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

Full story: Newsday 48,606
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Full Story
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...

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#35999 May 20, 2013
Nobody can measure whether you buy gasoline to keep a reserve or burn. Those CO2 from fossil fuel figures are fantasy.

Even if true, there's more loud music now, than in 1751, maybe that causes climate change. There are the same number of experiments testing that hypothesis as AGW: none.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#36000 May 20, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Mainstream Chinese "science researchers" back in full swing:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100749575
Not to worry I'm sure they were only looking for a new recipe for fried rice.
Teddy R

Mclean, VA

#36001 May 20, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
I asked for a quote from a scientist involved, not your idiot misrepresentations.
Obviously you can't find one.
Yes, I know you did - the usual lame strawman dodge.

No "scientist" required for such a simple common-sense observation here, short stuff. Not a scientific question - it's a practical, political question of societal credibility.

In my line of work, if I made decisions affecting the public's health and welfare and made diversions of scarce societal resources based on models that turned out to be this uncertain and defective, I'd be fired, if not in jail.

You think your precious and now demonstrably unreliable models deserve some more deference? Spare us the lame dodge (well, statistically, if we wait another 100 years and continue "tweaking" the data and the feedback fudge factors, they'll get close enough to capture the overall TREND."

The word used - BY THE SCIENTIST - was "uncertainty."

Uncertainty.

Uncertainty.

Practice saying it - you need it.

The models don't measure up, and your SCIENTISTS (the honest ones) right now are the first saying they don't completely know why.

Admit it. C'mon - you can do it.
Snowbird

La Fayette, KY

#36002 May 20, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>
Speaking of your generation, which problem did you guys solve? I wager that yours created more but never attempted to solve any.
Let's see:

Developed and mass distributed vaccines that prevent almost all of the great epidemic diseases that once killed millions of people.

Built most of the world's infrastructure, things like water works that provide clean drinking water - related to above.

Developed new crops, fertilizers, chemicals, etc. without which billions of people would starve.

I guess we did create more than we solved. If we'd left things alone there would be a lot fewer people in the world who have to be fed, housed, transported, etc.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#36003 May 20, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>CO2 isn't toxic at atmospheric levels. Quite the opposite, it's necessary for life.
How is using the scientific method anti-climate?
You might ask how those poor people in Oklahoma City enjoy breathing that good clean air right now. It's a sad natural event but all of us have contributed to this to make it UNNATURAL or turbo charged!

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/20/us/oklahoma...

http://www.strategic-risk.eu/global-warming-t...
litesong

Everett, WA

#36004 May 20, 2013
snowbird wrote:
Developed and mass distributed vaccines that prevent almost all of the great epidemic diseases that once killed millions of people.
Built most of the world's infrastructure, things like water works that provide clean drinking water - related to above.
Developed new crops, fertilizers, chemicals, etc. without which billions of people would starve.
I guess we did create more than we solved.
Snowbird wrote:
I don't really care what happens 50, 100, or 200 years in the future. Future generations can solve the problems that the(y)(sic) have just like every other generation in the past did.
toxic topix AGW deniers, very often without science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc & no science & mathematics degrees, readily take credit for the results from greatly educated people & their developments, that toxic topix AGW deniers never had & never created.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#36005 May 20, 2013
Snowbird wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's see:
Developed and mass distributed vaccines that prevent almost all of the great epidemic diseases that once killed millions of people.
Built most of the world's infrastructure, things like water works that provide clean drinking water - related to above.
Developed new crops, fertilizers, chemicals, etc. without which billions of people would starve.
I guess we did create more than we solved. If we'd left things alone there would be a lot fewer people in the world who have to be fed, housed, transported, etc.
You disappoint a lot.

You are taking credit for the 20th century. Which generation is that?

Overall, last century is a shame for humanity. You should know why. The C emissions constitute only one of the problems:

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...

Another? All the wars alone totaled probably 200 million deaths.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#36006 May 20, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Nobody can measure whether you buy gasoline to keep a reserve or burn. Those CO2 from fossil fuel figures are fantasy.
Even if true, there's more loud music now, than in 1751, maybe that causes climate change. There are the same number of experiments testing that hypothesis as AGW: none.
You are dismissed.

Go help OK-City.
What

Belgorod, Russia

#36007 May 20, 2013
STOP THE RELIGIOUS INSANITY AND INTOLERANCE!

There is no "God's wrath".

We are merely insignificant ants to the REAL God of the ENTIRE UNIVERSE.

Just like, it is not the "will of God" if someone dies or something bad happens. It's just another religious stupidism to instill fear and guilt in the eyes of the "REAL GOD" who really couldn't give a crap about his ants destroying their own planet in a death race to breed like rabbits and over populate it.

And extraterrestrial Aliens.

We can't forget about all the illegal aliens here without a visa.

Nevertheless, may God BLESS all of us in the violent earth changes that are coming (and already happening). This will effect ALL OF US.

And you CAN'T EAT MONEY, HONEY.

Well, you CAN, but it won't give you much in the way of nutrients.

Soylent green however, gives you ALL the vital nutrients you need to survive. So BBQ your neighbors to save the planet!
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#36008 May 20, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Actually, you're not really off-topic.

The denier mindset is generally a conservative mindset, and the really delusional ones are the most conservative. It's a phenomenon that's totally related to climate change, in a psychotic incarnation.

There are studies....
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#36009 May 20, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Nobody can measure whether you buy gasoline to keep a reserve or burn. Those CO2 from fossil fuel figures are fantasy.
Even if true, there's more loud music now, than in 1751, maybe that causes climate change. There are the same number of experiments testing that hypothesis as AGW: none.
But, Brian, you already said you doan need no steenking experiment.

This is what you wrote on 3/28/13:
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.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#36010 May 20, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>CO2 isn't toxic at atmospheric levels. Quite the opposite, it's necessary for life.
How is using the scientific method anti-climate?
But, Brian, you already said you doan need no steenking scientific method.

This is what you wrote on 3/28/13:
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.

You already believe in mitigation. You said you did. You named a process and pointed to an example. You have no argument anymore, if you ever had one.

Unless, of course, you're a LIAR!?!?
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#36011 May 20, 2013
BINGO!
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#36012 May 20, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I know you did - the usual lame strawman dodge.
No "scientist" required for such a simple common-sense observation here, short stuff. Not a scientific question - it's a practical, political question of societal credibility.
In my line of work, if I made decisions affecting the public's health and welfare and made diversions of scarce societal resources based on models that turned out to be this uncertain and defective, I'd be fired, if not in jail.
You think your precious and now demonstrably unreliable models deserve some more deference? Spare us the lame dodge (well, statistically, if we wait another 100 years and continue "tweaking" the data and the feedback fudge factors, they'll get close enough to capture the overall TREND."
The word used - BY THE SCIENTIST - was "uncertainty."
Uncertainty.
Uncertainty.
Practice saying it - you need it.
The models don't measure up, and your SCIENTISTS (the honest ones) right now are the first saying they don't completely know why.
Admit it. C'mon - you can do it.
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Wildly?
Go on, please quote one of the scientists involved who says that.
As I thought, you couldn't.
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#36013 May 20, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
In my line of work, if I made decisions affecting the public's health and welfare and made diversions of scarce societal resources based on models that turned out to be this uncertain and defective, I'd be fired, if not in jail.
If you made decisions based on circular reasoning (the report proves models are wildly inaccurate, because I say it proves models are wildly inaccurate), reads what he wants to into scientific debate. makes up straw man arguments rather than troubling himself with what science actually says, and ignored the complexities of the real science even when he has his nose rubbed in them, I hope you'd be fired.

I'd hope somebody would spot that you have don't care about the science involved, but are a superannuated ranting ideologue desperate to validate his ideology before he shuffles off this mortal coil, an ignorant, reckless old fool nobody should listen to.

Here is a sane analysis of the science involved.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23565-a...
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#36014 May 20, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
The word used - BY THE SCIENTIST - was "uncertainty."
Uncertainty.
Uncertainty.
Practice saying it - you need it.
The models don't measure up, and your SCIENTISTS (the honest ones) right now are the first saying they don't completely know why.
Admit it. C'mon - you can do it.
Estimates of climate sensitivity have always contained uncertainty- this is clearly stated. Straw man argument.

This new report says that models may be 20% too high over coming decades- not "wildly inaccurate". Exaggeration.

Scientists have always admitted that ocean circulation patterns are hard to model and contain uncertainties. Straw man.

There is a debate in the scientific community about what will happen over the next few years. Some scientists believe the deeper ocean could stop absorbing heat and we might not see reduced warming at all. Straw man and ignoring the complexities of the argument.

There is debate over what will happen in the long term. Some scientists believe the climate sensitivity figure needs to come down by 30%; others put more trust in the paleoclimate data. Straw man and ignoring the complexities of the deabte.

Even the scientists who think the climate sensitivity figure needs to come down still recognise that we are putting so much CO2 into the atmosphere that we need to reduce emissions.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/ma...

You consistently ignore what science and scientists say in favour of your own stupid straw man arguments.

You're a ranting ideologue blind to rational evidence.

Your advice is foolish and dangerous to future generations.

You're fired!
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#36015 May 21, 2013
There is no uncertainty: Teddy is FIRED!
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#36016 May 21, 2013
teddy r stupid wrote:
Uncertainty. Uncertainty. Uncertainty.
Certainly,'teddy r stupid' continually betting against the house(without science, mathematics, astronomy, physics, algebra & pre-calc in its poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa), guarantees he will NOT have money to bet against the house.
TrollBot

Mclean, VA

#36018 May 21, 2013
The Useless SpaceCase wrote:
<quoted text>
(Another tediously zero-value and inane troll snipped)
Troll. Ignore.

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

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) 4 min red and right 1,144,592
CASEY: Does the State Have the Goods to Convict? (Mar '10) 3 hr Tony 489,665
The alphabet (Jun '06) 4 hr Princess Hey 1,155
5000 post wins (Feb '13) 4 hr Princess Hey 4,299
keep a word----drop a word (Feb '11) 4 hr Princess Hey 17,256
New Game ***Last Word + 2 (Oct '11) 5 hr Princess Hey 11,997
One Word (Jul '10) 5 hr Princess Hey 1,915
Orlando Dating
Find my Match

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 ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 12:05 pm PST

Bleacher Report12:05PM
Betting Odds, Prediction for Giants vs. Jags
Bleacher Report 6:20 PM
How the Buccaneers Can Salvage Season, Make Most of Remaining Games
Bleacher Report 8:27 PM
Complete Giants Preview for Jags Game
Bleacher Report 9:00 PM
NFL Draft Scouting Notebook for Week 13
Bleacher Report 4:00 AM
Complete Bengals Preview for Bucs Game