Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 60660 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.

Obama-Hoodwinked -YOU

Minneapolis, MN

#34997 Apr 8, 2013
Where wrote:
Where's Al Gore?
Al is living the American DREAM.

Al is worth a couple BILLION so he's either on his Dad's 60,000 square foot ranch, OR on his 500 foot yacht off the south of France, OR he's on his owned island in the south pacific, OR he's in Hollywierd dopeing it up with the Libertardes, OR in some unknown hideaway with a harem of bleach blond bimbos willing to sell their whole to a sicko Libertard.

In any case we needn't worry about Al, he's in good hands.
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#34998 Apr 8, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay then you explain the events and how it happened that a press release stated this:
"What that history shows, the researchers say, is that during the last 5,000 years, the Earth on average cooled about 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit–until the last 100 years, when it warmed about 1.3 degrees F.”
When in fact the paper states the last 100 years was inconclusive. Somebody was not telling the truth, being dishonest, deceptive.
Can you please get it through your thick head that we don't need the results of this paper to know about the last 100 years: we have the thermometer temperature record.
kristy

Titusville, FL

#34999 Apr 8, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't explain your unsupported delusions, they defy explanation.
I didn't ask for you to explain "my delusions."

You stated: "Your characterization of the events in question, and of Mann's character, are entirely dishonest. Therefore, you lied. End of story."

So I asked you to explain the press release, because obviously if you think my reasoning is delusional, you have some sort of thought on the issue of the difference of the press release versus the paper.
kristy

Titusville, FL

#35000 Apr 8, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you please get it through your thick head that we don't need the results of this paper to know about the last 100 years: we have the thermometer temperature record.
I asked you this yesterday, but I will ask again:

But here's my question about that. The graph is paleo-reconstruction up until about 100 years ago. Marcott's smoothing shows no variability in 300 year time periods. So how can you compare a temperature record that shows yearly variability for 100 years to a proxy that shows no variability in 300 year time periods and then say that the paper shows without doubt that this is the fastest rise in temperature? The only way to compare is if you finish the graph with paleo-reconstruction.
kristy

Titusville, FL

#35001 Apr 8, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
All kind of deniers using every cold snap as "proof" that warming was a "fraud," too. GOing to take responsibility for YOUR side, who do this far, FAR more often?:)
Who has said warming is a fraud?

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#35002 Apr 8, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't ask for you to explain "my delusions."
You stated: "Your characterization of the events in question, and of Mann's character, are entirely dishonest. Therefore, you lied. End of story."
So I asked you to explain the press release, because obviously if you think my reasoning is delusional, you have some sort of thought on the issue of the difference of the press release versus the paper.
For some reason, you keep asking me to "explain" something you believe exists but haven't documented. Thus my use of the term "delusion."

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#35003 Apr 8, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Who has said warming is a fraud?
Global warming Deniers. I've seen it on these boards and other boards as well. Don't pretend it doesn't happen.

Glad to hear you accept that warming is taking place, at least!:)
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#35004 Apr 8, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Who are you fooling? Nobody other than yourself.
'lyin' brian' doesn't fool itself. It knows GHGs warm the Earth. Only to save its 2-bit oil can job, does it continue to lie.
jeff

Manassas, VA

#35005 Apr 8, 2013
This is very googd news for me
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#35006 Apr 8, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
I asked you this yesterday, but I will ask again:
But here's my question about that. The graph is paleo-reconstruction up until about 100 years ago. Marcott's smoothing shows no variability in 300 year time periods. So how can you compare a temperature record that shows yearly variability for 100 years to a proxy that shows no variability in 300 year time periods and then say that the paper shows without doubt that this is the fastest rise in temperature? The only way to compare is if you finish the graph with paleo-reconstruction.
Of course if you're a climate denier you have to believe that rapid rises in temperature like the past few decades have occurred before but just weren't picked up in Marcott's proxy record.

Well, why not apply a scientific test to see if they had, would they be picked up by the proxy record.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/04/03/smeari...

The answer? Yes, they would.

Another denier excuse fails to convince.
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#35007 Apr 9, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Who has said warming is a fraud?
You.
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
What did I lie about? Marcott produced a hockey stick graph, sent out a press release and then retracted the hockey stick without any fanfare. That was at the least deceptive.
What do you call a person who states that I lie about science and the actions of scientists, but has no problem with a scientist such as Michael Mann lying about the actions of fellow scientists? A hypocrite.
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you call a scientist who blatantly puts out a press release stating proof of increased warming over the past 100 years that is unprecedented and shows a huge hockey stick graph to "prove" it and then with no fanfare backtracks and states that his paper shows that "the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust and cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes."
Maybe con artist?
And don't come over all innocent and claim "at the least deceptive" and "con artist" are not implying fraud.

I guess people in denial like you will always look for some excuse to deny the evidence, usually involving accusing those responsible for producing the evidence of fraud.

People like you in denial are self deceptive and try to deceive others. Rational people do best by ignoring you, not engaging in some sort of phoney polite debate that you always demand.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#35009 Apr 9, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
They are just lab experiments, you said. There's no proof that CO2 causes warming, you said.
No experimental test of man made CO2 on climate, I wrote.

.
gcaveman1 wrote:
So why are you talking about sensitivity now? Are you confused? What do you think is causing the warming, Brain-dead?
Did you look at the CO2 sensitivity in the two expeirments? At the most, 4° C from doubling CO2 content more than 11 times, less than 0.4° C per doubling per doubling CO2.

CO2 is almost insignificant.

It isn't climate but it's the best test I've seen yet. Thanks again, for posting the link.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#35010 Apr 9, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
No, fool, it was THIS statement of yours I was referring to: "On August 6th, 1945, a nuclear bomb was dropped on Hiroshima Japan." Nothing to do with arguments about current global warming.
The bomb was experimentally tested before it was used, you can't cite an experimental test of man made global warming, see the difference?

.
tha Professor wrote:
Man IS affecting climate, and the causal relationship between greenhouse gases and atmospheric warming has long been established.
Not quantitatively measured or experimentally tested. It might be insignificant or even beneficial.

There's no experimental data, no way to know.

.
tha Professor wrote:
Your next move would seem to be yet another attempt to confuse mitigation with causation. Proceed.:)
Climate change mitigation causes my opposition to man made catastrophic global warming alarmism. Don't be fooled by flashy headlines, look at the literature. Zero tests, not one experiment for climate change mitigation. That's not a good indicator of for a 'proven' science.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#35011 Apr 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
The bomb was experimentally tested before it was used, you can't cite an experimental test of man made global warming, see the difference?

>>I "see" you dragging in an irrelevancy to support your irrelevant, off-topic claims.

<quoted text>Not quantitatively measured or experimentally tested. It might be insignificant or even beneficial.
There's no experimental data, no way to know.

>>No one to care whether you approve or not, either. Curious, that!

<quoted text>Climate change mitigation causes my opposition to man made catastrophic global warming alarmism. Don't be fooled by flashy headlines, look at the literature. Zero tests, not one experiment for climate change mitigation. That's not a good indicator of for a 'proven' science.

>>"Climate change mitigation" is your troll-phrase used to evade real debate over AGW. It's Denierism, whether you want to admit it or not. I've looked at the literature, you haven't...other than to find some way of evading real debate or discussion of the subject, of course.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#35012 Apr 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Using fossil fuel helps free ancient carbon back into the atmosphere where it can do some good. Freeing carbon dioxide into the air helps mitigate climate change against global cooling; the well known ice age climate scenario.
We've always adapted to climate change. Don't panic.
Whoa, whoa, wait a minute, Brain!

I thought you said climate change mitigation was a hoax. In fact, you've said it a thousand times.

So what is this? "Freeing carbon dioxide into the air helps mitigate climate change against global cooling...."

With that logic, and a few of your own words, we say, "Removing carbon dioxide from the air helps mitigate climate change against global warming."

Care to dispute that?
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#35013 Apr 9, 2013
Spectacular & brilliant renunciation of kristy:

kristy wrote:
I asked you this yesterday, but I will ask again:
But here's my question about that. The graph is paleo-reconstruction up until about 100 years ago. Marcott's smoothing shows no variability in 300 year time periods. So how can you compare a temperature record that shows yearly variability for 100 years to a proxy that shows no variability in 300 year time periods and then say that the paper shows without doubt that this is the fastest rise in temperature? The only way to compare is if you finish the graph with paleo-reconstruction.
Of course if you're a climate denier you have to believe that rapid rises in temperature like the past few decades have occurred before but just weren't picked up in Marcott's proxy record.
//////////
Fair Game wrote:

Well, why not apply a scientific test to see if they had, would they be picked up by the proxy record.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/04/03/smeari ...

The answer? Yes, they would.

Another denier excuse fails to convince.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#35014 Apr 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>No experimental test of man made CO2 on climate, I wrote.
.
<quoted text>
It isn't climate but it's the best test I've seen yet. Thanks again, for posting the link.
What is the difference between man-made CO2 and natural CO2?

Haven't you stated that we are releasing the Earth's stored CO2? Is that manufacturing or freeing?
kristy

Titusville, FL

#35015 Apr 9, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course if you're a climate denier you have to believe that rapid rises in temperature like the past few decades have occurred before but just weren't picked up in Marcott's proxy record.
Well, why not apply a scientific test to see if they had, would they be picked up by the proxy record.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/04/03/smeari...
The answer? Yes, they would.
Another denier excuse fails to convince.
Well so good to see that you use Tamino as your source. I guess no more complaining about Watts since Tamino is a raging liberal. I saw his diatribe on his home page on how much he hates republicans and blames them for kids not getting their school lunches one day.

Anyway, Tamino needs to send his paper to a journal since he has it all figured out. But since he didn't, he has to go through peer review on the web. I guess he didn't like some of the peer review on his spikes and deleted comments from his site by someone who was actually trying to have a scientific discussion. But you know that goes against the settled science. Can't let anyone question your methods.

Here is what is being questioned about Tamino's spikes:

Tamino claims he has added 3 spikes to the Marcott et al proxy data and the Marcott et al process detects them. This, he then proposes, is proof that there are no 20th century spikes in the Holocene. This claim appears to run counter to a prediction I made recently in a WUWT post; that as you increase the proxy resolution you are more likely to find spikes. Having had my reply disappeared at Tamino’s site, I thought readers at WUWT might be interested. I don’t believe Tamino’s conclusion follows from his results. Rather, I believe he has demonstrated the truth of my original prediction. What needs to be understood is that adding a spike to the proxy data is not the same as adding a spike to the proxies. This is where people get confused.

Read more:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/07/marcott...


kristy

Titusville, FL

#35016 Apr 9, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
Global warming Deniers. I've seen it on these boards and other boards as well. Don't pretend it doesn't happen.
Glad to hear you accept that warming is taking place, at least!:)
I have always known the globe is warming. This is nothing new.
kristy

Titusville, FL

#35017 Apr 9, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
You.
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Rational people do best by ignoring you, not engaging in some sort of phoney polite debate that you always demand.
Does that make you not rational?

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) 4 min Realtime 1,404,700
News FDA Signals Relaxing Gay Blood Donation Policy 50 min Orville 4
News Why Suzanne Somers loves bioidentical hormones (Jun '09) 3 hr Chaimpie 93
News Orlando massacre spurs fear, solidarity among L... 4 hr Chaimpie 606
Robert Cooper (Jul '11) 15 hr Dewdrop 2
News Missing 5-year-old Florida girl likely was abdu... (Feb '09) 17 hr zazz 98,130
keep a word----drop a word (Feb '11) 17 hr Princess Hey 19,103

Orlando Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Orlando Mortgages