Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 63943 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

#38977 Sep 7, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
*I* never said you have style (other than misreading posts, I guess). What I said is that you want to WIN on 'style', whatever that means to you. You certainly don't try to win on data, reason or science. And your latest whine about losing when you should be winning seems to imply that YOU think you have 'style' or something to win on..
Well, no surprise to me that you'd retract a compliment.

"losing when I should be winning"?

Huh.. what are you... I mean... that is... awww...never mind... you're post is already sunk into mindless minutia.

btw, got any more exposes on global warming research funding? It's been quite a while since I asked. You must have been able to dig something up by now -- what with all those public funds being spent, I'd think a full accounting of the dollars must have been posted by now.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#38978 Sep 8, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Same response to you as caveman.
I see, most of your posts have nothing to do with global warming.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#38979 Sep 8, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
I see, most of your posts have nothing to do with global warming.
And most of his post. It is just a 'here's some confusing literature taken out of context'. You decide what it means.

For example. "Oh lord….that is so 2006. The IPCC is finally catching up to the science of 2006. Now if they could only catch up to the science of 2013."

The science of 2013 is not well enough supported by secondary studies and 'rebuttals' so of COURSE the IPCC, charged with presenting the 'known' science to which there is 'very likely' or 'likely' consequences must use five year old stuff. It takes that time for science to check 'preliminary results'. They would be irresponsible to take studies from the present year that have yet to be checked by other scientists.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#38980 Sep 8, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, no surprise to me that you'd retract a compliment.
"losing when I should be winning"?
Huh.. what are you... I mean... that is... awww...never mind... you're post is already sunk into mindless minutia.
When YOU say you should be winning (on style). You have no substance AGAIN.
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
btw, got any more exposes on global warming research funding? It's been quite a while since I asked. You must have been able to dig something up by now -- what with all those public funds being spent, I'd think a full accounting of the dollars must have been posted by now.
The exposes have been of funding for fossil fuel funded lobbyists and 'astroturf' science.

I am not sure what peer reviewed science is in question due to funding which is mostly 'third party' distributed and sourced from a general fund so that it cannot be tied to any pressure for specific results (i.e. tobacco science) Otherwise the fossil fuel funded propaganda would not have to be made as the corporations could put pressure directly on the scientists.

But that won't happen anyway. The Tobacco science could only work while all research was done by CORPORATE scientists. Once independent research was started, it showed a major discrepancy in results between independent and corporate science papers that blew the lid off.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#38981 Sep 8, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, no surprise to me that you'd retract a compliment.
Again. Try to get it right. I never complimented you. I have no need to 'retract' it. Get your delusions under control.
Mothra

United States

#38983 Sep 8, 2013
Science Turns Authoritarian

Science is losing its credibility because it has adopted an authoritarian tone, and has let itself be co-opted by politics.

http://www.american.com/archive/2010/july/sci...

And the response from the warmists?

>>find new authority figures to "explain" why global warming 'science' isn't being accepted (ie, skepticalscience debunking guides)

>>Obama launches a huge public relations effort to "inform" (aka, browbeat) people to accept the 'science'

>>warmists on Topix get all snarky and insistent that global warming science is above reproach and that people who question the 'science' are just low-brow poopy-heads
Mothra

United States

#38984 Sep 8, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Again. Try to get it right. I never complimented you. I have no need to 'retract' it. Get your delusions under control.
My, my, my... seems I touched a nerve.

Equally funny and pitiful.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#38985 Sep 8, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
My, my, my... seems I touched a nerve.
You might think about keeping these delusions to yourself.
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Equally funny and pitiful.
Nah. You are just sad.
Mothra

United States

#38986 Sep 8, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
You might think about keeping these delusions to yourself.
<quoted text>
Nah. You are just sad.
Nope... now I'm just laughing.(Pity is long gone.)
litesong

Snohomish, WA

#38988 Sep 8, 2013
motheaten wrote:
Science Turns Authoritarian
"motheaten" couldn't get a science or mathematics degree. Suspect, "motheaten" earned no science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra, or pre-calc in its poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa. "motheaten" looks from the outside, in.

Yeah, science has much more authority than "motheaten".

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#38989 Sep 8, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
"motheaten" couldn't get a science or mathematics degree. Suspect, "motheaten" earned no science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra, or pre-calc in its poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa. "motheaten" looks from the outside, in.
Yeah, science has much more authority than "motheaten".
a study revealed that 97% of your posts are similar to this one.

Yeah, they're just chock full of science related content, huh, muttonhead?

no hurricanes in august.....go figure!!!
Mothra

United States

#38990 Sep 8, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
"motheaten" couldn't get a science or mathematics degree. Suspect, "motheaten" earned no science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra, or pre-calc in its poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa. "motheaten" looks from the outside, in.
Yeah, science has much more authority than "motheaten".
LOL

Why don't you run off to your Subaru forums and brag some more on your gas mileage.

Here, you're just a useful idiot for the cause.

But you may enjoy that (being an idiot, not useful).

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#38991 Sep 8, 2013
Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists
A cold Arctic summer has led to a record increase in the ice cap, leading experts to predict a period of global cooling.
By Hayley Dixon9:55AM BST 08 Sep 2013

There has been a 60 per cent increase in the amount of ocean covered with ice compared to this time last year, they equivalent of almost a million square miles.
In a rebound from 2012's record low an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia's northern shores, days before the annual re-freeze is even set to begin.
The Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific has remained blocked by pack-ice all year, forcing some ships to change their routes.
A leaked report to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) seen by the Mail on Sunday, has led some scientists to claim that the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century.
If correct, it would contradict computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming. The news comes several years after the BBC predicted that the arctic would be ice-free by 2013....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/...
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#38992 Sep 8, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists
A cold Arctic summer has led to a record increase in the ice cap, leading experts to predict a period of global cooling.
By Hayley Dixon9:55AM BST 08 Sep 2013
There has been a 60 per cent increase in the amount of ocean covered with ice compared to this time last year, they equivalent of almost a million square miles.
In a rebound from 2012's record low an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia's northern shores, days before the annual re-freeze is even set to begin.
The Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific has remained blocked by pack-ice all year, forcing some ships to change their routes.
A leaked report to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) seen by the Mail on Sunday, has led some scientists to claim that the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century.
If correct, it would contradict computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming. The news comes several years after the BBC predicted that the arctic would be ice-free by 2013....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/...
The Mail, Brain_Dead? This is where you get your science?

They say almost a million square miles more which they can say because they rounded off 580,000 to "almost a million square miles".

Note that even they admit to 2012 being a record low.

And still, you do not get it, that ice extent is a different thing from ice mass, particularly in relation to the remaining "old ice", that which is thicker than one or two years will give you.

But we know, that for you, it's any port in a storm....

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#38993 Sep 8, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Otherwise the fossil fuel funded propaganda would not have to be made as the corporations could put pressure directly on the scientists.
But that won't happen anyway. The Tobacco science could only work while all research was done by CORPORATE scientists. Once independent research was started, it showed a major discrepancy in results between independent and corporate science papers that blew the lid off.
Another good point, tobacco science saw TV ads showing real doctors in white coats with a stethoscope around their neck puffing away telling the audience how smoking was good for you.
It's no different with denier science, same crap different day.
What is worse, some of them actually know they are lying to promote self interest.

gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#38994 Sep 8, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists
A cold Arctic summer has led to a record increase in the ice cap, leading experts to predict a period of global cooling.
By Hayley Dixon9:55AM BST 08 Sep 2013
There has been a 60 per cent increase in the amount of ocean covered with ice compared to this time last year, they equivalent of almost a million square miles.
In a rebound from 2012's record low an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia's northern shores, days before the annual re-freeze is even set to begin.
The Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific has remained blocked by pack-ice all year, forcing some ships to change their routes.
A leaked report to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) seen by the Mail on Sunday, has led some scientists to claim that the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century.
If correct, it would contradict computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming. The news comes several years after the BBC predicted that the arctic would be ice-free by 2013....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/...
You're an idiot. I'm not. This is where we differ.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#38995 Sep 8, 2013
Climate scientists examining a dozen extreme weather events from 2012 found that manmade global warming likely contributed to at least half of them, including a record-breaking deadly heat wave in the U.S. The international report released on Thursday offers a demonstration of the new capabilities that scientists are developing in an emerging,complex area of climate science known as “extreme event attribution.”

On the whole, the scientists found that, as suspected, climate change has already increased the odds of and altered the characteristics of some extreme events around the planet, and that is expected to continue and grow worse. However, the report also illustrated the limitations of attribution studies.

The international report, which was jointly released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the U.K. Met Office, included 19 separate studies on 12 extreme events, ranging from the U.S. drought to flooding in New Zealand. The study results, some of which contradict one another, reflect the emerging nature of the science. Scientists employed multiple ways of analyzing a given event, with each approach leading researchers to make different conclusions.

Climate Central
JBH

Vancouver, Canada

#38996 Sep 8, 2013
+++++

Benghazi Backlash Attack Anniversary Hurts Obama's Syria Strike Push
Full story: Fox News
The Obama administration's effort Sunday to win support for a punitive military strike on Syria is facing opposition and criticism in part because of its handling of the fatal Benghazi terror attacks, which occurred one year ago Wednesday.

++++++++++

OBAMA engineered THE Benghazi US embassy attacked by rebel terrorists, as Obama did overthrowing regime in Libya.
By reviewing in terms of doing it or not doing it in Libya, it was still not to do that as better, for what Obama did by doing regime change makes US gain nothing but had embassy loss and beyond.

That says every move of Obama is disastrous, as now Obama is talking about to even Syria.
What is so wrong with Obama to want to strike Syria to give US critical damages?
What is the matter of Obama that he can't sleep because of that, that he wants to hit Syria?

But the question is to ask if it is not to strike Syria, does that mean tacos will be poisoned?

If were to ask between to strike and not to strike, what is the problem with that by not striking?

To look into strike or not to strike: If were to strike, the problems are immense obviously and the further destructive consequences to disaster are there by looking into the Iraq case, as that is enough to tell---as never learn from Iraq --after Iraq war, the image is very bad and negative, to go about the same on Syria is almost burnt (no any sort of evidence is any accepted like Colin Powell saying satellite map), to hit and strike as Clinton did and ran by doing so-called degrading Iraq WMD facilities proves bad, as there were no WMD after all--but this time is very troublesome for US to just hit alone and run.

This time, global forces are very much against US strike, and unlike Bush era, the stiff way of propelling against US strike is advancing on the planet, as it is determined US will suffer and take losses.
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#38997 Sep 8, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
And most of his post. It is just a 'here's some confusing literature taken out of context'. You decide what it means.
For example. "Oh lord….that is so 2006. The IPCC is finally catching up to the science of 2006. Now if they could only catch up to the science of 2013."
The science of 2013 is not well enough supported by secondary studies and 'rebuttals' so of COURSE the IPCC, charged with presenting the 'known' science to which there is 'very likely' or 'likely' consequences must use five year old stuff. It takes that time for science to check 'preliminary results'. They would be irresponsible to take studies from the present year that have yet to be checked by other scientists.
So let me get this straight…a 15-year standstill in global temperatures is not enough time for a trend, but 8 years of satellite data is enough to determine a trend in acceleration of ice loss.

So the IPCC knowing that 8 years of satellite data is not enough to go with a trend goes ahead with the most alarmist prediction of the old science of 2006, but doesn’t comment on the contradictory papers that were published after 2006.

2010:
The original GRACE-based estimates indicated as much as 1,500 billion tonnes ice loss just from Greenland in the period 2003-2009 - equivalent to a global sea-level rise of over 4mm on its own. However it has since become clear that these numbers weren't properly corrected for the phenomenon of "rebound", where the Earth's crust rises as ice is removed. GPS precise-location devices fixed to bedrock outcrops in Antarctica showed this last year, but nobody was sure how bad the errors were. Vermeersen and his colleagues' calculations show that as little as 500 gigatonnes of ice or even less could have melted from Greenland during 2003-2009, translating into less than 2mm of sea-level rise. In the case of Greenland, it could be that the current estimates are triple what they should be.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/07/revis...

2012:

Despite warnings by climate scientists that the massive Greenland ice sheet is melting rapidly into the sea, researchers in Denmark say that scenario is far from certain. Their new study of Greenland’s glacial ice sheet reports that twice in the past 30 years, major melting events have been followed by periods when melting stopped and the ice sheet stabilized. The authors say the rapid melting that has made headlines in recent weeks also is likely to slow or stop. Their conclusion also contradicts widely-reported predictions that the accelerating ice melt will trigger a significant rise in global sea levels.

http://www.voanews.com/content/study_predicts...

And this from 2012:

While vast quantities of ice melting into the ocean is not exactly good news, Wahr says, according to his team's estimates, about 30 percent less ice is melting than previously thought. The team used data from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment satellite, which was launched as a joint project between NASA and Germany in 2002. The GRACE satellite measures gravity, which is related to mass, in 20 distinct regions worldwide. Wahr says that gives the team more accurate estimates, because previous teams had to measure ice loss at "a few easily accessible glaciers" and then extrapolate it to the 200,000 glaciers worldwide.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/02/0...

But no, the IPCC ignores these papers and goes with the most alarmist prediction from 2006. But that’s okay. I hope they keep it up. It seems every time an alarmist makes an alarming claim, the opposite happens. If you are trying to sway public opinion, it might be better to state something like “we just don’t know for sure.”
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#38998 Sep 8, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The Mail, Brain_Dead? This is where you get your science?
They say almost a million square miles more which they can say because they rounded off 580,000 to "almost a million square miles".
Note that even they admit to 2012 being a record low.
And still, you do not get it, that ice extent is a different thing from ice mass, particularly in relation to the remaining "old ice", that which is thicker than one or two years will give you.
But we know, that for you, it's any port in a storm....
Where did you get the 580,000 number? According to NSIDC website the August 2013 ice extent was 2.38 million square kilometers (919,000 square miles) above the record low August extent in 2012.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

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) 4 min Fitius T Bluster 1,580,157
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 56 min weaponX 316,297
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 8 hr America 21,049
News Boulder, Colo., police regain lead role in JonB... (Feb '09) Wed Tex- 1,668
josie torres makeup was born a man & is a ts Wed What 2
News Moody's Warns State Budget Gridlock Could Make ... Aug 13 BPT 3
News MySpace `Predator' Gets 20-Year Prison Sentence... (Jul '07) Apr '17 Paul Kersey 14

Wethersfield Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Wethersfield Mortgages