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

Full story: Newsday

When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore.
Comments
37,541 - 37,560 of 45,851 Comments Last updated 53 min ago
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39916
Sep 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's a poll for ya, Motheaten:
NEW YORK CITY – Today’s new IPCC climate science report and the fast approaching first anniversary of Hurricane Sandy have policy leaders busy promising ways to curb global warming pollution and avoid future devastating storms.
American corporations are no less busy when it comes to combating climate change. But in addition to internal strategies to curb energy use and climate-warming pollution, many are realizing they need to put pressure on state legislatures and members of Congress.
Earlier this year, Ceres and its BICEP (Business for Innovative Climate & Energy Policy) network released a statement from 33 leading U.S. businesses urging their support for strong U.S. climate policies. Never mind that we’d just completed an election cycle in which neither candidate would utter the words “climate change,” these companies stood up and signed the Climate Declaration, stating,“Tackling climate change is one of the greatest American economic opportunities of the 21st century.”
Nearly 700 other companies have since joined them, including in just the past few days, Microsoft, Owens Corning and apparel giant VF Corporation, which owns visible brands like Wrangler and Lee.
Why? The very same policies that can move the needle on climate change—sourcing cleaner energy, using it more efficiently, and even pricing carbon—are quickly becoming the hallmarks of good management in boardrooms across America. A recent report by Ceres, WWF and Calvert Investments found that 60 percent of the combined Fortune 100 and Global 100 companies have already set renewable energy goals, greenhouse gas reduction goals, or both.
http://www.facebook.com/l.php...
<sigh>

The real reason why...

So the government can grease their wheels, on not impinge on their business with targeted regulations.

Crony capitalism.
gcaveman1

Soso, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39917
Sep 28, 2013
 
Sunny wrote:
<quoted text>"LMAO"Sounds like you better get that cave ready for that merciful send-off caveman.
Your post is one big crock of sh!tttttt.lol
It's really a shame when some people are too dense to grasp the excellent satire distributed by the Onion.

We should all work to help you find the right medications.
gcaveman1

Soso, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39918
Sep 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
<sigh>
The real reason why...
So the government can grease their wheels, on not impinge on their business with targeted regulations.
Crony capitalism.
You always have it figured out, don't you? Basically, that gubmint is evil.

You have a conspiracy answer for every aspect.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39919
Sep 28, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Ocean life needs CO2 to survive.

Climate change mitigation is a hoax and man made catastrophic climate change is pseudoscience. You can prove that truth by looking at the experimental record.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39921
Sep 28, 2013
 

Judged:

4

3

2

Living on our planet in a sustainable way is the only path that makes any sense.

The steps each individual takes may be small, but without them, the price paid by grandchildren may be much, much worse.
[thescotsman]
B as in B S as in S

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39922
Sep 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Plain Jane wrote:
For the non-readers here, global warming causes extreme weather. It gets hotter in some places and much colder in others. The Gulf stream is slowing due to the cold fresh water being dumped by glacier melt and we are losing it's warming effects on the eastern seaboard of the US and the west coasts of Britain and Europe. Scoff all you like. You are only showing your complete lack of literacy on the issue.
See old data is bad data... Clearly the oceans are warming so the experts are once again... Wrong cuz ya can't have it BOTH ways.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39923
Sep 28, 2013
 

Judged:

4

3

2

B as in B S as in S wrote:
<quoted text>
See old data is bad data... Clearly the oceans are warming so the experts are once again... Wrong cuz ya can't have it BOTH ways.
WRONG 'cause you are a fossil fuel shill..
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39924
Sep 28, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

SpaceBlues wrote:
Living on our planet in a sustainable way is the only path that makes any sense.
The steps each individual takes may be small, but without them, the price paid by grandchildren may be much, much worse.
[thescotsman]
So maybe you'll be the warmist who criticizes Gore or Obama for their use of fossil fuels... you know they're own 'individual steps'.

But I doubt it.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39925
Sep 28, 2013
 
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You always have it figured out, don't you? Basically, that gubmint is evil.
You have a conspiracy answer for every aspect.
Obama, "I’ve told my administration to keep looking every single day for actions we can take without Congress, steps that can save consumers money, make government more efficient and responsive, and help heal the economy. And we’re going to be announcing these executive actions on a regular basis.”

If Obama is saying that about the economy, don't your think he'd act that way on the "crisis" of global warming with the EPA and other regulatory agencies?

Just how naive are you?

Never mind that he doesn't abide by the science himself.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39926
Sep 28, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

1

B as in B S as in S wrote:
<quoted text>
See old data is bad data...


Not bad so much as with larger error bars. Instruments and coverage has improved over the years. Much to your dismay.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39927
Sep 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

B as in B S as in S wrote:
<quoted text>
See old data is bad data... Clearly the oceans are warming so the experts are once again... Wrong cuz ya can't have it BOTH ways.
Oh so the .0000000005 deg c lost in predicted air temp in computer models went to the oceans, infact it warmed faster than predicted.

So what does this mean:
"The increase in the amount of heat in the oceans amounts to 17 x 1022 Joules over the last 30 years. That is so much energy it is equivalent to exploding a Hiroshima bomb every second in the ocean for thirty years."

So don't expect nice gentle weather with the change of seasons. One night you might wake up wet and freezing wondering why you are seeing stars, well it's because the roof is no longer there!

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives...
dont drink the koolaid

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39928
Sep 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Not bad so much as with larger error bars.
LOL... exactly.

May I take the liberty to reuse that?

-koolaid
dont drink the koolaid

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39929
Sep 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh so the .0000000005 deg c lost in predicted air temp in computer models went to the oceans, infact it warmed faster than predicted.
The point is:
The experts can not have it both ways...
Science experts predict that CAGW will cause the oceans to become colder and the oceans to become warmer.
Science experts predict that CAGW will cause Europe to become colder and Europe to become warmer.

If Climate Scientists predict every possible future of Earth's climate is that proof that they are right. After all, one of the forecasts were correct.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39930
Sep 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
The point is:
The experts can not have it both ways...
Science experts predict that CAGW will cause the oceans to become colder and the oceans to become warmer.
Science experts predict that CAGW will cause Europe to become colder and Europe to become warmer.
If Climate Scientists predict every possible future of Earth's climate is that proof that they are right. After all, one of the forecasts were correct.
As the web site says, you guys jump on anything regardless of the massive amount of factual information presented telling the opposite of what you wish to hear or see. Arguing about words like precise being used or precisely , its a joke.
If a computer model monitored your driving style & determined you shouldn't hold a lic, would you expect it to mark the tree that you are going to run into or name the granny you are going to hit crossing the road. Yet this is what deniers expect here, it's that sort of crap that removes any chance of gaining credibility.

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39931
Sep 29, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>
Mann is still a Nobel-winning scientist, grief.
well where is his prize, son? i'm sure you can provide evidence of that, too, huh?

unless you're lying.....which you are.

prove me wrong!! where is the nobel prize you insist he won? i guess everyone who is a citizen in the eu are all nobel 'winners', too, in your crazy world?
gcaveman1

Soso, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39932
Sep 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Seth Borenstein writes, "in science, 95 percent certainty is often considered the gold standard for certainty."

One IPCC climate scientist interviewed by Borenstein said the panel even thought about boosting some places to "virtually certain" and 99 percent.

For instance, Jeff Severinghaus, a geoscientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, stated that through the use of radioactive isotopes, scientists are more than 99 percent sure that much of the carbon in the air has human fingerprints on it. Even more, because of basic physics, scientists are 99 percent certain that carbon traps heat in what is called the greenhouse effect.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/95...
Retired Farmer

Crofton, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39933
Sep 29, 2013
 
gcaveman1 wrote:
Seth Borenstein writes, "in science, 95 percent certainty is often considered the gold standard for certainty."
One IPCC climate scientist interviewed by Borenstein said the panel even thought about boosting some places to "virtually certain" and 99 percent.
For instance, Jeff Severinghaus, a geoscientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, stated that through the use of radioactive isotopes, scientists are more than 99 percent sure that much of the carbon in the air has human fingerprints on it. Even more, because of basic physics, scientists are 99 percent certain that carbon traps heat in what is called the greenhouse effect.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/95...
Caveman, you might as well give it up.

The deniers (and worse the folks that think global warming will be a good thing) won't be convinced otherwise until the water of the Gulf of Mexico reaches all the way up to Memphis.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39934
Sep 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Retired Farmer wrote:
<quoted text>
Caveman, you might as well give it up.
The deniers (and worse the folks that think global warming will be a good thing) won't be convinced otherwise until the water of the Gulf of Mexico reaches all the way up to Memphis.
The deniers ignore the sealevel rise and other effects at their own peril. Sure the rivers will back up and run over their banks everywhere... unpredictibly, too..
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39935
Sep 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

gcaveman1 wrote:
Seth Borenstein writes, "in science, 95 percent certainty is often considered the gold standard for certainty."
One IPCC climate scientist interviewed by Borenstein said the panel even thought about boosting some places to "virtually certain" and 99 percent.
For instance, Jeff Severinghaus, a geoscientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, stated that through the use of radioactive isotopes, scientists are more than 99 percent sure that much of the carbon in the air has human fingerprints on it. Even more, because of basic physics, scientists are 99 percent certain that carbon traps heat in what is called the greenhouse effect.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/95...
Thank you for posting this. I did it several days ago while calling it a modern uncle tomming.

It is 100 percent in MY book.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39936
Sep 29, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Thank you for posting this. I did it several days ago ....
Your long lost credibility is reason not to pay attention to whatever you post.

Hypocrite.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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 Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Wethersfield People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Wethersfield News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Wethersfield
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••