Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 62334 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

#33593 Jan 12, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
LOL, it messes up others' posts because the above troll can't even copy and paste.
As you say. While attempting easy copy & paste,'phud feces face' misspells & uses bad English, to the point of incomprehension.

Other reasons for the inabilities of 'phud feces face' are:

'phud feces face' has no thought process, itself. It needs a place to begin a retort. As much as he hated dirtling, they had much in common. As dirtling was 'earthling has no brain','phud feces face' is on minimal life support without a brain to operate basic functions.

As dirtling is a slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig,'phud feces face' defends slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pigs.

litesong

Everett, WA

#33594 Jan 12, 2013
phud feces face wrote:
A corrected scope of your.......
No one would use the scope after you, since it would be covered in feces.
equote

Menard, TX

#33595 Jan 12, 2013
lol wrote:
Well, why don't they just slap a five dollar a gallon tax on gasoline. It would cut auto and truck usage, balance the budget and propel our society back to the stone age (or at least the Amish Age) at a great rate of knots. What is left of our economy would grind to a screeching halt and hence no more pollution. Frozen bodies all over the northeast I suppose. Oh well, no plan is perfect.
How about broading the Tax Base and lowering Tax Rates (does this sound familiar). Replace the gasoline/diesel tax with a carbon tax. John Maynard Keynes said "The avoidance of taxes is the only intellectual pursuit that still carries any reward." American Busines has plenty of intellectual power,they will find a way to pay less taxes (hopefully via technology not bribing Congress).

(The United States federal excise tax on gasoline is 18.4 cents per gallon and 24.4 cents per gallon for diesel fuel. On average, as of October 2012, state and local taxes add 30.9 cents to gasoline and 30.1 cents to diesel, for a total US average fuel tax of 49.3 cents per gallon for gas and 54.5 cents per gallon for diesel.)
gcaveman1

Laurel, MS

#33596 Jan 12, 2013
Estimated cost of the drought the past couple of years?$80 billion.

Global warming is taxing us already. Every time we go to the grocery store.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#33597 Jan 12, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
Interesting, but you cannot equate what is happening today with historical happenings. Nowhere in the past has there been the amount of CO2 been as rapidly released into the atmosphere by the burning of fossilized fuel as we see today....
Volcanoes release CO2, there are several supervolcanoes in America. I've visited Valles Caldera in New Mexico, you can find more information about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valles_Caldera
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#33599 Jan 13, 2013
pinheadlitesout wrote:
<quoted text>
No one would use the scope after I, since it would be covered in feces.
Again this could be an issue caused by that car crash you were involved in. All are begging you get that check up from the neck up before itÂ’s too late.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#33600 Jan 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Volcanoes release CO2, there are several supervolcanoes in America. I've visited Valles Caldera in New Mexico, you can find more information about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valles_Caldera
Measurements show that we are placing 100 times as much CO2 into the air as existing volcanoes. Super volcanoes are estimated to be about 100 times as powerful as the average. So perhaps there have been a few times that CO2 release by volcanoes has exceeded the existing rate. But we have been releasing CO2 annually for many years. The point is that we are releasing enough to alter the composition and effects of the atmosphere.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#33601 Jan 14, 2013
pinheadlitesout wrote:
<quoted text>
No one would use the scope after I, since it would be covered in feces.
Did you forget to about the check up from the neck up? You know after a bad car crash you were in there could be an underlined issue that would explain your mental deficiency.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#33602 Jan 14, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Measurements show that we are placing 100 times as much CO2 into the air as existing volcanoes. Super volcanoes are estimated to be about 100 times as powerful as the average. So perhaps there have been a few times that CO2 release by volcanoes has exceeded the existing rate. But we have been releasing CO2 annually for many years. The point is that we are releasing enough to alter the composition and effects of the atmosphere.
So how did you measure the volcanoes before there were methods of measurements? Also you use words like perhaps and estimated. That in itself tells all that you really really don't know.Try saying in my opinion.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#33603 Jan 14, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>So how did you measure the volcanoes before there were methods of measurements? Also you use words like perhaps and estimated. That in itself tells all that you really really don't know.Try saying in my opinion.
We do know very closely how much CO2 is released by the burning fossil fuels and how the concentration of CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere. Our estimates of the amount of CO2 released by previous volcanoes is based upon what we know about existing volcanoes and from evidence in ice bubbles and other proxies. Those are not blind guesses but reasoned conclusions. Are they exact, no, but they are much better than the blind opinion of a trollish mole.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#33604 Jan 14, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
We do know very closely how much CO2 is released by the burning fossil fuels and how the concentration of CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere. Our estimates of the amount of CO2 released by previous volcanoes is based upon what we know about existing volcanoes and from evidence in ice bubbles and other proxies. Those are not blind guesses but reasoned conclusions. Are they exact, no, but they are much better than the blind opinion of a trollish mole.
Now that you said they are not exact and conclusions that"s my argument, no one really really knows. So should we take your word for it or take the word of the opposing argument.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#33605 Jan 14, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>Now that you said they are not exact and conclusions that"s my argument, no one really really knows. So should we take your word for it or take the word of the opposing argument.
First, it is not my word, but that of scientists who have studied and measured as carefully as possible. We may not know exactly how much radiation would kill you but we do know that if the level exceeds a certain amount that your life is going to be compromised.

Science is never exact. It is simply what we perceive from observations and logic. However, we must live in the universe as we do perceive it. For example, we expect a mass to remain at rest or move at a uniform velocity unless it is acted upon by an outside force.

We also expect the ocean to continue to become more acidic as we increase the level of CO2 in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. We also expect the Earth to warm as the CO2 increases. To do otherwise would be in direct opposition of our understandings of universal perceptions. To not accept this would be to disregard all human understandings of our existence and a total disregard for science and Western philosophy. If that were to be so, what would be its replacement?
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#33606 Jan 14, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
First, it is not my word, but that of scientists who have studied and measured as carefully as possible. We may not know exactly how much radiation would kill you but we do know that if the level exceeds a certain amount that your life is going to be compromised.
Science is never exact. It is simply what we perceive from observations and logic. However, we must live in the universe as we do perceive it. For example, we expect a mass to remain at rest or move at a uniform velocity unless it is acted upon by an outside force.
We also expect the ocean to continue to become more acidic as we increase the level of CO2 in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. We also expect the Earth to warm as the CO2 increases. To do otherwise would be in direct opposition of our understandings of universal perceptions. To not accept this would be to disregard all human understandings of our existence and a total disregard for science and Western philosophy. If that were to be so, what would be its replacement?
More spins of science that use words like my opinion, maybe, could be, should be and wanna be.Science corrects errors to discover more errors to their correted errors are in error. Do we really really know human understandings? Stay tuned a new replacent will be out soon real soon.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#33607 Jan 14, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>More spins of science that use words like my opinion, maybe, could be, should be and wanna be.Science corrects errors to discover more errors to their correted errors are in error. Do we really really know human understandings? Stay tuned a new replacent will be out soon real soon.
I will wait with abated breath for your replacement of science. Not.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#33608 Jan 14, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
I will wait with abated breath for your replacement of science. Not.
Science will find a replacement in it self. They, Scientist find corrections to errors to discover that their corrections are in error. I'm sure they will discover a replacement for themselves.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#33609 Jan 14, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>Science will find a replacement in it self. They, Scientist find corrections to errors to discover that their corrections are in error. I'm sure they will discover a replacement for themselves.
Dumb comment. You can do better!
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#33610 Jan 14, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Dumb comment. You can do better!
Well show us they way.

“fairtax.org”

Level 8

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#33611 Jan 14, 2013
'The light in the window is a crack in the sky'
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#33612 Jan 14, 2013
Now if the Patriot AKA I'M A Bozo could see the light.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Level 1

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#33614 Jan 16, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course it is going on today. One of the differences is that the Earth does not have almost totally anaerobic organisms as it did in the formative years. One of the differences is that those organisms did not have the reserves of organic carbon to burn like man is doing. We are changing the dynamics of the atmosphere.
There is little doubt that the Earth will continue to flourish until the Sun cycles out. However, mankind is more interested in his own species survival as a species.
Of course no facts are used to back up the claims. Some of the newest coal in not more than a million years old. In case you missed it coal is formed from plant life that died and formed a soggy mass called peat which was then covered by other materials and compressed. Which means that the process is still continuing with todays swamps and bog becoming coal in about a million years.

While by your definition there was little aerobic life on the land the seas were alive with such and some of the first amphbians were crawling out of those seas to spend part of their time on land.

If man is truely interested in surviving then it must use that most important tool of all, the mind to reason rather than react in an emotional manner similar to a herd animal. Because the earth has always been in a state of change and refusing to change with it is a sure way to extiction. To insist that it must not change so we do not have to continue to evolve is an even surer road to extiction.

http://www.ket.org/trips/coal/agsmm/agsmmhow....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/history_of_the_ea...

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.

Orlando Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 6 min Aquarius-WY 1,459,068
News Scientists say they have proved climate change ... (Dec '08) 7 hr Dudley 7,943
News Doctor offering 'chelation therapy' has office ... (Apr '08) 12 hr Debbieg1 10
News Missing 5-year-old Florida girl likely was abdu... (Feb '09) Mon zazz 98,272
Inspiration Lane - Don't Quit (May '09) Mon Maggie McGee 73,750
CASEY: Does the State Have the Goods to Convict? (Mar '10) Dec 4 Murphey_Law 512,863
News Hollywood hospital administrator quits after li... (Jul '08) Dec 4 Catpeople 268

Orlando Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Orlando Mortgages