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

Full story: Newsday 47,470
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Full Story
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#34400 Feb 22, 2013
marlowe44 wrote:
<quoted text>
They're living high on the hog, no matter what you think or say. Our government is ripped off daily, these "scientists" are no different.
And how do you know this? Did you pull it out of your ass and divine from your entrails?
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#34401 Feb 22, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
I was only pointing out that there is massive money coming from governments to fund climate change and what is the difference between Big Government and Big Oil. They both have agendas.
Six million or 19 million is massive money? You need to take a look at government spending. This is peanuts.

As has been said before, a billion here and a billion there, and pretty soon, you're talking about some real money.

Level 1

Since: Aug 08

Lynnwood, WA

#34402 Feb 22, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
his search yielded 13,950 scientific papers. Of these, only 24 “clearly rejected global warming or endorsed a cause other than carbon dioxide emissions for the observed warming of 0.8 degrees since the beginning of the industrial era.”
In other words, given an hour long program on AGW, giving AGW deniers their just media time, they get to talk for......... 6 seconds! Sounds right to me!

“obamabot livs”

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#34403 Feb 22, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh... kristy... Did you actually READ what Judith Curry said? Did you understand it?
What she's saying is that WARMING DID NOT STOP IN 1998, like so many deniers have said. She also says Muller says it did, which is a bit of a distortion.
The only reason anyone can say that is if they use 1998 as the starting year, because there was a very strong El Niño that year. If you "start the clock" that year, then it (falsely) appears there's been no warming since then. Trouble is, if you start the clock any other year, even 1997 or 1999, the warming is obvious again.
Again, Judith Curry is insisting that WARMING IS CONTINUING.
***
It is PURE, UNADULTERATED EQUINE EXCREMENT to suggest that Soros has a TINY FRACTION of the influence the Koch brothers do. You are psychotically detached from reality if you believe Soros has even 10% of their influence.
Do you understand that ALEC WRITES THE LEGISLATION for more than half the State legislatures in the country? They have literally written the majority (or at least a very, very large chunk) of new legislation introduced in the US (at the State level) over the past few years. They are by FAR the most influential political people in the country, dwarfing everyone else COMBINED. Of course they fund the Tea Party - but that's just a tiny part of their empire
Soros, & ALL other Democratic donors COMBINED, are small fries compared to the Kochs. This is not even a question.
And there are no socialists in the Democratic party. There is ONE independent in the Senate, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who describes himself as a "democratic socialist" (small-D small-S), but he's the only one.
There is a French Socialist Party, but right now, that's about it. Let me know if I'm missing any. There are very, very few in the US. Socialists believe the government should own the means of production, & I'll lay money you can't find a SINGLE Demo in office who would say that, nor would their policies promote that.
The way lots of righties seem to see it, everyone to the right of the John Birch Society is a commie pinko leftist socialist. Sorry, it ain't so. The Democrats in the Congress & White House, like Al Gore, are dedicated capitalists.(He even said that in an interview recently, BTW.)
Obama is like a solid, moderate Republican from the 50s or 60s.
There's something seriously wrong with you to claim the Koch Bros. are more influential than Georgy Porgy Soros. Until a year ago I had never even heard of the Koch Bros.
I'll wager a search for Soros would dwarf a search for the Koch. Bros.
Soros is a snake, investing in every anti American scheme some leftist crackpot can dream up.

“obamabot livs”

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#34404 Feb 22, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
No they are not. The law says they can't use research funds to boost their pay.
http://profmandia.wordpress.com/2010/03/22/ta...
No one can accuse you of thinking.
No one would accuse you of living in reality if you think those getting government funds aren't living large.

You must really be ignorant of the ways of the world.

“obamabot livs”

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#34405 Feb 22, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
And how do you know this? Did you pull it out of your ass and divine from your entrails?
Because i know human nature and i know the history of researchers of all stripes wallowing in luxury while they do these so desperately needed "studies".
You think these people are Mother Teresa's?
One of you did come out of my ass this morning.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#34406 Feb 22, 2013
marlowe44 wrote:
<quoted text>
Because i know human nature and i know the history of researchers of all stripes wallowing in luxury while they do these so desperately needed "studies".
You think these people are Mother Teresa's?
One of you did come out of my ass this morning.
Knowing human nature as I do, I know it's quite common that there are cheaters among us. Also knowing human nature as I do, I know there are many, many honest people of integrity.

What I'm asking for is the proof you have that climate scientists are cheating the government. If you don't have any proof, then shut the fuggup.
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#34407 Feb 22, 2013
marlowe44 wrote:
<quoted text>
No one would accuse you of living in reality if you think those getting government funds aren't living large.
The law says they can't.

http://profmandia.wordpress.com/2010/03/22/ta...
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#34408 Feb 22, 2013
[QUOTE who="marred & low 44 waist"] researchers of all stripes wallowing in luxury......[/QUOTE]
"marred & low 44waist" regrets NOT getting(couldn't get?) its science & mathematics degrees so he could live in 'luxury like working scientists'. "marred & low 44waist" didn't even get(couldn't get?) its upper class science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra & pre-calc for its poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa.... if it even has that.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#34409 Feb 22, 2013
marlowe44 wrote:
<quoted text>
There's something seriously wrong with you to claim the Koch Bros. are more influential than Georgy Porgy Soros. Until a year ago I had never even heard of the Koch Bros.
I'll wager a search for Soros would dwarf a search for the Koch. Bros.
Soros is a snake, investing in every anti American scheme some leftist crackpot can dream up.
You are psychotically detached from reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activi...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALEC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros_con...

The Kochs & Soros both donate money in the 10s of millions, but thru ALEC, the Kochs' influence is far, far, FAR greater. ALEC literally WRITES the biggest chunk of Republican legislation at the State level, which means the biggest chunk of State legislation period. The Kochs also donate directly to institutions like the Heartland Institute, responsible for decades of anti-science nonsense to poison the public mind. They literally tried to change curricula in American schools to remove science.

Soros does NOTHING like that. Not even close. You are almost certainly suffering from distorted right wing conspiracy theories, as described above.

If you don't like it, don't complain to me, sign on to Wiki. If you have facts & logic on your side, in the small-D democratic environment of Wiki, you'll prevail. O/W, STFU.

So once AGAIN, you're WRONG.
tim

Hollywood, FL

#34410 Feb 22, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
You are psychotically detached from reality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activi...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALEC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros_con...
The Kochs & Soros both donate money in the 10s of millions, but thru ALEC, the Kochs' influence is far, far, FAR greater. ALEC literally WRITES the biggest chunk of Republican legislation at the State level, which means the biggest chunk of State legislation period. The Kochs also donate directly to institutions like the Heartland Institute, responsible for decades of anti-science nonsense to poison the public mind. They literally tried to change curricula in American schools to remove science.
Soros does NOTHING like that. Not even close. You are almost certainly suffering from distorted right wing conspiracy theories, as described above.
If you don't like it, don't complain to me, sign on to Wiki. If you have facts & logic on your side, in the small-D democratic environment of Wiki, you'll prevail. O/W, STFU.
So once AGAIN, you're WRONG.
WIKIPEDIA!!???? ARE YOU SERIOUS? How about National Enquirer?? You have got way to much time on your hands homo.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#34411 Feb 22, 2013
marlowe44 wrote:
<quoted text>
Because i know human nature and i know the history of researchers of all stripes wallowing in luxury while they do these so desperately needed "studies".
You think these people are Mother Teresa's?
One of you did come out of my ass this morning.
Science is structures to militate against venality & deception.

Obviously, all human beings are subject to the normal means of corruption, & scientists are human beings. But what's built into science is the requirement for repeatability.

If a scientist announces a result, other scientists around the world are encouraged to try to repeat it. If the 1st scientist does anything deceptive or dishonest, it will always - ALWAYS - be detected by other scientists, because they'll get different results. If a scientist is found to have been deliberately deceitful, it usually means the end of his/her academic career.

This means that scientists don't lie or cheat nearly as often as other human beings because they CAN'T. They'll be discovered & outed. If they're just wrong, it's embarrassing (remember cold fusion?). If they're lying, it's adios academic career.

These scientists therefore canNOT distort their data like you deniers always claim. It's IMPOSSIBLE.

What's more, while they're human & might be interested in wealth & power now, they're way, way, WAY more interested in being RIGHT. It's best if you're recognized as being right during your lifetime, but it's a whole lot better to be right after you die than to be wrong.

Scientists aren't exaggerating when they say the climate will be such & such in 2100. They just want to have been RIGHT in 2013 about what will happen in 2100.

Beliefs of deniers are inconsistent with science, scientific fact & the behavior of scientists.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#34412 Feb 22, 2013
Erratum:

I meant "structured," not "structures," in the 1st sentence.
tim

Hollywood, FL

#34413 Feb 22, 2013
"Wikipedia is a particularly unreliable source of knowledge and yet, because of a rumored secret-deal with Google, it ranks highly on many searches. But if you searched Google for knowledge about Theology and read any of the 16,000 Wikipedia pages edited by Essjay, an anonymous contributor who claimed to hold two PhDs, then you may wish to seek your nearest library... and fast. Because it turns out that Essjay was lying about his credentials: he is actually 24, doesn't hold any advanced degrees, and has no specialized knowledge of the subjects upon which he wrote. But the damage has already been done. Unknown millions are now walking the earth repeating the fabrications of an overzealous geek. And while Essjay's contributions may have been unmasked anonymous users continue to edit the 2,000,000 English pages in Wikipedia that are unreliably informing the curious at the same time as they homogenize thought."

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#34414 Feb 22, 2013
tim wrote:
<quoted text> WIKIPEDIA!!???? ARE YOU SERIOUS? How about National Enquirer?? You have got way to much time on your hands homo.
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.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#34415 Feb 22, 2013
tim wrote:
"Wikipedia is a particularly unreliable source of knowledge and yet, because of a rumored secret-deal with Google, it ranks highly on many searches. But if you searched Google for knowledge about Theology and read any of the 16,000 Wikipedia pages edited by Essjay, an anonymous contributor who claimed to hold two PhDs, then you may wish to seek your nearest library... and fast. Because it turns out that Essjay was lying about his credentials: he is actually 24, doesn't hold any advanced degrees, and has no specialized knowledge of the subjects upon which he wrote. But the damage has already been done. Unknown millions are now walking the earth repeating the fabrications of an overzealous geek. And while Essjay's contributions may have been unmasked anonymous users continue to edit the 2,000,000 English pages in Wikipedia that are unreliably informing the curious at the same time as they homogenize thought."
And?

Grow a gonad, coward, & sign on THERE. If you don't do that, aroun here, STFU.

“obamabot livs”

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#34416 Feb 22, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
The law says they can't.
http://profmandia.wordpress.com/2010/03/22/ta...
The law says you can't do heroin, smoke crack, rob banks or kill your spouse, but people do it anyway.
wise up.
IF AGW was proved to incorrect the funding and the gravy train would be over.

“obamabot livs”

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#34417 Feb 22, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
You are psychotically detached from reality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activi...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALEC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros_con...
The Kochs & Soros both donate money in the 10s of millions, but thru ALEC, the Kochs' influence is far, far, FAR greater. ALEC literally WRITES the biggest chunk of Republican legislation at the State level, which means the biggest chunk of State legislation period. The Kochs also donate directly to institutions like the Heartland Institute, responsible for decades of anti-science nonsense to poison the public mind. They literally tried to change curricula in American schools to remove science.
Soros does NOTHING like that. Not even close. You are almost certainly suffering from distorted right wing conspiracy theories, as described above.
If you don't like it, don't complain to me, sign on to Wiki. If you have facts & logic on your side, in the small-D democratic environment of Wiki, you'll prevail. O/W, STFU.
So once AGAIN, you're WRONG.
Where do I sign up for some of this Koch Bros. largesse?

You people are fools, trying to make the Koch bros. some kind of boogyman when the left has the entire LSM on it's side.
Ur becoming quite comical.

“obamabot livs”

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#34418 Feb 22, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
When significant parts of the corporate media are openly embracing, and indeed pushing, climate ‘skepticism’, is there any meaningful justification for this in the climate science? No. Geochemist James Lawrence Powell recently conducted an exhaustive study of the peer-reviewed literature on climate science. Going back over 20 years, his search yielded 13,950 scientific papers. Of these, only 24 “clearly rejected global warming or endorsed a cause other than carbon dioxide emissions for the observed warming of 0.8 degrees since the beginning of the industrial era.”
Powell said:
Only one conclusion is possible: within science, global warming denial has virtually no influence. Its influence is instead on a misguided media, politicians all-too-willing to deny science for their own gain, and a gullible public.
Adding:
Scientists do not disagree about human-caused global warming. It is the ruling paradigm of climate science, in the same way that plate tectonics is the ruling paradigm of geology. We know that continents move. We know that the earth is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause.
The notable US science writer Phil Plait “marveled” at Powell’s “persistence in unearthing the facts and figures”, saying:
His premise was simple: if global warming isn’t real and there’s an actual scientific debate about it, that should be reflected in the scientific journals.
But Powell’s findings were clear, says Plait:
There is no scientific controversy over this. Climate change denial is purely, 100 per cent made-up political and corporate-sponsored crap.
When the loudest voices are fossil-fuel funded think tanks, when they don’t publish in journals but instead write error-laden op-eds in partisan venues, when they have to manipulate the data to support their point, then what they’re doing isn’t science. It’s nonsense. And worse, it’s dangerous nonsense. Because they’re fiddling with the data while the world burns.
Which corporate media would that be? CBS? NBC? ABC? MSNBC? CNN? The NYT's? Washington Post?

“obamabot livs”

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#34419 Feb 22, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Knowing human nature as I do, I know it's quite common that there are cheaters among us. Also knowing human nature as I do, I know there are many, many honest people of integrity.
What I'm asking for is the proof you have that climate scientists are cheating the government. If you don't have any proof, then shut the fuggup.
Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
Solyndra ($535 million)*
Beacon Power ($43 million)*
Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
SunPower ($1.2 billion)
First Solar ($1.46 billion)
Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
Amonix ($5.9 million)
Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
Abound Solar ($400 million)*
A123 Systems ($279 million)*
Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
Johnson Controls ($299 million)
Schneider Electric ($86 million)
Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
ECOtality ($126.2 million)
Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
Mountain Plaza, Inc.($2 million)*
Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
Range Fuels ($80 million)*
Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
GreenVolts ($500,000)
Vestas ($50 million)
LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
Navistar ($39 million)
Satcon ($3 million)*
Konarka Technologies Inc.($20 million)*
Mascoma Corp.($100 million)

Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/obama/2012/10/20/li...

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
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 18 min Emeem 1,124,285
CASEY: Does the State Have the Goods to Convict? (Mar '10) 45 min LizW 488,790
Inspiration Lane - Don't Quit (May '09) 1 hr LizW 70,494
Let's Chat (Jan '12) 1 hr LizW 17,666
any one want to make fun of me?? SPH 10 hr wolfnasty1556 1
keep a word----drop a word (Feb '11) Sat Games Champ Riggies 17,160
two words (Jul '10) Sat Lexus1985 26,905
Orlando Dating
Find my Match

Orlando Jobs

Orlando People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Orlando News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Orlando

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]