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

Full story: Newsday

When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore.
Comments
33,921 - 33,940 of 46,326 Comments Last updated 12 hrs ago

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#35975 May 19, 2013
Dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting perspective. Unfortunately, I suspect that you rank in the majority with that way of thinking.
I say "unfortunately" because this allows, right or wrong, the self describer to define what conservative means.
What does, for example, a self proclaimed conservative saying 'climate change is a fact' or 'marriage is a HUMAN RIGHT that even gay humans are to be entitled' make him? A liar or an individual with principled beliefs that do not agree with all other conservatives?
This line of quire is not consistent with this thread so I will leave it at that.
-koolaid
I knew this would be the comeback but in the end game one man or 20 women disagreeing with a conservative position still doesn't change the group opinion as a whole.
When it comes to a vote unless its a conscience vote no laws will change.

One example to demonstrate boxed conservative thinking is say the War on Drugs. It costs the community gazillion$, uses up valuable health & policing resources and is a major contributor to crime.
Numerous high level think tanks all over the world came up with the same conclusion. Legalise every street drug and the problem is becomes in tune with all the other addictive legal substances. its "manageable". Now try and pass that one through a true conservative logic process & its the same with climate warnings.
It can't be accepted because it would require too much change in lifestyle or what their concept is of being morally wrong. Those are the conservative chains that true liberals don't have. I'll make this the last post on that subject.
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#35976 May 19, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
This is what i find ironic, deniers are mostly conservatives by nature. The arch enemy to conservatives is communism which they quite happily tie in with Liberalism but its nothing like it.
The BIG fear for them is controlled thought or government taking away your so called "freedoms"
Here is the irony, a Liberal can think & problem solve with no rules. Yet a conservative thinks with so many rules attached they can end up stuck in mud. Who is really Free out of the two ?
A conservative is chained to rules, a Liberal is free to wonder.
The current issue of the journal American Behavioral Scientist (ABS) is devoted to the phenomenon of climate change scepticism and denial and brings together studies and essays looking at the role of the media in trying to keep alive those climate change theories which have been under permanent cardiac arrest for the last two decades or more.

One self-explanatory study is titled "Leading Voices in the Denier Choir : Conservative Columnists' Dismissal of Global Warming and Denigration of Climate Science".

The authors, Professor Riley Dunlap and Shaun Elsasser, both of Oklahoma State University, looked at 203 columns written by more than 80 conservative writers published between 2007 and 2010. The authors conclude:

The overall results reveal a highly dismissive view of climate change and critical stance toward climate science among these influential conservative pundits. They play a crucial role in amplifying the denial machine's messages to a broad segment of the American public.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/planet-...

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

Grove City, 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

La Fayette, 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

Mclean, 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

Mclean, VA

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

The alarmist model projections look wrong.
litesong

Everett, 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

Mclean, 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

Everett, 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

Mclean, 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

Mclean, 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

Mclean, 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.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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) 9 min Stu Rumsfeld 1,100,608
CASEY: Does the State Have the Goods to Convict? (Mar '10) 1 hr Double Jeopardy 486,627
Change one letter game (Sep '11) 2 hr Princess Hey 2,494
two words (Jul '10) 2 hr Princess Hey 26,868
Alphabet Game (Apr '12) 2 hr Princess Hey 9,045
keep a word----drop a word (Feb '11) 2 hr Princess Hey 17,047
The alphabet (Jun '06) 2 hr Princess Hey 1,049
Let's Chat (Jan '12) 9 hr The Real Missy 17,632
•••
•••
•••

Orlando Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

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 ]
•••