Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 63619 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.

Mothra

United States

#39247 Sep 16, 2013
B as in B S as in S wrote:
"WILL" is not a qualifier one will read in 'Climate Science' Forecasts, Models, Studies, Reports, Abstracts, Statements, Conclusions or Endorsements.
"Likely,
May,
Suggest,
Possibly,
Could,
Indicates": yes such will be found in abundance, BUT NOT... "Will"
The new language is "95% certainty".
SpaceBlues

United States

#39248 Sep 16, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>Here's the link you requested, Gomer! Now let's see how well your English comprehension is, son.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-s...
I posted this link back in May or early June. Took a little time to find it, but well worth it. I love damning evidence of pseudoscientific zealotry....and proving I don't lie to known lying idiots.
Have you read all that bs?

No wonder you make no sense. You lost your mind while reading that mindless garbage. Poor poor poster! Pitiful.
SpaceBlues

United States

#39249 Sep 16, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
The new language is "95% certainty".
You are confusing things. Wait for the report, silly goose.

Now read this:

https://www.cdproject.net/CDPResults/CDP-Glob...

How about it?
Mothra

United States

#39250 Sep 16, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>You are confusing things. Wait for the report, silly goose.
Now read this:
https://www.cdproject.net/CDPResults/CDP-Glob...
How about it?
How about what?

Meh... I'll wait for the movie.
Bart

New York, NY

#39251 Sep 16, 2013
I hate snow too.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#39252 Sep 16, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>Here's the link you requested, Gomer! Now let's see how well your English comprehension is, son.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-s...
I posted this link back in May or early June. Took a little time to find it, but well worth it. I love damning evidence of pseudoscientific zealotry....and proving I don't lie to known lying idiots.
Here is the abstract. See if you can find where you failed.

Also, six papers out of almost 12,000. Do you think that changes the 97% figure?

What a fool!
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#39253 Sep 16, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Have you read all that bs?
No wonder you make no sense. You lost your mind while reading that mindless garbage. Poor poor poster! Pitiful.
This is an interesting quote from the CEO:

The economic case for action is strengthening.
This year, we published the 3% Solution with
WWF showing that the US corporate sector could
reduce emissions by 3% each year between 2010
and 2020 and deliver $780 billion in savings above
costs as a result. 79% of US companies responding
to CDP report higher ROI on emission reductions investments than on the average business investment.

If you follow the money, you'll get green. And vice-versa.
Mothra

United States

#39254 Sep 16, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
This is an interesting quote from the CEO:
The economic case for action is strengthening.
This year, we published the 3% Solution with
WWF showing that the US corporate sector could
reduce emissions by 3% each year between 2010
and 2020 and deliver $780 billion in savings above
costs as a result. 79% of US companies responding
to CDP report higher ROI on emission reductions investments than on the average business investment.
If you follow the money, you'll get green. And vice-versa.
Maybe.

"79% of US companies responding
to CDP..."

That leads to a whole lot of questions. How many companies total? How many responded?

"...report higher ROI on emission reductions investments than on the average business investment."

The average business investment?

Gotta be careful with those kinds of generalities.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#39255 Sep 16, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is the abstract. See if you can find where you failed.
Also, six papers out of almost 12,000. Do you think that changes the 97% figure?
What a fool!
but 12,000 papers weren't used in the "97% calculation", son!!

LOL!!!

guess your english comprehension needs a lot of work, aye?

LOL..

“It's not personal Its business”

Since: Jan 08

Fluffya

#39256 Sep 16, 2013
Uh, no. You got it wrong. I am not a doomer. On the contrary.
mememine69 wrote:
<quoted text>Ok Doomer Michael Corleone, since I have seniority around here can you remind us again why we should look our children in the eyes and tell them they won't have kids of their own on a 5 billion year old planet now ravaged by Human CO2?

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#39257 Sep 16, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Have you read all that bs?
No wonder you make no sense. You lost your mind while reading that mindless garbage. Poor poor poster! Pitiful.
have you, wedge?

LOL

with a post like this coming from you....i'll take my link as a grand slam zinger!!

i know how you religious zealots react when you're left speechless after being force fed some factual information.

bwaaahahhahaaaaa
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#39258 Sep 16, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe.
"79% of US companies responding
to CDP..."
That leads to a whole lot of questions. How many companies total? How many responded?
"...report higher ROI on emission reductions investments than on the average business investment."
The average business investment?
Gotta be careful with those kinds of generalities.
Space gave you the link; don't wait for the movie, look it up. If you find anything wrong with it, contact the authors.

https://www.cdproject.net/CDPResults/CDP-Glob...
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#39259 Sep 16, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>but 12,000 papers weren't used in the "97% calculation", son!!
LOL!!!
guess your english comprehension needs a lot of work, aye?
LOL..
Does removing 6 papers change any percentage?

Did you notice this was a peer-reviewed paper?

Did you see the part where authors were asked to evaluate their own papers and grade where they stood in the debate?

You missed some pretty important stuff, boy.
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#39260 Sep 16, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
From the abstract:
<quoted text>
So there's no missing heat, and the Earth continues to warm.
That helps your case how?
Well as you said earlier, "There is no guarantee that these papers are right."

And as Kevin Trenberth said:

“There are at least 10 estimates of upper ocean heat content,” Trenberth said.“They are all over the place, in spite of the fact that we have the best ocean observing system, with Argo floats, that we’ve ever had.”

So I think it's pretty safe to say no one actually has a clue as to actual heat content, where the heat is, if it's missing or not.
SpaceBlues

United States

#39261 Sep 16, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>have you, wedge?
LOL
with a post like this coming from you....i'll take my link as a grand slam zinger!!
i know how you religious zealots react when you're left speechless after being force fed some factual information.
bwaaahahhahaaaaa
Hahaha you lost!

<shooting from the hip is your mo>
SpaceBlues

United States

#39262 Sep 16, 2013
Michael Corleone wrote:
Uh, no. You got it wrong. I am not a doomer. On the contrary.
<quoted text>
What? What did you really mean?

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#39263 Sep 16, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Well as you said earlier, "There is no guarantee that these papers are right."
And as Kevin Trenberth said:
“There are at least 10 estimates of upper ocean heat content,” Trenberth said.“They are all over the place, in spite of the fact that we have the best ocean observing system, with Argo floats, that we’ve ever had.”
So I think it's pretty safe to say no one actually has a clue as to actual heat content, where the heat is, if it's missing or not.
You're as predictable as the sunrise and ocean temps rising. The whole basis of any argument you put up its always about the 1% percentile and ignoring the 99%. It's like emptying an hour glass where physics says most of the sand will end up on the ground but your lot argue about the grains of sand that get blown away. It's laughable to say the least. You might want to look at look at David Suzuki's explanation on how you evolved.

http://davidsuzuki.org/issues/climate-change/...
SpaceBlues

United States

#39264 Sep 16, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
../
Have you seen this?

http://www.courierpostonline.com/usatoday/art...

This week's rains and floods in Colorado were the result of a strong, slow-moving storm at upper levels of the atmosphere located to the west of the state, according to meteorologist Jeff Masters with the Weather Underground. The storm got trapped to the south of an unusually strong ridge of high pressure parked over Western Canada, he says.

The circulation around the storm tapped a plume of extremely moist, monsoonal air from Mexico that pushed up against the mountains and fell as rain on the already saturated ground, soaked from rain earlier in the week, Masters adds.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39265 Sep 16, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Well as you said earlier, "There is no guarantee that these papers are right."
This is why papers are evaluated by the scientific community over time.
And as Kevin Trenberth said:
“There are at least 10 estimates of upper ocean heat content,” Trenberth said.“They are all over the place, in spite of the fact that we have the best ocean observing system, with Argo floats, that we’ve ever had.”
So I think it's pretty safe to say no one actually has a clue as to actual heat content, where the heat is, if it's missing or not.
Logical fallacy.

We don't know everything doesn't mean we know nothing.

When scientists do evaluate the evidence, they find it very likely that the energy imbalance is still present and the extra heat is entering the deep ocean.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/q/0/Pap...
Mothra

United States

#39266 Sep 16, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Space gave you the link; don't wait for the movie, look it up. If you find anything wrong with it, contact the authors.
https://www.cdproject.net/CDPResults/CDP-Glob...
Not interested.

Sheesh... take a hint.

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.

Pompano Beach Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 min Well Well 1,534,386
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 2 hr silly rabbit 314,305
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) May 20 jowls humaway 71,287
News Why Suzanne Somers loves bioidentical hormones (Jun '09) May 19 Spotted Girl 95
Guys Jerking off and Driving???? (May '09) May 18 ClaytonJacker 42
News LEAK: Palm Beach School District Tells Employee... May 18 Hidden Lesson 1
News Feds raid Florida Career College campuses (Oct '07) May 18 Tam 365

Pompano Beach Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Pompano Beach Mortgages