Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 64309 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.

SpaceBlues

Humble, TX

#40466 Oct 8, 2013
A report by the UK-based Carbon Disclosure Project, based on data from 110 cities around the world, suggests that the action that cities are taking to mitigate or adapt to climate change are not only helping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and make the cities more resilient, but also making them into much better places in which to live. The cities reported more than $40 million (NZ$50 million) in savings per year from tackling climate change. The vast majority, 91 per cent, also believe that working to combat climate change will lead to economic opportunities.[thenewzealandhe rald]
Mothra

United States

#40467 Oct 8, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
A report by the UK-based Carbon Disclosure Project, based on data from 110 cities around the world, suggests that the action that cities are taking to mitigate or adapt to climate change are not only helping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and make the cities more resilient, but also making them into much better places in which to live. The cities reported more than $40 million (NZ$50 million) in savings per year from tackling climate change. The vast majority, 91 per cent, also believe that working to combat climate change will lead to economic opportunities.[thenewzealandhe rald]
yeah, yeah, yeah...

As you spew more CO2 into the atmosphere.

Hypocrite.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#40468 Oct 8, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
yeah, yeah, yeah...
As you spew more CO2 into the atmosphere.
Hypocrite.
Nope. You are more of an idiot than a hypocrite.

Waste, pollutants and inefficiency created the problem.

Reducing those will inevitably make the world more self sustaining and more robust against problems with supply of resources.

It will come. YOU don't have to worry. The smart ones will survive and they will do it because they AREN'T idiots.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#40469 Oct 8, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
You're getting as bad as caveman where religion is indisputable.
When did science become a religion? When the anti-science conservatives made it so. The earth is warming. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Burning fossil fuels increases the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Ergo, man is causing global warming.
Breaking

Corona Del Mar, CA

#40470 Oct 8, 2013
The recording of the thermometer temperatures was flawed from 1900 to 1941.

Especially the Penn. and West Virginia field offices.
Mothra

United States

#40471 Oct 8, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. You are more of an idiot than a hypocrite.
Waste, pollutants and inefficiency created the problem.
Reducing those will inevitably make the world more self sustaining and more robust against problems with supply of resources.
It will come. YOU don't have to worry. The smart ones will survive and they will do it because they AREN'T idiots.
And another sounding off with the language of a religion.

'It will come. YOU don't have to worry. The 'devoted' ones will survive and they will do it because they AREN'T 'heretics'.

Thanks for playing.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#40472 Oct 8, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
>>The majority of Northern Hemisphere warming over the last century is man made, and due to data tampering by government scientists.
In 1975, the National Academy of Sciences published the graph below, showing a dramatic cooling in the Northern Hemisphere from the 1930s until 1970, with the 1970 temperature about the same as 1910.
[see link for graphs]
NASA has since erased most of that post-1930s cooling, and made 1910 much cooler than 1970.
[see link for graphs]
data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/ZonAn...
The next graph overlays the current GISS graph (green) on the 1975 National Academy of Sciences graph. You can see how they massively cooled the period from 1890 to 1970, with the most dramatic data tampering being during the hot years of the 1920s and 1930s.
[see link for graphs]
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/09/26...
The real skinny:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/gr...
Mothra

United States

#40473 Oct 8, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
When did science become a religion?
When global warming advocates abandoned the scientific method.

Elements of the scientific method
1 Characterizations
2 Hypothesis development
3 Predictions from the hypothesis
4 Experiments
5 Evaluation and improvement
6 Confirmation
-Wikipedia

For global warming it's this order:
1 Characterizations
2 Hypothesis development
3 Predictions from the hypothesis
4 Confirmation
5 Evaluation and improvement
6 More Confirmation
7 Repeat steps 5 and 6 as needed

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#40474 Oct 8, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
When global warming advocates abandoned the scientific method.
Elements of the scientific method
1 Characterizations
2 Hypothesis development
3 Predictions from the hypothesis
4 Experiments
5 Evaluation and improvement
6 Confirmation
-Wikipedia
For global warming it's this order:
1 Characterizations
2 Hypothesis development
3 Predictions from the hypothesis
4 Confirmation
5 Evaluation and improvement
6 More Confirmation
7 Repeat steps 5 and 6 as needed
I suppose that the deniers follow this script. LOL

It seems that you do not understand how science works. Have you any science background at all?
Mothra

United States

#40475 Oct 8, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
I suppose that the deniers follow this script. LOL
It seems that you do not understand how science works. Have you any science background at all?
I see your taking posting cues from SpaceBlues.

Do run along now...

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#40476 Oct 8, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
I see your taking posting cues from SpaceBlues.
Do run along now...
You didn't answer.......
Mothra

United States

#40477 Oct 8, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
You didn't answer.......
When you ask questions like SpaceBlues, I answer like I do to SpaceBlues.

If you care to try some adult conversation, you're more likely to get adult replies. You're just rehashing the 'appeal to authority' fallacy.
SpaceBlues

United States

#40478 Oct 8, 2013
lOL. And we can guess your answer, poor poster.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#40479 Oct 8, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
When you ask questions like SpaceBlues, I answer like I do to SpaceBlues.
If you care to try some adult conversation, you're more likely to get adult replies. You're just rehashing the 'appeal to authority' fallacy.
It doesn't matter because regardless what is presented by 1000's of different people some expert others not. Your eyes and ears choose not to take it on board because your MIND tells you it's not true. This would also be the case for every tea bagger in America, no matter what the facts are, their mind is in capable of bringing that data in. The lines are cut to that part of the brain, it's an unfortunate affliction and what's worse others have to suffer because of it.
Breaking

Corona Del Mar, CA

#40480 Oct 8, 2013
The data records are bogus and inaccurate. My grandfather used to gather the data. He said on some days they just made stuff up. He said it simply didn't matter or seem important back then. The figures were "close enough".

-------===
But there is a fundamental problem with the temperature records from this contentious period, when climate science crashed into political science. The land based records, which have been under the control of global warming alarmists at the British Met Office and the Hadley Centre Climate Research Unit, and at NASAs Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the U.S., show much more warming during this period than the incorruptible satellite atmosphere temperature records. Those satellite records have been further confirmed by atmospheric weather balloons. But the land based records can be subject to tampering and falsification.
SpaceBlues

United States

#40481 Oct 8, 2013
Breaking wrote:
The data records are bogus and inaccurate. My grandfather used to gather the data. He said on some days they just made stuff up. He said it simply didn't matter or seem important back then. The figures were "close enough".
-------===
But there is a fundamental problem with the temperature records from this contentious period, when climate science crashed into political science. The land based records, which have been under the control of global warming alarmists at the British Met Office and the Hadley Centre Climate Research Unit, and at NASAs Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the U.S., show much more warming during this period than the incorruptible satellite atmosphere temperature records. Those satellite records have been further confirmed by atmospheric weather balloons. But the land based records can be subject to tampering and falsification.
Do you honestly think you have figured out the science performed by thousands of professionals when you are not one of them? Your source of lies is also sponsored by the fossil fuel industry, yes?

It is outrageous that you buy into this kind of bs!

Ok. Are you willing to just look into the evolution of a skeptic? Then, read about the BEST project at Berkeley. How they came in from outside, acquired all the available data, analyzed the data and their results. Guess what? They became convinced that the existing studies had been correct; there is man-made global warming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth_S...

In an op-ed published in the New York Times on 28 July 2012, Muller announced further findings from the project. He said their analysis showed that average global land temperatures had increased by 2.5 F (1.4 C) in 250 years, with the increase in the last 50 years being 1.5 F (0.8 C), and it seemed likely that this increase was entirely due to human caused greenhouse gas emissions. His opening paragraph stated:


"Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I'm now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause." [16]

He said that their findings were stronger than those shown in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Their analysis, set out in five scientific papers now being subjected to scrutiny by others, had used statistical methods which Robert Rohde had developed and had paid particular attention to overcoming issues that skeptics had questioned, including the urban heat island effect, poor station quality, data selection and data adjustment. In the fifth paper which they now made public, they fitted the shape of the record to various forcings including volcanoes, solar activity and sunspots. They found that the shape best matched the curve of the calculated greenhouse effect from human caused greenhouse gas emissions. Muller said he still found "that much, if not most, of what is attributed to climate change is speculative, exaggerated or just plain wrong. I've analyzed some of the most alarmist claims, and my skepticism about them hasn't changed."[16]
Mothra

United States

#40482 Oct 8, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't matter because regardless what is presented by 1000's of different people some expert others not. Your eyes and ears choose not to take it on board because your MIND tells you it's not true. This would also be the case for every tea bagger in America, no matter what the facts are, their mind is in capable of bringing that data in. The lines are cut to that part of the brain, it's an unfortunate affliction and what's worse others have to suffer because of it.
<sigh>

What we have here is the political equivalent of 'the science is settled'.

It isn't. It never is. That's science.

Get over it.
Mothra

United States

#40483 Oct 8, 2013
Breaking wrote:
The data records are bogus and inaccurate. My grandfather used to gather the data. He said on some days they just made stuff up. He said it simply didn't matter or seem important back then. The figures were "close enough".
-------===
But there is a fundamental problem with the temperature records from this contentious period, when climate science crashed into political science. The land based records, which have been under the control of global warming alarmists at the British Met Office and the Hadley Centre Climate Research Unit, and at NASAs Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the U.S., show much more warming during this period than the incorruptible satellite atmosphere temperature records. Those satellite records have been further confirmed by atmospheric weather balloons. But the land based records can be subject to tampering and falsification.
That's interesting. I wondered who did those measurements and how they went about it. Was it done at the same time every day? Where the thermometers ever moved? Were logs kept of all those measurements?.. stuff like that.

And perhaps most important to some here... was your grandfather a climate scientist?

But you're running into the 'science is settled' anti-science crowd; if they have an 'expert' who says otherwise, no amount of contrary information will be accepted nor tolerated.

Look for them to mock 'real world' measurements for their computer models that say otherwise.
Mothra

United States

#40484 Oct 8, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
lOL. And we can guess your answer, poor poster.
Hey dipshyt, you do know you just insulted yourself, don't you?

Hypocrite.
SpaceBlues

United States

#40485 Oct 8, 2013
Deniers unite for lies.. But the truth prevails!

By contrast, the study was well received by Muller's peers in climate science research. James Hansen, a leading climate scientist and head of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies commented that he had not read the research papers but was glad Muller was looking at the issue. He said "It should help inform those who have honest scepticism about global warming."[13] Phil Jones the director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA), said: "I look forward to reading the finalised paper once it has been reviewed and published. These initial findings are very encouraging and echo our own results and our conclusion that the impact of urban heat islands on the overall global temperature is minimal."[13] Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, commented that "...they get the same result that everyone else has gotten," and "that said, I think it's at least useful to see that even a critic like Muller, when he takes an honest look, finds that climate science is robust."[20] Peter Thorne, from the Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites in North Carolina and chair of the International Surface Temperature Initiative, said: "This takes a very distinct approach to the problem and comes up with the same answer, and that builds confidence that pre-existing estimates are in the right ballpark. There is very substantial value in having multiple groups looking at the same problem in different ways." [13] A scientist writing at RealClimate.org noted that it was unsurprising that BEST's results matched previous results so well. "Any of various simple statistical analyses of the freely available data ...show... that it was very very unlikely that the results would change," they wrote.[21][wikipedia]

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 Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 7 min VetnorsGate 1,658,350
CASEY: Does the State Have the Goods to Convict? (Mar '10) 4 hr ANGHARAD 514,750
Word Association 2 (Jul '10) 5 hr Princess Hey 23,134
Double Fun Word Game (Mar '11) 5 hr Princess Hey 13,411
two words (Jul '10) 5 hr Princess Hey 28,207
keep a word----drop a word (Feb '11) 6 hr Princess Hey 19,714
Happy Cats Purr! 8 hr Cats Rule 4

Orlando Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Orlando Mortgages