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

Full story: Newsday 49,310
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Full Story

“Let's X Change!!”

Level 4

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#36587 Jun 18, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
Drought and other factors have created historically low water marks for the Great Lakes, putting the $34 billion Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway shipping industry in peril, a situation that could send ominous ripples throughout the economy.
Water levels in the Great Lakes have been below their long-term averages during the past 14 years, and this winter the water in Lakes Michigan and Huron, the hardest-hit lakes, dropped to record lows, according to the Army Corps of Engineers. Keith Kompoltowicz, the chief of watershed hydrology with the corps’s Detroit district, said that in January “the monthly mean was the lowest ever recorded, going back to 1918.”
The impact does not stop with shippers.“The aggregate impact over time will be to raise the cost of commodities, which in turn will raise the price of manufacturing goods, which in turn raises the price to the consumer,” said Richard D. Stewart, the director of the Transportation and Logistics Research Center at the University of Wisconsin-Superior.
The cost of global warming has or will soon pass the cost of mitigation.
Lake Michigan and the other great lakes water levels have nothing to do with climate change!! There levels are cyclical....just like climate!!! Get over your hoax.. The real Americans aren't buying into your faux calamity. Do you think we're as stupid as you?
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#36588 Jun 18, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>lol....funny you should bring up roosevelt. he never met a program too big not to pump bigger money into. ww2 was his only saving grace, stupid. are you a wpa baby who was told how great he was by your sharecropper ma and pa?
Not funny that I brought up Roosevelt. If you knew anything about federal mortgage backing, you could thank him for helping you get a roof over your head.

Nope, my parents weren't old enough to work for the WPA. And my grandparents managed to stay busy too, running their own businesses.

ratdownthemuddle seriously needs to go back to school.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#36589 Jun 18, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>Lake Michigan and the other great lakes water levels have nothing to do with climate change!! There levels are cyclical....just like climate!!! Get over your hoax.. The real Americans aren't buying into your faux calamity. Do you think we're as stupid as you?
You poor soul, fighting against the majority. Rebel without a cause.

Everyone who knows anything up there says you're wrong. They have been taking the measurements and seeing the effects. You're a little blind know-nothing boy sitting in whatever slum you call home.

Even your polling data is off. A majority of Americans accept the fact that humans are causing climate change.

“Let's X Change!!”

Level 4

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#36590 Jun 18, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You poor soul, fighting against the majority. Rebel without a cause.
Everyone who knows anything up there says you're wrong. They have been taking the measurements and seeing the effects. You're a little blind know-nothing boy sitting in whatever slum you call home.
Even your polling data is off. A majority of Americans accept the fact that humans are causing climate change.
psssst.....even though science isn't based off consensus or majority opinion, you managed to still get your stats wrong, son! lol

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/...

i didn't know sharecropping was called a business, btw.

my home is over 4000 square, paid for in full by my own hard work two years ago. oh, you must be a 99er.....you think the "bankstas" caused the housing collapse, huh? LOL
Kyle

Wabash, IN

#36591 Jun 18, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>lol.....ALWAYS demanding other people do what you refuse to do yourself. typical....so typical.
Listen up, a-hole. I just linked - and you just quoted the link - to a pretty effin' compelling visualization of the current trend.

Your response was very scientific.

You spouted infantile insults and projection.

Thanks for the concession.

or would you care to HONESTLY discuss that video I linked to?
Kyle

Wabash, IN

#36592 Jun 18, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>There levels are cyclical....just like climate!!!
You've admitted to the action of CO2. CO2 is rising well over 100X faster than at any time in the historical record. How do you square those facts with your dismissal of climate as merely "cyclical"? Seems to me that you have some 'splainin' to do.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#36593 Jun 19, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>psssst. global warming is driven by political and economic interests........except you people won't get the joke until you're paying for what you promoted. a raw deal.
lol...
Really informative scientific treatise. But that is as good as I expected. You are an empty vessel.
Dont drink the koolaid

Minneapolis, MN

#36594 Jun 19, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
It's this simple. If any scientist had a coherent and sensible scientific revelation that we needn't be worried about fossil-fuel greenhouse-gas emissions causing a dangerous global warming problem, that scientist would write what would very quickly become the most celebrated research paper ever published. The publication would be in one of the world's most prestigious science journals, and that journal would be proud to have the honor and privilege. Literally hundreds of other scientists would quickly validate the research, and the author of the paper would become the most famously celebrated scientist in history.
http://globalecologist.org/talking.html
Yup, imagine a prestigious science journal basically admitting that they were deceptive ,stupid and just plain wrong about their position on AGW .

As they said in the "climate gate" email... will do whatever it takes to prevent such a paper from being published.

It is what climate scientists call their "scientific method".
Retired Farmer

Princeton, KY

#36595 Jun 19, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You gotta be some dumass 20-something kid who never paid attention in history class.
I wouldn't bet on it. I heard a college educated man in his mid-70s say the same thing the other day. He also said, "Anybody that wants a job can get a job. The ones that don't just need to get hungry enough."

Fellow went on to advocate cutting public education to the point that tax funded free school for most kids ended with the 8th grade and only taught reading, writing, and basic arithmetic.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#36597 Jun 19, 2013
Dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
Yup, imagine a prestigious science journal basically admitting that they were deceptive ,stupid and just plain wrong about their position on AGW .
As they said in the "climate gate" email... will do whatever it takes to prevent such a paper from being published.
It is what climate scientists call their "scientific method".
Yup, a great world wide conspiracy. LOL

If you don't get your information from those who study, just where do you get it? Bet I know.....
Dont drink the koolaid

Minneapolis, MN

#36598 Jun 19, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Yup, a great world wide conspiracy. LOL
If you don't get your information from those who study, just where do you get it? Bet I know.....
Another interesting assumption. But we get our information from the same sources. One difference is you tend to embrace the conclusions and prophecies made by the status quo where I tend to draw my own conclusions based on what seems rational. Yes, I know. You do not view my perspective as rational though I have yet to read a logical reason as to why... logical fallacies known in science as "appeal to authority"and "ad hominem" have been the only challenges to my various points of debate.

Sir, if you or any one else cares to debate Climate Change without relying on those two methods we could enjoy a truly intelligent conversation.

Sincerely,
koolaid
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#36599 Jun 19, 2013
Dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
Another interesting assumption. But we get our information from the same sources.
An untruth.
Dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
One difference is you tend to embrace the conclusions and prophecies made by the status quo
Status quo would be an invalid term. It is more properly the 'authoritative science' which is hardly a fixed value. Science by real scientists continues to move, hence not a 'status quo' ever.
Dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
where I tend to draw my own conclusions based on what seems rational. Yes, I know. You do not view my perspective as rational though I have yet to read a logical reason as to why... logical fallacies known in science as "appeal to authority"and "ad hominem" have been the only challenges to my various points of debate.
Sir, if you or any one else cares to debate Climate Change without relying on those two methods we could enjoy a truly intelligent conversation.
Sincerely,
koolaid
Dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
where I tend to draw my own conclusions based on what seems rational.
That is,to say, sounds good to you. Yes. You never let good science come between you and the answer you want.
Dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I know. You do not view my perspective as rational though I have yet to read a logical reason as to why
Logical? Logic is a way to go wrong with confidence, based on invalid premises and assumptions. Which you seem to 'like'. Reason and data are the only 'truths' and you avoid them.
Dont drink the koolaid wrote:
logical fallacies known in science as "appeal to authority"
Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy when IMPROPER authority is presented as validating a conclusion. That is YOUR line when you like the answer given. Taking the 'Authoritative science' from the actual experts is NOT 'appeal to authority'.
Dont drink the koolaid wrote:
"ad hominem" have been the only challenges to my various points of debate.
Pointing out that your 'authorities' are not valid in the climate sciences or are cranks is NOT 'ad hominem' but more 'peer review'.
Dont drink the koolaid wrote:
Sir, if you or any one else cares to debate Climate Change without relying on those two methods we could enjoy a truly intelligent conversation.
Sincerely,
koolaid
If you want an intelligent debate, you are going to have to give up these silly rants and actually select a point TO debate based on valid science. You are probably not up to it. Or at least you have never tried it in the past. But the issue is AGW, not climate change. Do you understand that the global average temperature has an effect on the 'heat engine' that is climate? Nobody knows exactly what that effect will be, but it is definitely disruptive to an economy that is predicated on a steady state. Adaption is EXPENSIVE when billion dollar investments are concerned. So do you want to debate AGW (science)? Even on the SUBJECT, you need to be returned to reason. It cannot augur well for your side in any real debate.

“Science not Conservatism”

Since: Jan 12

Progress, not Denial

#36600 Jun 19, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>psssst. global warming is driven by political and economic interests........except you people won't get the joke until you're paying for what you promoted. a raw deal.
lol...
False, but Denierism IS driven by political and economic interests - Big Energy's money and political support is behind practically all Denierism in one way or another. Green energy and reduction in fossil fuels is the LAST thing these very wealthy, powerful, and corrupt people want.

I'm sure they appreciate you carrying their water for them, though. Do they pay you? How much? I'll bet you work cheap...:)

“Let's X Change!!”

Level 4

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#36601 Jun 19, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
False, but Denierism IS driven by political and economic interests - Big Energy's money and political support is behind practically all Denierism in one way or another. Green energy and reduction in fossil fuels is the LAST thing these very wealthy, powerful, and corrupt people want.
I'm sure they appreciate you carrying their water for them, though. Do they pay you? How much? I'll bet you work cheap...:)
we humans create co2 just by living and breathing! I don't intend to support a tax on our rights to do that. I also don't need an agenda to defend that right, dumb azz .

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#36602 Jun 19, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>we humans create co2 just by living and breathing! I don't intend to support a tax on our rights to do that. I also don't need an agenda to defend that right, dumb azz .
Another stupid strawman. All animals emit CO2. Where do they ultimately get their carbon? From plants. Where do plants get their carbon? Ultimately from CO2 in the atmosphere. Plants do this by photosynthesis. Light reaction--(6CO2 + 6H20 -> C6H1206 + 6O2). Animals "burn" the glucose molecule by adding O2 and releasing CO2. C6H12O6 -> 6CO2 + 6H2O. Even you should be able to see that all that balances. No one is advocating a tax on those reactions. Get real!

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#36603 Jun 19, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
An untruth.
<quoted text>
Status quo would be an invalid term. It is more properly the 'authoritative science' which is hardly a fixed value. Science by real scientists continues to move, hence not a 'status quo' ever.
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
That is,to say, sounds good to you. Yes. You never let good science come between you and the answer you want.
<quoted text>
Logical? Logic is a way to go wrong with confidence, based on invalid premises and assumptions. Which you seem to 'like'. Reason and data are the only 'truths' and you avoid them.
<quoted text>
Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy when IMPROPER authority is presented as validating a conclusion. That is YOUR line when you like the answer given. Taking the 'Authoritative science' from the actual experts is NOT 'appeal to authority'.
<quoted text>
Pointing out that your 'authorities' are not valid in the climate sciences or are cranks is NOT 'ad hominem' but more 'peer review'.
<quoted text>
If you want an intelligent debate, you are going to have to give up these silly rants and actually select a point TO debate based on valid science. You are probably not up to it. Or at least you have never tried it in the past. But the issue is AGW, not climate change. Do you understand that the global average temperature has an effect on the 'heat engine' that is climate? Nobody knows exactly what that effect will be, but it is definitely disruptive to an economy that is predicated on a steady state. Adaption is EXPENSIVE when billion dollar investments are concerned. So do you want to debate AGW (science)? Even on the SUBJECT, you need to be returned to reason. It cannot augur well for your side in any real debate.
My original synopsis still stands. Either he is colossally ignorant, politically motivated or a paid shill.
Dont drink the koolaid

Minneapolis, MN

#36604 Jun 19, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
An untruth.
<quoted text>
Status quo would be an invalid term. It is more properly the 'authoritative science' which is hardly a fixed value. Science by real scientists continues to move, hence not a 'status quo' ever.
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
That is,to say, sounds good to you. Yes. You never let good science come between you and the answer you want.
<quoted text>
Logical? Logic is a way to go wrong with confidence, based on invalid premises and assumptions. Which you seem to 'like'. Reason and data are the only 'truths' and you avoid them.
<quoted text>
Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy when IMPROPER authority is presented as validating a conclusion. That is YOUR line when you like the answer given. Taking the 'Authoritative science' from the actual experts is NOT 'appeal to authority'.
<quoted text>
Pointing out that your 'authorities' are not valid in the climate sciences or are cranks is NOT 'ad hominem' but more 'peer review'.
<quoted text>
If you want an intelligent debate, you are going to have to give up these silly rants and actually select a point TO debate based on valid science. You are probably not up to it. Or at least you have never tried it in the past. But the issue is AGW, not climate change. Do you understand that the global average temperature has an effect on the 'heat engine' that is climate? Nobody knows exactly what that effect will be, but it is definitely disruptive to an economy that is predicated on a steady state. Adaption is EXPENSIVE when billion dollar investments are concerned. So do you want to debate AGW (science)? Even on the SUBJECT, you need to be returned to reason. It cannot augur well for your side in any real debate.
where to begin :-)
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#36605 Jun 19, 2013
Dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text> where to begin :-)
That is only ONE of your problems.

How about with the atmospheric balance BEFORE AGW? How much do you know?

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#36606 Jun 19, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>we humans create co2 just by living and breathing! I don't intend to support a tax on our rights to do that. I also don't need an agenda to defend that right, dumb azz .
Listen, you pay someone to deal with your crap that comes from other parts of your body. It sure makes sense to pay for the crap that comes out of your mouth. All have a big impact on the environment.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#36607 Jun 19, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
You're a little blind know-nothing boy sitting in whatever slum you call home.
Its slum home is......'middleofthedownwrongg ully' where its open sewer is.

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) 53 min shinningelectr0n 1,155,632
Florida clerks won't give gays marriage licenses 1 hr Rainbow Kid 19
Christmas lights? 1 hr Jaimee 1
Inspiration Lane - Don't Quit (May '09) 9 hr Murph 70,621
Missing 5-year-old Florida girl likely was abdu... (Feb '09) 13 hr zazz 96,692
CASEY: Does the State Have the Goods to Convict? (Mar '10) 14 hr Top of the day 2 ya 490,362
Review: ABC Used Auto Parts $$ cash for junk ca... Wed Obviously Obvious 2
Orlando Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

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 11:09 am PST

NBC Sports11:09AM
Sen'Derrick Marks: Pro Bowl balloting is BS if I don't make it
Bleacher Report 9:58 PM
Predicting Bucs' Biggest Offseason Roster Moves
NBC Sports 5:27 AM
Bucs control their own destiny for top pick in the 2015 NFL Draft
NBC Sports11:18 AM
Josh McCown not ready to retire
Bleacher Report 1:23 PM
Previewing Buccaneers' 2015 Free Agency