Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 63619 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.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#35977 May 20, 2013
Good post FG, I think what has happened pre GFC where there was a huge support for carbon taxes and the like. Now not so much due harder financial times. Now they are clinging to old arguments already disproved and recycling them even though the message has not changed at all on the main game. That GW is a threat. Had the US signed Kyoto we would be in a lot better place right now. As it is Europe is making a mockery of carbon credits due to the financial hardship of member countries and on it goes. The timing of the GFC and doing something about abatement was like the perfect storm to kill off drastic measures needed. So it's like driving the car with the brake lines cut now.

Since: Jun 07

On the cusp

#35979 May 20, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
So it's like driving the car with the brake lines cut now.
Not quite, a car engine ignition can be switched off, low gear and hand/park/emergency brake applied.

CO2 isn't doing what catastrophists had hoped, it doesn't have the mojo.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#35980 May 20, 2013
Dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps the link was bad... you are suggesting that "Nature" will survive his hypothesis? The author said that Earth will likely "EXPLODE". What part of that quotation escapes comprehension?
So, Scientific Probability is a predudice?... Perhaps, but most likely in the case of CAGW.
Post Script:
"And to address your Mississippi comment",
What is the YOUR basis for describing you and fellow Mississippians as, in your own words... "dumb"?
Do you have some research to back up that premise? If not, I suspect it won't be too hard to find :-)
A very good evening to you , Sir.
-koolaid
The "Exploding Earth" theory I give about as much credence as the "Hollow Earth" theory. Junk.

My basis for the "dumb" description is the prejudice some people have that Mississippians and most all Southerners are dumb. Like most prejudices, that can be very misleading.

What was your implication with "Just in passing, I'll note you're"... From Mississippi?" What did you mean?
Crichton was correct

Columbus, OH

#35981 May 20, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
Crichton (CORRECT spelling - LOL) was a writer with some interest in science. He wasn't a climate scientist and turned into a Denier at the end of his life, much to his discredit.
Kooks like you think only in terms of celebrities like Crichton or Gore, and don't give a damn about real science. You're a joke.
Dismissed.
Oh my... I am dismissed by another want-to-be! Note: Topix does not qualify for "being published" in academic circles. It is also amusing that you use the terms "real science" and "global warming" in the same essay. One other interesting note: you seemed to also dismiss the inventor of global warming, Gore, in your rant. People like you, who get on trash sites like topix are obviously not the college professor types; just the posers. So, Prof. Poser... you are dismissed!
Snowbird

Paducah, KY

#35982 May 20, 2013
Retired Farmer wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think it would bother some of them then. The ones who remain well enough off to live in a secure gated community wouldn't care if the great mass of people lived like the poor in the movie "Soylent Green" as long as the society remained viable enough that the elite few could still make a profit off them. The others, the ones that identify with the elite and parrot their propaganda won't have a door for the beggers to knock on. They'll be among the beggers.
I don't really care what happens 50, 100, or 200 years in the future. Future generations can solve the problems that the have just like every other generation in the past did.
TrollBot

Reston, VA

#35983 May 20, 2013
The Chronically Content-Free SpaceCase wrote:
<quoted text>
(Another tediously pointless and inane troll snipped)
Troll. Ignore.

"Flagging trolls until Topix lets you killfile the scum."
Teddy R

Reston, VA

#35984 May 20, 2013
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment...

The alarmist model projections look wrong.
litesong

Mountlake Terrace, WA

#35985 May 20, 2013
me me me getting mine in the 69 position wrote:
Oil is natural.
....... naturally polluting.......

http://www.google.com/search...
Teddy R

Reston, VA

#35986 May 20, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
You are changing your argument. You specified China, NOT 'Communist China' and you have not shown that science papers (one measure of intellectual gains) are lower in China than the US. In fact, the US has dropped signficantly and China is now one of the big players in science and research, despite having most journals US based.
Mainstream Chinese "science researchers" back in full swing:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100749575
litesong

Mountlake Terrace, WA

#35987 May 20, 2013
teddy r stupid wrote:
The alarmist model projections look wrong.
Things look wrong when you have no science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra & pre-calc in your poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#35988 May 20, 2013
Furthermore, Teddy 'are' split-no personality trolls.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#35989 May 20, 2013
Snowbird wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't really care what happens 50, 100, or 200 years in the future. Future generations can solve the problems that the have just like every other generation in the past did.
Speaking of your generation, which problem did you guys solve? I wager that yours created more but never attempted to solve any.
TrollBot

Reston, VA

#35990 May 20, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Furthermore, Teddy 'are' split-no personality trolls.
SpaceCase wrote:
<quoted text>
(Another zero-value and inane troll snipped)
Troll. Ignore.

"Flagging trolls until Topix lets you killfile the scum."

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#35991 May 20, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/scie nce-environment-22567023
The alarmist model projections look wrong.
Amazing how you can read exactly what you want to hear into any study, even when the study author explicitly warns against it.

-----

The authors say there are ongoing uncertainties surrounding the role of aerosols in the atmosphere and around the issue of clouds.

"We would expect a single decade to jump around a bit but the overall trend is independent of it, and people should be exactly as concerned as before about what climate change is doing," said Dr Otto.

Is there any succour in these findings for climate sceptics who say the slowdown over the past 14 years means the global warming is not real?

"None. No comfort whatsoever," he said.
Teddy R

Reston, VA

#35992 May 20, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Amazing how you can read exactly what you want to hear into any study, even when the study author explicitly warns against it.
-----
The authors say there are ongoing uncertainties surrounding the role of aerosols in the atmosphere and around the issue of clouds.
"We would expect a single decade to jump around a bit but the overall trend is independent of it, and people should be exactly as concerned as before about what climate change is doing," said Dr Otto.
Is there any succour in these findings for climate sceptics who say the slowdown over the past 14 years means the global warming is not real?
"None. No comfort whatsoever," he said.
Yes, it is indeed amazing how much scope there is for cherry-picking and spinning results when the model predictions prove so much less certain and reliable than touted.

Which is the only solid conclusion to be reached here - the models have wildly over-predicted AGT rise.

Uncertainty.

Uncertainty.

Uncertainty.

The crack in AGW jihadi dogma that warmistas cannot admit to.

All bow down before the models.

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#35993 May 20, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, it is indeed amazing how much scope there is for cherry-picking and spinning results when the model predictions prove so much less certain and reliable than touted.
Which is the only solid conclusion to be reached here - the models have wildly over-predicted AGT rise.
Uncertainty.
Uncertainty.
Uncertainty.
The crack in AGW jihadi dogma that warmistas cannot admit to.
All bow down before the models.
Wildly?

Go on, please quote one of the scientists involved who says that.
Teddy R

Reston, VA

#35994 May 20, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Wildly?
Go on, please quote one of the scientists involved who says that.
AGT rise predictions twice actual data for the period discussed qualifies as "wildly" off the mark in MY lexicon.

The model predictions so far have been off by a factor of two.

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#35995 May 20, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
AGT rise predictions twice actual data for the period discussed qualifies as "wildly" off the mark in MY lexicon.
The model predictions so far have been off by a factor of two.
I asked for a quote from a scientist involved, not your idiot misrepresentations.

Obviously you can't find one.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#35996 May 20, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<As a troll for anti climate msgs you keep posting the same crap over n over and no matter how many times you that you post, it still makes no sense.
I mean science has told you if enough of you dump waste into a water supply it becomes toxic yet you cannot equate that same logic telling you if you dump into the atmosphere for long enough it also becomes toxic to your environment. What part of that equation do you not understand?
CO2 isn't toxic at atmospheric levels. Quite the opposite, it's necessary for life.

How is using the scientific method anti-climate?
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#35998 May 20, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>CO2 isn't toxic at atmospheric levels. Quite the opposite, it's necessary for life.
?
The present elevated atmospheric CO2 levels last occurred 3 million years ago.

Show why elevated levels are necessary for life. You can't.

But they are behind the present global climate change and first man-made extinction event.

From 1751 to 1995, the cumulative global total CO2 emissions from fossil fuel production were 250x10^^9 tonnes C. Only 25% of this total was emitted by 1950, 50% by 1973, and 75% by 1985.

http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/images...

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 Tampa Teacher @LoraJane Hates Christians, Promo... 41 min The Troll Stopper 363
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 hr Early to bed 1,534,359
News 'Casey Anthony: An American Murder Mystery' rev... 4 hr Revelations 166
Let's Chat (Jan '12) 5 hr Voyeur 19,229
News Residents learn how to deal, get rid of iguanas (May '09) 16 hr Bye bye 33
News Going to a garage sale? A few rules (Jun '09) Sun pissed off 22
Go Trump. Sun Bye bye 1

Orlando Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Orlando Mortgages