Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 64312 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

Phoenix, AZ

#44325 Mar 15, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
There's no scientific response to nonsense and lies other than "seek diagnosis for your condition."
Aww... po' widdle spaceballs is in a snit again.

But when is he/she not?

LOL
SpaceBlues

Cypress, TX

#44326 Mar 15, 2014
WOW it did not emrbace its "science" was make " LOL
SpaceBlues

Cypress, TX

#44327 Mar 15, 2014
Booo "make" LOL
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#44328 Mar 15, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text> Boooo "science" was make" LOL
Shamelessly..namecaller..
hyp·o·crite
--a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

Easy to fix... quit being one.

LOL
SpaceBlues

Cypress, TX

#44329 Mar 15, 2014
Boo "was make" bwahhahhah
denier

Zion, IL

#44331 Mar 15, 2014
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
these people really need help.....
what has happened to our youth?
fuque!!!!!!
Once you drink the kool-aid there's no hope,we have to accept the fact that there gone!
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#44332 Mar 15, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
A science denier misses hockey stick:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hockey-stick-...
Gotta love this... Spaceballs in his previous post gave another link from sks, that omits all these hockey sticks in an attempt to discredit skeptics temperature projections.

Cherry picking -- the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.-- wikipedia

First off, it's an absurd argument. So what if other temperature projections are wrong? The question is why the warmists insist their projections are THE 'settled science'?. Showing error elsewhere is just another stinky red herring.

But more importantly, where are the hockey sticks? Why did sks leave those out? Why not show what the "consensus" science says right along side those they attempt to debunk?

This is getting fun... warmists are shooting holes in their own "science".

Sadly, they aren't learning anything from their mistakes... and will continue to "believe".

LOL.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#44334 Mar 15, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
..........
First, I said "income inequality", which more similar to socialism than not.
So... you support restrained capitalism? Should Al Gore be restricted selling his snake oil, so others can get their "rain maker" products on the market? LOL
As for your obtuse commentary on my attitudes about the planet, once again, you're putting your ideological mantra in for what can only be the case for anyone who disagrees with you.
This thread is about "global warming" and the alleged "science" that supports it. That "science" is chock full of holes, exaggerations, hype and a compliant media that love the "end of the world" headlines.. to whit "Hiroshima bombs"..And then there are the so-called "consensus" clingers-on, who accept that there's enough "science" on the books now to have spelt the impending disaster..........
Restrained Capitalism is not to being able to drill for oil in National Parks or Banks pretending to be finance companies unable to cover debt or some multinational food company clearing rain forests to grow beef for McDonalds or workers in slave labor at extreme risk making clothing for brand name labels or multimedia outlets being owned by one person. That is Capitalism unleashed! That is your world without rules or "red tape" as you so fondly call it. It has NOTHING to do with socialism it's all about common sense.

As for Science warning of Armageddon, like I have said in previous posts your kind would prefer to destroy the planet before accepting an argument as true. It is a totally moronic position to take, like asking to be nuked and see if I survive. If the danger of radiation poisoning is a well documented science, so is global warming. Yet you accept the science of radiation poisoning and declare the warming science as snake oil! This is despite every academic mind bar a few in the employ of oil companies telling you that your wrong!
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#44335 Mar 15, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Restrained Capitalism is not to being able to drill for oil in National Parks or Banks pretending to be finance companies unable to cover debt or some multinational food company clearing rain forests to grow beef for McDonalds or workers in slave labor at extreme risk making clothing for brand name labels or multimedia outlets being owned by one person. That is Capitalism unleashed! That is your world without rules or "red tape" as you so fondly call it. It has NOTHING to do with socialism it's all about common sense.
As for Science warning of Armageddon, like I have said in previous posts your kind would prefer to destroy the planet before accepting an argument as true. It is a totally moronic position to take, like asking to be nuked and see if I survive. If the danger of radiation poisoning is a well documented science, so is global warming. Yet you accept the science of radiation poisoning and declare the warming science as snake oil! This is despite every academic mind bar a few in the employ of oil companies telling you that your wrong!
Yegads... once again, just because one person expresses extreme libertarian views while opposing global warming, doesn't mean every one who doesn't buy into the "settle science" shares the same political views.

Your head is stuck to far up your ideology to make the distinction.

No matter... I'll enjoy making you look foolish, as you did by attempting to equate radiation poisoning to global warming..

What is it about warmists that continue to invent absurd comparisons to sell the global warming "science"?

A critical thinker sees through those lame arguments and dismisses them as not worth the time and effort to bother to refute.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#44336 Mar 15, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
>> But has the public really tuned out from eco matters because it doesn’t understand them, because it is perplexed by “expert discourse”? I don’t think so. I think the reason people are switching off from the enviro-agenda is because they disagree with it. They just don’t buy the idea that capping carbon emissions is the most important thing in the world, more important than growing the economy, increasing wealth, and being free to choose to live in a big house with the heaters permanently switched on and Tesco just a short 4×4 drive away. They see the mean-minded, sacrifice-demanding politics of being green as a challenge to the thing that has motored human communities for millennia – the desire to create a world of plenty, an overflowing “land of milk and honey”, a utopia filled with stuff and comfort – and they don’t like it.

Environmentalism is, by its own admission, a campaign against the public and our historic desire for more things and freedom. George Monbiot has stated this baldly. Environmentalism is “a campaign not for abundance but for austerity”, he says.“It is a campaign not for more freedom but for less… it is a campaign not just against other people, but against ourselves.” And that is precisely how most people experience environmentalism – as an extraordinarily elitist drive to reprimand and possibly even punish the people for daring to want more; as a top-down, hectoring effort to make us acclimatise to austerity and give up on that age-old dream of a “great production that will supply all, and more than all the people can consume”(Sylvia Pankhurst). If environmentalism is a “campaign against people”, then it makes perfect sense that the people bristle at it, even hate it and deny its “truths”.(source)

http://australianclimatemadness.com/2014/03/1...
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#44337 Mar 15, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
Fuhai Hong and Xiojian Zhao, economists at Singapore's Nanyang Technological University and Hong Kong University of Science and Technology respectively, are publishing a paper in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics called "Information Manipulation and Climate Agreements," which argues that manipulation of information by the media will "enhance global welfare" by inducing countries to agree to environmental accords (IEAs)....

The article purports to prove, with an economic model, that the urgency of climate change and the necessity of international agreement makes it okay to lie about the projected consequences of climate change.

Progressives have advocated lying in order to get their way before, but this model is actually different from fighting lies with more lies; these two economists advocate lying even when assuming that the entire debate to this point has been entirely honest on both sides due to the asymmetric information problems and game theory involved. Now, they don't advocate "lying" - they merely propose "information manipulation," "accentuation" and "exaggeration" on the part of the media in order to enhance global welfare.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/kevinglass/2014/...

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#44338 Mar 16, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
..........
A critical thinker sees through those lame arguments and dismisses them as not worth the time and effort to bother to refute.
A critical thinker would see vast opportunity here in a new commodity, just like the gold rush in pioneering times. A critical thinker would see that advanced countries with all the infrastructure already in place would have a distinct advantage over developing countries. A critical thinker would also know how the balance of trade could shift with alternative energy products and a golden opportunity for Capitalism to hit the reset button and start over. Yet this all flies over the top of your head because of an ideology that is stuck in the groove & a point blank refusal to accept facts.
litesong

Everett, WA

#44339 Mar 16, 2014
motheaten wrote:
Fuhai Hong and Xiojian Zhao, economists..... argues that manipulation of information by the media will "enhance global welfare" by inducing countries to agree to environmental accords (IEAs)....
Ah...... China murdering millions per decade with pollution won't make countries see how environmental protection is necessary.

Glad to see the raw exposed lack of science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra & pre-calc in the poorly (or non-) earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa of motheaten. It is also good to understand that unnecessarily dead people, still will not cause slimy steenking toxic topix AGW deniers to believe a cleaner environment is necessary.
litesong

Everett, WA

#44340 Mar 16, 2014
motheaten wrote:
Environmentalism is “a campaign not for abundance but for austerity”, he says.“It is a campaign not for more freedom but for less… it is a campaign not just against other people, but against ourselves.”
Industrialists strive for abundance of pollution & their freedom to pollute, until we can't. Industrialists campaign against other people, but not themselves, because they move to where their pollutions don't affect themselves or their families.
litesong

Everett, WA

#44341 Mar 16, 2014
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#44342 Mar 16, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Gotta love this... Spaceballs in his previous post gave another link from sks, that omits all these hockey sticks in an attempt to discredit skeptics temperature projections.
Cherry picking -- the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.-- wikipedia
First off, it's an absurd argument. So what if other temperature projections are wrong? The question is why the warmists insist their projections are THE 'settled science'?. Showing error elsewhere is just another stinky red herring.
But more importantly, where are the hockey sticks? Why did sks leave those out? Why not show what the "consensus" science says right along side those they attempt to debunk?
This is getting fun... warmists are shooting holes in their own "science".
Sadly, they aren't learning anything from their mistakes... and will continue to "believe".
LOL.
litesong is correct about your ilk.

blah blah blah you posted because you could not check the graphs and follow the science.

CLUE: the abscissa!

Why do the ignorant believe others are ignorant as well? Because they can not imagine that science understanding is necessary to comment in this forum. LOL.

P.S. I set you up, hahahahaha. You exposed your ignorance. Predictable.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#44343 Mar 16, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
A critical thinker ....
In context:
What is it about warmists that continue to invent absurd comparisons to sell the global warming "science"?
A critical thinker sees through those lame arguments and dismisses them as not worth the time and effort to bother to refute.

So... I'm not biting at your bogus argument. Clearly, the "critical thinker" sees that you've chosen to respond to an assertion not made.

Run along, skippy.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#44344 Mar 16, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>litesong is correct about...
No reason to read any further. Clearly you are unable to have an adult conversation.

Grab Oz' hand and run along.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#44345 Mar 16, 2014
litesong is correct about these science deniers. YES
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#44346 Mar 16, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
litesong is correct...
See my previous post. Have your mommy explain it to you.

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) 59 min mdbuilder 1,660,044
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 2 hr ffj 322,336
Do NOT buy from KD's Auto Sales in Margate (Aug '11) 12 hr SHANA 18
News Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 15 hr Ben Avraham 72,047
News Missing 5-year-old Florida girl likely was abdu... (Feb '09) Sat lisa 98,620
girls how many family members have you had sex ... (Dec '15) Dec 15 lizX 25
Trader Jacks on A1A (Aug '09) Dec 11 Rumann Koch 31

Pompano Beach Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Pompano Beach Mortgages