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

Full story: Newsday 49,174
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Full Story
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#37577 Aug 1, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
One can't have a debate on science with someone who doesn't understand science.
One can't have a scientific debate with someone who confuses scientific statements about one hemisphere of the Earth with statements about the globe as a whole; someone who confuses scientific statements about attribution of events with statements about attribution of a series of events; someone who confuses scientific statements about adjusted temperatures with statements about unadjusted temperatures...
Add this to the list:

One can't have a scientific debate with someone who confuses scientific statements about daytime temperatures with statements about average daily temperature.

And what's happening in the Arctic is a climate shift, not just weather.
chisholm

Columbus, OH

#37578 Aug 2, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
By 1974, many scientists were predicting global cooling. The IFIAS met in Bonn Germany in 1974 and put out this statement: "The facts of present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failures within a decade......edit....So along comes global warming and again, we have to do something to fix it, NOW, and it is the same plan as for the scare of global cooling, funnel money from developed countries to developing countries to avoid the calamities of climate change.
Continued next post.
Basically, a big pile of right wing paranoia and hooey. "States rights" and nationalism are outdated ways of thinking, and you're simply going to see more international control on everything in our world - or we're going to make ourselves extinct. Climate is just one issue where this is going to become important.

I'm not a big fan of the carbon tax thing, myself, though...to me it just shifts things around and continues to enable polluters rather than moving to new technologies and obsoleting the old ones.

Your comments about climate are mostly discredited nonsense, no one but Deniers buys that 'scientists were all behind global cooling in the '70s' crap any more. And even if some did believe that was the case, we know they were simply wrong - the globe isn't cooling, it's warming. Period. There's no real debate there at all.

Finally, the World Bank and IMF don't move our precious money into those nasty, undeserving thirld-world countries...they PREY on those countries. Huge loans, crippling repayment conditions, imposed sanctions and austerity programs which hurt average citizens...those aren't the actions of radicals shovelling our cash into Africa but bloodsucking capitalist leeches making a buck off of Africa, like Europeans and Americans have done for centuries.

Get a clue, lady. You don't have one now.
chisholm

Columbus, OH

#37579 Aug 2, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Now how am I supposed to know what you mean. But stop conflating weather with climate.
clap...clap...clap

Excellently played, very disingenuous...:)
B as in B S as in S

Minneapolis, MN

#37582 Aug 2, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>LOL.
Another nonscience post. Not debate-worthy.
Kettle Pot Black LOL
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#37583 Aug 2, 2013
B as in B S as in S wrote:
<quoted text>
Kettle Pot Black LOL
LOL but you are all wet.
B as in B S as in S

Minneapolis, MN

#37584 Aug 2, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Told ya!
Skillfully argued my good man!
Perhaps the most compelling defense of the AGW belief system to date :-)
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#37585 Aug 2, 2013
chisholm wrote:
<quoted text>
clap...clap...clap
Excellently played,...:
knock knock ... that poster is furthest from this adverb.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#37586 Aug 2, 2013
Perhaps a look into the USA of the future.

http://www.dvice.com/2013-8-2/how-hot-will-un...
JBH

Richmond, Canada

#37587 Aug 3, 2013
++++++++

19 hrs ago | Posted by: roboblogger
Russia a G8 'outlier' for granting asylum to Snowden: Baird
Full story: CTV
Canada has added its voice to those criticizing Russia for granting asylum to U.S. National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden

++++++===

This current Conservative government does not speak for the consensus of people of Canada about Snowden case. A Great majority of Canadian people support Snowden, just like those in USA and people all around the world.

This is a free country and people can think whatever and however they think in a democracy.

This present government has not reflected nor represented the sentiments and positions of most Canadians in the democracy, like former one.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/canada-joins-n... ?

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#37588 Aug 3, 2013
JBH wrote:
++++++++
19 hrs ago | Posted by: roboblogger
Russia a G8 'outlier' for granting asylum to Snowden: Baird
Full story: CTV
Canada has added its voice to those criticizing Russia for granting asylum to U.S. National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden
++++++===
This current Conservative government does not speak for the consensus of people of Canada about Snowden case. A Great majority of Canadian people support Snowden, just like those in USA and people all around the world.
This is a free country and people can think whatever and however they think in a democracy.
This present government has not reflected nor represented the sentiments and positions of most Canadians in the democracy, like former one.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/canada-joins-n... ?
The catch-22 of powerful countries is there has to be some point where the media can be controlled. China has it down to a fine art form. But in democracies these days it tends to be owned by less competitors & driven by the likes of Murdoch & co. Then the news you get may be filtered by a political bent or exchanging favours for those in high office. The integrity of journalism gets compromised, as was highlighted dramatically in Britain. So sites like Wikileaks need to be around otherwise we would never know what goes on. However whistle blowers should only get protection if they are exposing crime or illegal activity otherwise it's their own actions that are criminal. Things like the BP oil spill, Chernobyl, the nuke meltdown in Japan go through damage control first before the public gets to know the real story. The US learnt it's lesson from Vietnam where journalists were filing stories on the nightly news that was fuelling the anti war lobby. So when Iraq came along everything was staged managed with tight control on what reporters could or could not do. Aljazeera gave the other side of the story with those so called smart bombs only taking out the bad guys you never saw. This infuriated the likes of Rumsfield & co & seriously thought about targeting their headquarters in the middle east, so it highlights the power of the media if not controlled.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#37589 Aug 3, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Add this to the list:
One can't have a scientific debate with someone who confuses scientific statements about daytime temperatures with statements about average daily temperature.
And what's happening in the Arctic is a climate shift, not just weather.
litesong said this:“The heat went to the Arctic, where temperatures have been mid-twenties defC(80degF)...... oh, yeah, & pushed Arctic cold to the south. Yeah....... winter or summer, heat is pushing Arctic cold to the south.”

The most widely used definition of the Arctic, the area north of the Arctic Circle, where, on the June solstice, the sun does not set is used in astronomical and some geographical contexts. However, in a context of climate, the two most widely used definitions in this context are the area north of the northern tree line, and the area in which the average temperature of the warmest month is less than 10 °C (50 °F), which are nearly coincident over most land areas (NSIDC).
This definition of the Arctic can be further divided into four different regions:
• The Arctic Basin includes the Arctic Ocean within the average minimum extent of sea ice.
• The Canadian Arctic Archipelago includes the large and small islands, except Greenland, on the Canadian side of the Arctic, and the waters between them.
• The entire island of Greenland, although its ice sheet and ice-free coastal regions have different climatic conditions.
• The Arctic waters that are not covered by sea ice in late summer, including Hudson Bay, Baffin Bay, Ungava Bay, the Davis, Denmark, Hudson and Bering Straits, and the Labrador, Norwegian,(ice-free all year), Greenland, Baltic, Barents (southern part ice-free all year), Kara, Laptev, Chukchi, Okhotsk, sometimes Beaufort and Bering Seas.

The subarctic is a region in the Northern Hemisphere immediately south of the true Arctic and covering much of Alaska, Canada, Iceland, the north of Scandinavia, Siberia, northern Mongolia, much of Scotland and even parts of northern England. Generally, subarctic regions fall between 50°N and 70°N latitude, depending on local climates.

Litesong in no way specified that he/she was speaking of subarctic temperatures and I showed that the Arctic in no way has had 80 degree temperatures as shown by the graph I posted. In order for there to have been 80 F temperatures in the Arctic, you know that the mean would have to be much greater than 35 F.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#37590 Aug 3, 2013
chisholm wrote:
<quoted text>
Basically, a big pile of right wing paranoia and hooey. "States rights" and nationalism are outdated ways of thinking, and you're simply going to see more international control on everything in our world - or we're going to make ourselves extinct.
Your comments about climate are mostly discredited nonsense, no one but Deniers buys that 'scientists were all behind global cooling in the '70s' crap any more. And even if some did believe that was the case, we know they were simply wrong - the globe isn't cooling, it's warming. Period. There's no real debate there at all.
I wasn't arguing whether global cooling or global warming was happening, my example is what politicians and world leaders do in the name of a crisis either real or perceived. At the same time the global cooling "crisis" was picking up steam, so too was the population bomb. Governments and banks and corporations take a crisis and use it; in this case, the starvation of the masses.

So in your utopia of international control, who controls the money system and the economies of all the nations around the globe? Who decides how each country should spend their money? Well wake up, because we are already in your utopia and you don't even realize it. All you see are those nasty corporations, but you don't see how those nasty corporations get the ability to do what they do. If you want to know who is destroying the environment and creating corporate welfare, look no further than the IMF and the World Bank. IMF policies promote corporate welfare.

• The IMF is imposing a fundamentally flawed development model:

Unlike the path historically followed by the industrialized countries, the IMF forces countries from the Global South to prioritize export production over the development of diversified domestic economies. Nearly 80 percent of all malnourished children in the developing world live in countries where farmers have been forced to shift from food production for local consumption to the production of export crops destined for wealthy countries. The IMF also requires countries to eliminate assistance to domestic industries while providing benefits for multinational corporations -- such as forcibly lowering labor costs. Small businesses and farmers can't compete. Sweatshop workers in free trade zones set up by the IMF and World Bank earn starvation wages, live in deplorable conditions, and are unable to provide for their families. The cycle of poverty is perpetuated, not eliminated, as governments' debt to the IMF grows.

I suggest you read this, because this is your international control in action: Top 10 reasons to oppose the IMF

http://www.globalexchange.org/resources/wbimf...

You stated this:“Basically, a big pile of right wing paranoia and hooey. "States rights" and nationalism are outdated ways of thinking, and you're simply going to see more international control on everything in our world - or we're going to make ourselves extinct.”

Let me ask you this. Where do we the people have the most control? That would be our local and state governments. As our Federal government takes more and more control away from local and state, they are taking more control away from you and me. Retired Farmer recently complained about a canned response from his US senator. RF stated that senator was just telling the people what he thought they wanted to hear. That’s exactly what the UN/IMF/World Bank do. They tell us they are here to keep peace, stop poverty and starvation, but in reality they are doing the opposite. You tell me we have to have more international control, but who does this international entity answer to? Do they run for election? Do we get a say as to who makes the decisions? Or are they just appointed with no accountability?
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#37591 Aug 3, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
The catch-22 of powerful countries is there has to be some point where the media can be controlled. China has it down to a fine art form. But in democracies these days it tends to be owned by less competitors & driven by the likes of Murdoch & co. Then the news you get may be filtered by a political bent or exchanging favours for those in high office. The integrity of journalism gets compromised, as was highlighted dramatically in Britain. So sites like Wikileaks need to be around otherwise we would never know what goes on. However whistle blowers should only get protection if they are exposing crime or illegal activity otherwise it's their own actions that are criminal. Things like the BP oil spill, Chernobyl, the nuke meltdown in Japan go through damage control first before the public gets to know the real story. The US learnt it's lesson from Vietnam where journalists were filing stories on the nightly news that was fuelling the anti war lobby. So when Iraq came along everything was staged managed with tight control on what reporters could or could not do. Aljazeera gave the other side of the story with those so called smart bombs only taking out the bad guys you never saw. This infuriated the likes of Rumsfield & co & seriously thought about targeting their headquarters in the middle east, so it highlights the power of the media if not controlled.
Just wondering your thoughts on MSNBC. Watch this video and then explain to me where the outrage on MSNBC is now.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#37592 Aug 3, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Just wondering your thoughts on MSNBC. Watch this video and then explain to me where the outrage on MSNBC is now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =u19KHbTJEOkXX
PBS did a long doco on this in 2007. Fact is I have no problem with anyone monitoring net traffic for clues on terror activity. But it does have the potential for "Hoover" like files on high profile people that could be used for other purposes such as blackmail to obtain funding etc. So someone like Snowden exposing this was NOT new, it was known for a long time. All American allies have this type of surveillance as the new battle grounds have no borders either these days. At it's worse is the Mcarthy era when the communists replaced the terrorists but too many innocent ppl got caught in that web of paranoia. Which is why I favour those wikileaks type organisations. There needs to be balance. Because there are plenty of examples how Murdoch uses his power in numerous countries to influence political outcomes in elections when his bottom line is under threat. He played a major role in England throwing Brown out of office. He can also switch sides for precisely that reason as well. Right now he is doing exactly that in Australia because the current government is rolling out high speed cable broadband country wide which is a threat to his sat cable network profits. As a result every newspaper & media outlet has anti government articles 365 days a year while he controls up to 75% of media. All things corporate don't always add up to what is good and wholesome. Yet tea party type conservatives keep ranting on about minimalist governments but that reality ends up government by corporate whom no one elects.

http://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/spying_on...
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#37593 Aug 4, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
PBS did a long doco on this in 2007. Fact is I have no problem with anyone monitoring net traffic for clues on terror activity. But it does have the potential for "Hoover" like files on high profile people that could be used for other purposes such as blackmail to obtain funding etc. So someone like Snowden exposing this was NOT new, it was known for a long time. All American allies have this type of surveillance as the new battle grounds have no borders either these days. At it's worse is the Mcarthy era when the communists replaced the terrorists but too many innocent ppl got caught in that web of paranoia. Which is why I favour those wikileaks type organisations. There needs to be balance. Because there are plenty of examples how Murdoch uses his power in numerous countries to influence political outcomes in elections when his bottom line is under threat. He played a major role in England throwing Brown out of office. He can also switch sides for precisely that reason as well. Right now he is doing exactly that in Australia because the current government is rolling out high speed cable broadband country wide which is a threat to his sat cable network profits. As a result every newspaper & media outlet has anti government articles 365 days a year while he controls up to 75% of media. All things corporate don't always add up to what is good and wholesome. Yet tea party type conservatives keep ranting on about minimalist governments but that reality ends up government by corporate whom no one elects.
http://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/spying_on...
My point about Olbermann and MSNBC wasn't about whether FISA is right or wrong, it's about how it is portrayed in the media. When MSNBC reported on it during the Bush years, it was fascist. Do you hear anyone on MSNBC calling Obama a fascist? He continued the monitoring and even expanded it. Whether or not you think it is okay is not the issue. It's how it was reported. You claim Al Jazeera is non-biased, but yet you don't show how Dave Marash quit in 2008 due to Al Jazeera's anti-American slant or the reporters who quit in 2012 due to bias in the Syria coverage or the reporters who quit in 2013 due to Al Jazeera's bias towards the Muslim Brotherhood. You also don't show how the majority of the American Media slants stories to change policy all the time, prime example is the total monopolizing of all news to show that a Hispanic male shooting a black male is somehow white rage and laws much be changed. But then not reporting things like McDonald versus Chicago in which a black man was denied a permit for a gun to protect himself in his crime-ridden neighborhood. You bring up Murdoch but yet don't bring up that until very recently GE owned NBC and the CEO of NBC was an adviser to Obama and that GE did very well in profits while not paying any taxes in 2010. How is that you preach objectivity, but don't even do it yourself.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#37594 Aug 4, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
My point about Olbermann and MSNBC wasn't about whether FISA is right or wrong, it's about how it is portrayed in the media. When MSNBC reported on it during the Bush years, it was fascist. Do you hear anyone on MSNBC calling Obama a fascist? He continued the monitoring and even expanded it. Whether or not you think it is okay is not the issue. It's how it was reported. You claim Al Jazeera is non-biased, but yet you don't show how Dave Marash quit in 2008 due to Al Jazeera's anti-American slant or the reporters who quit in 2012 due to bias in the Syria coverage or the reporters who quit in 2013 due to Al Jazeera's bias towards the Muslim Brotherhood. You also don't show how the majority of the American Media slants stories to change policy all the time, prime example is the total monopolizing of all news to show that a Hispanic male shooting a black male is somehow white rage and laws much be changed. But then not reporting things like McDonald versus Chicago in which a black man was denied a permit for a gun to protect himself in his crime-ridden neighborhood. You bring up Murdoch but yet don't bring up that until very recently GE owned NBC and the CEO of NBC was an adviser to Obama and that GE did very well in profits while not paying any taxes in 2010. How is that you preach objectivity, but don't even do it yourself.
Yep, the corporations and banks do control a good amount of the media. That is one of the most frightening things about our democratic form of government. If we do not get the unbiased facts, how are we going to make good decisions? The Murdoch bunch is undoubtedly more biased than most, however we do need more independent news sources. The National Enquirer sensationalist news and the poisoning by the extreme left and right wing media is undoubtedly harming our country.

The internet is a good possibility but the news sources are controlled by the organized sources like API etc. Mostly the internet simply rehashes junk from these sources. Of all the boogie men that FOX News presents, they fail to mention how the major corporations and banks are controlling the media.

NPR and PBS have both gone into this deeply. I am more apt to follow them than other sources. Of course the biased conservatives claim that they are liberal. I suppose by their definition, they are. But they are much less biased than the cons are.
JBH

Richmond, Canada

#37595 Aug 4, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
The catch-22 of powerful countries is there has to be some point where the media can be controlled. China has it down to a fine art form. But in democracies these days it tends to be owned by less competitors & driven by the likes of Murdoch & co. Then the news you get may be filtered by a political bent or exchanging favours for those in high office. The integrity of journalism gets compromised, as was highlighted dramatically in Britain. So sites like Wikileaks need to be around otherwise we would never know what goes on. However whistle blowers should only get protection if they are exposing crime or illegal activity otherwise it's their own actions that are criminal. Things like the BP oil spill, Chernobyl, the nuke meltdown in Japan go through damage control first before the public gets to know the real story. The US learnt it's lesson from Vietnam where journalists were filing stories on the nightly news that was fuelling the anti war lobby. So when Iraq came along everything was staged managed with tight control on what reporters could or could not do. Aljazeera gave the other side of the story with those so called smart bombs only taking out the bad guys you never saw. This infuriated the likes of Rumsfield & co & seriously thought about targeting their headquarters in the middle east, so it highlights the power of the media if not controlled.
==========

After Snowden was granted asylum by Russia, there was somewhere that Wikileaks issued some short statements which looked pretty good.
At this time, there are few nations, and obviously people around the world too, that sites like Wikileaks is a problem, except US.

There you go, if sites like Wikileaks can be providing interesting (as freedom to know) of information for people worldwide and let people make their own judgment, that sounds a fair deal.
JBH

Richmond, Canada

#37596 Aug 4, 2013
#+()_+)(*)

People around the world don't feel that sites like Wikileaks is a problem, except US.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#37597 Aug 4, 2013
JBH wrote:
#+()_+)(*)
People around the world don't feel that sites like Wikileaks is a problem, except US.
I can see why the US admin has a problem with Wikileaks and most other democratic free countries. It's mainly because of the freedom the west has, so most of the leaks will come from those countries.
The fear of retaliation is much less, not just for the whistle blower but for his or her family. As a result you won't see many stories break on corruption in China or Russia for instance by a whistle blower. The reason is obvious, because the response goes way beyond the individual. When countries tend to filter news and even sites like Wikileaks would have to be very brave to break a major story on Russia or China for example. The response would be with black-ops not in the court rooms unless they felt world wide exposure might give them some sort of protection, however I doubt it.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#37598 Aug 4, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
My point about Olbermann and MSNBC wasn't about whether FISA is right or wrong, it's about how it is portrayed in the media. When MSNBC reported on it during the Bush years, it was fascist. Do you hear anyone on MSNBC calling Obama a fascist? He continued the monitoring and even expanded it. Whether or not you think it is okay is not the issue. It's how it was reported. You claim Al Jazeera is non-biased, but yet you don't show how Dave Marash quit in 2008 due to Al Jazeera's anti-American slant or the reporters who quit in 2012 due to bias in the Syria coverage or the reporters who quit in 2013 due to Al Jazeera's bias towards the Muslim Brotherhood. You also don't show how the majority of the American Media slants stories to change policy all the time, prime example is the total monopolizing of all news to show that a Hispanic male shooting a black male is somehow white rage and laws much be changed. But then not reporting things like McDonald versus Chicago in which a black man was denied a permit for a gun to protect himself in his crime-ridden neighborhood. You bring up Murdoch but yet don't bring up that until very recently GE owned NBC and the CEO of NBC was an adviser to Obama and that GE did very well in profits while not paying any taxes in 2010. How is that you preach objectivity, but don't even do it yourself.
Aljazeera only came about because BBC pulled out of the middle east around the time of the first gulf war. So a rich Arab sheik pulled most of those employees from the BBC to start the Aljazeera network. Of course they would have bias if they felt America and it's allies had no real reason to be in Iraq. They sure as hell would not be promoting the US admin line on justifying the war.
The fact that Bin Laden would send his video messages to that network meant they had the choice of airing it or discarding it. I wonder if he had of sent them to Fox news instead if they would have kept it under wraps. As for the Muslim brotherhood, it was the ONLY political organisation Egypt has that was well established. After all only 15% of Egypt population is Christian. Of course they won't be ignored,same as the Palestine political organisations. Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean they don't exist. As for the GE's and Apple's of this world, under the current system of government & taxation those companies will always thrive no matter who is in power. It's not Obama giving them a free lunch it's everyone that was before him.
It's next to impossible to stop corruption in power while you can't stop the flow of money directed to political organisations. One hand feeds the other. You single out the shooting that was part of a media campaign, well so was the school massacre. It got world wide coverage for weeks and did anything change in the gun laws in America, NOTHING, ZIP, ZERO. Which shows that entrenched cultural practices even if it belongs to an era 200 yrs past will never change some peoples mind. Climate change is one of those things, it's the same as science proving that God doesn't exist. How many would believe it ?

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
Jodi Arias: Does the state have the goods to co... (Mar '13) 6 min Riverside 26,153
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 12 min Emeem 1,153,372
5000 post wins (Feb '13) 46 min Concerned_American 4,320
Inspiration Lane - Don't Quit (May '09) 51 min Miles 70,595
CASEY: Does the State Have the Goods to Convict? (Mar '10) 1 hr Ellen 490,146
Impanel a Federal Grand Jury Probe into CIA Tor... 1 hr LarryWBryant 1
i want my ex husband or wife back (Jun '13) 6 hr Rose 22
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 6:55 am PST

Bleacher Report 6:55AM
Late-Season 7-Round 2015 Mock Draft
Bleacher Report 8:00 AM
Thursday Night Football Week 16: TV Schedule, Live Stream for Titans vs. Jaguars
Bleacher Report 9:37 AM
The Pack Has Not Fared Well at Raymond James Stadium
Bleacher Report11:59 AM
Jaguars Break Their Underdog Streak
NFL12:33 PM
Bortles earns 'mostly positive reviews' from Jaguars