aug 19 Leftovers 21,051
News Boulder, Colo., police regain lead role in JonB... (Feb '09) Aug 16 Tex- 1,668
B & D Automotive in Newington Connecticut (Apr '14) May '17 Maurice Sandloff 3

Newington Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Newington Mortgages