Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 59545 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.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#34789 Mar 28, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
In your anal-obsessive rulebook, experiments aren't done by accident, but of course, you're wrong. Nature has been experimenting for eons; it's called evolution. But then, you don't believe in that either. After all, there's no experiment to test it, is there?
There are entire journals of experimental evolutionary science. Add to that the fact that when the progressives wanted to mitigate evolution, they committed genocidal crimes. Mitigation isn't always good for people, ask the African Americans who didn't consent to sterilization.

Nature doesn't experiment, only sentient beings can experiment since it is a goal oriented procedure used to test theory.

.
gcaveman1 wrote:
There was never a purposeful experiment proving that an atomic bomb was possible. They had to acually set one off to test the theory. Don't you get tired of being wrong all the time?
There were plenty of experiments on nuclear chain reactions, then the bomb was again experimentally tested before being used in war.

gcaveman1 sure doesn't have a good grasp on how technology develops and experiments refine theory. Not surprising, if you consider his global warming alarmism. The fear of catastrophic man made climate change is based on emotion, not science.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#34790 Mar 28, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>No maybe we already know your a Dumb ASSumption of your---self. Now big mouth post your peer reviewed published work and defends your Dumb ASSumption you make of your---self.
It's out there. Look it up, dear.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#34791 Mar 28, 2013
Reddy Kilowatt wrote:
<quoted text>
BS rationalization of continuing to sit on the AGW waaaambulance, thinking well of yourself for spinning pie-in-the-sky pipedreams while doing NOTHING to promptly and effectively attack the root of the problem with the means we have readily available TODAY.
In modern nuclear, and ONLY in modern nuclear, we already have at hand the green, renewable, sustainable, fully-developed, commercial-scale, economically feasible, and fully mature technological means of COMPLETELY ELIMINATING carbon-fueled base-load electric power generation in the US within THIS GENERATION.
Wake up. Get real. Start acting like you believe this actually is the red-lights-and-siren planetary emergency you and your fellow internet hero fake "scientist" AGW jihadis are constantly hand-waving and screaming about.
Time to start walking the talk. You're either part of the solution or you're part of the problem.
And what are you doing?

nuthin

I have a solar house. I have a solar water heater. Almost all my lightbulbs are curly CFB's. I combine multi-tasking trips to town.

I do what I can. Don't talk about what you don't know; you only demonstrate your terminal ignorance.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#34792 Mar 28, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>There are entire journals of experimental evolutionary science. Add to that the fact that when the progressives wanted to mitigate evolution, they committed genocidal crimes. Mitigation isn't always good for people, ask the African Americans who didn't consent to sterilization.
Nature doesn't experiment, only sentient beings can experiment since it is a goal oriented procedure used to test theory.
.
<quoted text>There were plenty of experiments on nuclear chain reactions, then the bomb was again experimentally tested before being used in war.
gcaveman1 sure doesn't have a good grasp on how technology develops and experiments refine theory. Not surprising, if you consider his global warming alarmism. The fear of catastrophic man made climate change is based on emotion, not science.
There hasn't been an experiment progressing a dinosaur to a bird. That the kind of experiment you want done for global warming.

There wasn't an experiment before the first bomb. They had an idea, a theory, but they didn't know the total power and extent. That's you want with climate warming mitigation.

You funny.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#34793 Mar 28, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
There hasn't been an experiment progressing a dinosaur to a bird.
No, there's been experiments that show the effects of mutation but not an entire phylum evolving from another phylum. We have real world experimental results and we don't need to mitigate evolution.

If gcavman1 wanted to mitigate bird evolution, I'd need to test that mitigation on a smaller scale before supporting the policy.

.
gcaveman1 wrote:
That the kind of experiment you want done for global warming.
We need an experiment that shows the smallest measurable man made climate change, that's not the same as evolving dinosaurs into birds.

.
gcaveman1 wrote:
There wasn't an experiment before the first bomb.
There were thousands of experiments before the first bomb, showing the effects of nuclear chain reaction.

.
gcaveman1 wrote:
They had an idea, a theory, but they didn't know the total power and extent.
Then they experimentally tested the bomb before they used it in the war. They had a good idea of the power, since stayed out of the blast radius while watching the test.

.
gcaveman1 wrote:
That's you want with climate warming mitigation. You funny.
I want to see a compelling test of climate change mitigation before I buy in, show us how much good it might do at what cost. Every other technology is tested before its implemented, you don't take untested drugs. Why less safety when it comes to our planet's climate?
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#34794 Mar 29, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
It's out there. Look it up, dear.
No maybe we already know your a Dumb ASSumption of your---self. Now big mouth post your peer reviewed published work and defends your Dumb ASSumption you make of your---self. Now you look it up.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#34796 Mar 29, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>I want to see a compelling test of climate change mitigation before I buy in, show us how much good it might do at what cost. Every other technology is tested before its implemented, you don't take untested drugs. Why less safety when it comes to our planet's climate?
Once AGAIN, the onus is not on climatologists to prove mitigation works, the onus is on YOU to prove it's safe, because you people are the ones who want to change the atmosphere. You want to dump billions, eventually trillions, of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.

If nuclear physicists wanted to release trillions of tons of radioactive material into the atmosphere, would the onus be on the rest of us to prove that not releasing it would be beneficial? Of course not. It'd be on the physicists to prove it was safe.

So get busy & start proving that dumping enormous amounts of carbon into the atmosphere will be safe.

Sorry, Brain_Gone, you lose the argument. It's just that you're selfish, venal, invidious, profligate & sociopathic enough to force your filth on the rest of us.

Level 1

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#34797 Mar 29, 2013
Ribbet.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#34798 Mar 29, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
Once AGAIN, the onus is not on climatologists to prove mitigation works, the onus is on YOU to prove it's safe, because you people are the ones who want to change the atmosphere.
No, the atmosphere always changes, it's like a flowing stream. I'm not the one proposing a carbon tax, I don't have to prove anything is 'safe'. I don't want to mitigate climate change, I've got nothing to prove. I believe man made catastrophic climate change is a mass hysteria - it's up to scientists to prepare, perform, publish and teach about experimental tests for their theories and suppositions.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
You want to dump billions, eventually trillions, of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.
The word 'dump' isn't accurate, carbon dioxide is released or freed into the atmosphere. Dump implies a gravitational effect.

Let's get real, I'll never release, free or "billions, eventually trillions, of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere." That's way beyond my personal abilities. I want everyone to have the right to free CO2 into the air and use as much as they please. I'm not about pricing carbon or favoring a climate tax.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
If nuclear physicists wanted to release trillions of tons of radioactive material into the atmosphere, would the onus be on the rest of us to prove that not releasing it would be beneficial? Of course not.
Trillions of tons of radioactive material, where would they find it all? I'd be skeptical.

Also, CO2 isn't radioactive, poisonous or toxic at atmospheric levels.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
It'd be on the physicists to prove it was safe.
I'm not a scientist, I don't do experimental tests for my living. It's up to scientists to prove the science.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
So get busy & start proving that dumping enormous amounts of carbon into the atmosphere will be safe.
Geological activity changing the atmosphere is more than 4 billion years old. Animal life has existed for and added CO2 to the atmosphere for more than 3.5 billion years ago. I think nature has adapted to carbon dioxide emissions by now.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
Sorry, Brain_Gone, you lose the argument. It's just that you're selfish, venal, invidious, profligate & sociopathic enough to force your filth on the rest of us.
^^^I don't insult other posters, I don't need to use irrational ad homiem arguments because science is on my side.
SpaceBlues

United States

#34799 Mar 29, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>.
YourTrillions of tons of radioactive material, where would they find it all? I'd be skeptical.
Also, CO2 isn't radioactive, poisonous or toxic at atmospheric levels.
.
<quoted text>I'm not a scientist, I don't do experimental tests for my living. It's up to scientists to prove the science.
.
.
No, you are not a scientist. Your posts inform us of your ignorance.

For example, you don't know that fossil fuels are radioactive, so are their combustion products.

It isn't just the mercury and other toxic elements and their compounds but also, radioactive compounds.

Why are the tall stacks, etc.?
SpaceBlues

United States

#34800 Mar 29, 2013
Rising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations not only lead to global warming but also to increased climate variability and extreme weather situations. Within the past decade an exceptionally high number of extreme heat waves occurred around the globe: Record breaking temperatures hit central Western Europe in 2003, causing a large number of fatalities due to heat stress. In South-Eastern Europe dramatic wildfires ravaged in 2007, especially in Greece. Together with huge forest fires, an extraordinary heat wave with record temperatures led to a high and long-lasting air pollution in western Russia in 2010. The drought in 2011-2012 was reported to be one of the most severe ever recorded in the United States, with an economic loss of billions of dollars and heavy crop failures.

Not only severe droughts and heat waves but also extreme precipitation and windstorms can impact the structure, composition, and functioning of terrestrial ecosystems. The importance of extreme climatic events for the carbon balance became clear after the 2003 heat wave in Central and Southern Europe. Triggered by this month-long anomaly, the ecosystems lost as much CO2 as they had absorbed from the atmosphere through the previous four years under normal weather conditions.

Recent evidence also suggests that extreme weather may influence the carbon balance of our terrestrial biosphere such that it accelerates climate change. Co-organizers Dr. Michael Bahn, Associate Professor at University of Innsbruck, and Dr. Markus Reichstein, Max-Planck Director at the Max-Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, Jena, state unanimously:“Several lines of evidence indicate water-cycle extremes, in particular droughts, being a dominant risk for the carbon cycle in large parts of Europe. The largest and most diverse and enduring effects of extreme events are expected in forests.”
SpaceBlues

United States

#34801 Mar 29, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Brain has called in reinforcements....
np.

B_gone does not even admit the fossil fuel radioactivity. Public is not fooled by him!
Teddy R

San Francisco, CA

#34802 Mar 29, 2013

Level 1

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#34803 Mar 29, 2013
BOO!
Tricia McMillen

Chicago, IL

#34804 Mar 29, 2013
RedheadwGlasses wrote:
BOO!
Oh, there you are. Come along home , dear . I have some milk nd oreos for you and you can watch Garfield Goose if you like.
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#34805 Mar 29, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
Climate scientists are discussing why surface temperatures haven't been increasing quite so rapidly recently, but the people determined not to take action on AGW are deliberately misunderstanding and misinterpreting the discussion, as this link proves.

Climate science says the slow-down may be an indication of lower sensitivity, or it may be an indication of natural variability. As we have evidence that natural variability (more heat entering the deep ocean, more volcanic activity causing cooling), the lower sensitivity argument may be a bit premature.

Those determined not to take action on AGW see only one side of the discussion- the side that supports what they already want to do of course.

The idea of consensus over climate sensitivity is a straw man- it's something still subject to scientific debate- but the misinterpretation of the debate is very real.

The Economist's article is halfway decent.

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-tec...

With a few flaws.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/hausfather-ec...

The Australian's article is agenda driven distortion.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#34806 Mar 29, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>A bunch of equine excrement.
Actually, Brain_Gone, EVERYTHING you say is wrong. Just remember that. I hope it's worth your progeny's deep derision to get a few shekels now.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#34807 Mar 29, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
No, you are not a scientist. Your posts inform us of your ignorance. For example, you don't know that fossil fuels are radioactive, so are their combustion products. It isn't just the mercury and other toxic elements and their compounds but also, radioactive compounds. Why are the tall stacks, etc.?
I'm discussing CO2, that's not toxic or radioactive in the air. The sun provides us with the radiation we need and CO2 helps hold in the warmth we need to survive.

Don't panic, and try to avoid irrational arguments based on ad hominem fallacies.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#34808 Mar 29, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
Actually, Brain_Gone, EVERYTHING you say is wrong. Just remember that. I hope it's worth your progeny's deep derision to get a few shekels now.
I don't make up fake quotes 'from' my opponents. I believe in truth; this is where we differ.
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#34809 Mar 29, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
I believe in truth.
Sure. You believe in shitting on it.

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) 5 min USAsince1680 1,384,257
CASEY: Does the State Have the Goods to Convict? (Mar '10) 44 min Helena_handbasket 513,256
Inspiration Lane - Don't Quit (May '09) 49 min Murph 73,640
News Libertarians pick ex-New Mexico Gov. Johnson fo... 1 hr Alzo Heimers RayG... 14
keep a word----drop a word (Feb '11) 2 hr Princess Hey 18,982
Word Association 2 (Jul '10) 2 hr Princess Hey 22,973
News Ted Cruz taps Carly Fiorina to serve as running... 3 hr Three Psyche 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Orlando Mortgages