Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 63930 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.

dont drink the koolaid

Eden Prairie, MN

#37728 Aug 9, 2013
Anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
I keep looking at your comment to try and figure out what kind of logic you are using.
Are you saying that the 3% are correct and that the 97% are incorrect?
I am looking forward to your response.
"In questions of science; the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individuall"
-Galileo Galilei
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#37729 Aug 9, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Now that is funny.
Reminds me of this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sluggerotoole/15...
LOL. Instead of a cute dumb dog like Ginger, I would say they are more like Pavlov pit bulls. Instead of a bell, it's key words, and instead of salivating, they attack.

There are few main key words that really get them in attack mode and those would be Fox, Beck, Rush, Watts, Christianity, and any scientist who is a skeptic. But usually they are the ones who bring up these key words to deflect so they don't have to address the debate.
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#37730 Aug 9, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure because I have read it 1000 times before, in the meantime you keep posting about counter claims that some flat earth scientist made suggesting we all should keep waiting about addressing climate change because the results are not in yet. If you were making ANY other choice in life based on researching information that you claim to encourage your children to do. Then I'd say 97% in favour of one choice is pretty much a slam dunk don't you think ??
Letter to Charles Bolden (NASA administrator) from 49 former NASA scientists and astronauts. Please, go right ahead and call them flat-earthers.

We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data.

With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.
The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.

As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.

For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#37731 Aug 9, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, proof you can't read and comprehend. If you had actually been reading any of the previous posts, you would have seen these from gcaveman:
1. The Earth is warming.
It's real.
It's happening.
It's us.
We can do something about it.
Just returned from the Climate Reality Project Leadership training in Chicago last week. The above is our mantra. Call it religion, if you want. It's the truth. Anyone who denies the four statements above is either abysmally ignorant, incredibly naive, a bald-faced liar, a pail shill, or all of the above. Let the games begin....
2. And a GREAT climate change conference with Al Gore, Maggie Fox, and Mario Molina! There were about 1500 attendees from 70 countries. We were given written materials, a flash drive, and a website and charged with completing 10 climate change actions in a year, including presentations to various groups, lobbying, letters to the editor, blogging, and participating on boards like this. The next conference will be in San Fran next year. If you want to be considered for an invitation, go to the Climate Reality website and join the discussion.
3. And then the post telling us we must change our worldview and the way we live.
So to break it down....gcaveman posted that he went to AL GORE'S climate reality conference. gcaveman posted that he received written materials and a flash drive from the AL GORE climate reality conference and was instructed by AL GORE and cohorts to spread the word of everything he learned at the AL GORE climate conference. I'm not the one who brought up Al Gore, talk to gcaveman. I was only saying that if gcaveman and AL GORE want us to change our lifestyles, they need to lead by example.
Relax. Al Gore is not the scientist. Al Gore just reports what the scientists have found. He hyped it up a little but basically, he is correct.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#37732 Aug 9, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Letter to Charles Bolden (NASA administrator) from 49 former NASA scientists and astronauts. Please, go right ahead and call them flat-earthers.
We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data.
With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.
The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.
As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.
For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.
49 scientists and astronauts.... Out of 23000 employees. A whopping 0.2%. Exactly how many were climate scientists? Sounds pretty political to me.
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#37733 Aug 9, 2013
Anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
I am curious as to how you can look at the following web sites:
http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understa...
http://www.ametsoc.org/2012stateoftheclimate....
and say that there is no evidence of AGW. I am looking forward to your response.
Please explain how this is evidence of AGW. It's just weather in review. 2012 was actually the 3rd coolest since since the 2000s. The Arctic received a massive storm that broke up the ice. Antarctica sea ice extent has reached record highs. Sea level rise isn't at an alarming rate.

But I would ask myself this question about the 97% Greenland melt. In the Climate Report they say the report was compiled by 384 scientists from 52 countries. It provides a detailed update on global climate indicators, notable weather events, and other data collected by environmental monitoring stations and instruments on land, sea, ice, and sky. So with all these great scientists why would they not tell you that the Greenland ice melt is an event that happens every 150 years and was right on schedule? It seems misleading for a scientific agency to leave out some pretty vital information.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/25/science/ear...
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#37734 Aug 9, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
So, your info comes from a "contributor at WUWT". So that's second or third hand news, and from a "contributor at WUWT", too, meaning we know it's ssooooo unbiased.
Here's what this eyewitness saw:
a) The only thing bizarre is this guys take on a rather ordinary conference.
b) The hockey stick graph was mentioned and shown, but not dwelled upon, because the results of that graph have been duplicated so many times that it is indisputable. It's no longer Mann's graph; it is representative of all the climate research that has been conducted.
c) Don't know what this guy is talking about, and I doubt he does either.
d) See c) above.
e) Yes, dirty weather is a new phrase, as opposed to climate change, which is not.
There were new slides and the latest information in the scientific literature. There were speakers on the health, business, and faith aspects of climate change. There were lessons in psychology and communication in the climate debate. The conference was informative and well-structured. Someone who belongs to the WUWT club would obviously see it differently.
And nothing, not peer-review arguments, not investing strategies, not even Al Gore or denialism changes the fact that the Earth is warming, we are causing it, and we can do something about it...if we act.
What were then names of the scientists who spoke at the conference?
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#37735 Aug 9, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Based on your reply, I'd say he nailed the "religious cult programming".
Change the channel.
<click>
gcaveman even admitted it sounded religious.

The Earth is warming.

It's real.

It's happening.

It's us.

We can do something about it.

Just returned from the Climate Reality Project Leadership training in Chicago last week. The above is our mantra. Call it religion, if you want.
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#37736 Aug 9, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Relax. Al Gore is not the scientist. Al Gore just reports what the scientists have found. He hyped it up a little but basically, he is correct.
Could you show me the peer-reviewed papers on dirty weather.
SpaceBlues

Humble, TX

#37737 Aug 9, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
What were then names of the scientists who spoke at the conference?
You are the laziest poster ever.
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#37738 Aug 9, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
49 scientists and astronauts.... Out of 23000 employees. A whopping 0.2%. Exactly how many were climate scientists? Sounds pretty political to me.
Please point out the political part of the letter.
Kris Want

Phoenix, AZ

#37739 Aug 9, 2013

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#37740 Aug 9, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Please point out the political part of the letter.
Since there was no scientific evidence to support their position, what would be their motive?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#37741 Aug 9, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Could you show me the peer-reviewed papers on dirty weather.
When you show me the peer reviewed papers that shows AGW false.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#37742 Aug 9, 2013
Another reason that we need to look at alternate energy.
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/take/trouble-...

The feel-good productivity figures for domestic crude are not so good! Better get your Cruze diesel quickly! Or better yet an EV.....
anny

Paterna, Spain

#37743 Aug 9, 2013
I have come to the conclusion that we all have a little blame global warming and its consequences and guilt even more politicians who do not slow down.
http://www.globalwarmingweb.com/
SpaceBlues

Humble, TX

#37744 Aug 9, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
When you show me the peer reviewed papers that shows AGW false.
This should be repeated to each denier. Otherwise a tourist would think this forum is not focused.

The gang is up to no good for sure.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#37745 Aug 9, 2013
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
"In questions of science; the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individuall"
-Galileo Galilei
Unfortunately, your reasoning is not humble. Nor is it reasoning.
litesong

Everett, WA

#37746 Aug 9, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
Better get your Cruze diesel quickly! Or better yet an EV....
Turbo diesels are passing pollution limits in the U.S., but just barely, specially for particulants. For some pollutants, Toyota Prius has one tenth the pollutants of diesels.

Costs for the real mpg champs are expensive. My Hyundai Elantra cost $9000-$10000 LESS than Cruze diesel. Even the nice gasoline powered Eco Cruze cost $5000 more. My cheap Elantra, bad-mouthed for bad mpg, has more options & is averaging 39mpg(high of 43mpg, possibly more to come).

EVs just got to go further. Unknown to most people, the gasoline Chevy Eco Cruze can travel 750miles on a tank of gas. Even my small tanked Elantra can travel nearly 500miles(more in ideal conditions).

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#37747 Aug 9, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Turbo diesels are passing pollution limits in the U.S., but just barely, specially for particulants. For some pollutants, Toyota Prius has one tenth the pollutants of diesels.
Costs for the real mpg champs are expensive. My Hyundai Elantra cost $9000-$10000 LESS than Cruze diesel. Even the nice gasoline powered Eco Cruze cost $5000 more. My cheap Elantra, bad-mouthed for bad mpg, has more options & is averaging 39mpg(high of 43mpg, possibly more to come).
EVs just got to go further. Unknown to most people, the gasoline Chevy Eco Cruze can travel 750miles on a tank of gas. Even my small tanked Elantra can travel nearly 500miles(more in ideal conditions).
I understand, however the Cruze diesel is one of the cleanest diesel engines on the road. BTW, I drive an old 2002 Chevy Cavalier. It has averaged about 29 mpg (34 highway)overall since I bought it. Not too bad and think of all the resources saved over driving an older car.

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.

Wethersfield Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min swampmudd 1,565,719
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 10 min Jose 20,982
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 58 min Junket 315,283
How DEPRESSING is it living in The State Of Con... (May '16) 22 hr udougy 5
Why are puerto ricans so lazy & don't work? (Nov '13) Sun SJws tears 10
News Connecticut governor visits woman taking sanctu... Sun Claude H 2
News Over-65 & Working - Don't Let Disappointment Show Sun tears of a clown 1

Wethersfield Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Wethersfield Mortgages