Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 59547 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.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#36766 Jul 4, 2013
Coal is King wrote:
Again, typical liberal enviro-nazi responses. My authoritative source is declared illegitimate and ridiculed. Yet you insist that information from your sources, the group of so-called scientists ..EDITED....
You don't need to read much further to know that you're dealing with an Energy Company turd...

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#36767 Jul 4, 2013
Nazis, like Communists, would simply run roughshod over the environment in the name of their authoritarian states and the greater good of their ideologies - and particularly their militaries. It's a proven fact.

Right wingers are FAR closer to being Nazis, given their attachment to big business partnered wtih the state, to ultra-patriotism, to the military, to flags and symbols, and to law n' order.

NO leftist or liberal is a fascist or nazi and we have only the greatest disgust for those people and their ideologies.

Just FYI, troll assclown...

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#36768 Jul 4, 2013
Coal is King wrote:
Again, typical liberal enviro-nazi responses. My authoritative source is declared illegitimate and ridiculed. Yet you insist that information from your sources, the group of so-called scientists who cite one another’s cherry picked data and conclusions conjured from that data to support their own far-fetched theories, none of which can be tested experimentally, must be accepted as revealed Truth.
I am not denying that CO2 from coal may (and I stress the word may) be contributing to a warming of the climate. Even if it is, stopping the burning of coal in the U.S.A. will have no effect on the outcome. China and India have already made it known to the world that they plan to increase their use of coal several fold in the next decades....
So the solution is to burn more coal in the USA. How will that solve anything? That is like a middle school boy saying, "Everyone else is doing it, why can't I?"

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#36769 Jul 4, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
So the solution is to burn more coal in the USA. How will that solve anything? That is like a middle school boy saying, "Everyone else is doing it, why can't I?"
It's common on the Right. How many times have they responded to criticism of, say, trans fats by saying 'It's a free country, I can eat as many trans-fats as I want! I'm going to pick some up on the way home, in fact!!!'

Not mature adults by any means...
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#36770 Jul 4, 2013
Coal is King wrote:
Again, typical liberal enviro-nazi responses. My authoritative source is declared illegitimate and ridiculed. Yet you insist that information from your sources, the group of so-called scientists who cite one another’s cherry picked data and conclusions conjured from that data to support their own far-fetched theories, none of which can be tested experimentally, must be accepted as revealed Truth.
I am not denying that CO2 from coal may (and I stress the word may) be contributing to a warming of the climate. Even if it is, stopping the burning of coal in the U.S.A. will have no effect on the outcome. China and India have already made it known to the world that they plan to increase their use of coal several fold in the next decades. At the very time when the two Asian colossuses are increasing their industrial capacity and building up their economies, Obama’s war on coal will devastate ours.
That we can switch to natural gas is a disastrous delusion. The college textbook Modern Physical Geology by Graham R. Thompson and Jonathan Turk (1991) says that natural gas reserves can possibly be depleted as early as the 2070s at the then-current (1991) rate of use (p. 431). Thompson and Turk also say that at the lowest estimate of coal reserves, the U.S. will have a plentiful supply of coal until the year 2200. At the high estimate coal production will not peak and begin to decline until around 2300 (p. 427). John F. Mongillo said in A Student Guide to Energy (2011),“Some energy experts believe that the supplies of natural gas will be depleted by 2040.” Mongillo cited the U.S. Energy Information Agency as his source for the statement,“by 2030 China will account for 71 percent of the world’s consumption of coal.”(p. 10) Jason F. Shogren said in the Encyclopedia of Energy, Natural Resources, and Environmental Economics (2013),“natural gas will be depleted in this century at current consumption rates, but coal reserves can last another 250 years.”(p. 311)
Coal will be king whether you like it or not. It is up to us whether King Coal's kingdom is in the U.S. or in Asia.
I shit in the milk of your authoritative source.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#36771 Jul 4, 2013
Coal is King wrote:
Again, typical King Coal.
What is the difference between a genuine scientific sceptic (aka an agnostic) and a science denier? It’s simple: sceptics consider the full body of evidence before making up their mind. Deniers already have their mind made up and reject any evidence that conflicts with their pre-conceived views.

Read more: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2...
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#36772 Jul 4, 2013
Godwin’s law (also known as Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin’s Law of Nazi Analogies) is an assertion made by Mike Godwin in 1990 that has become an Internet adage. It states: “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.” In other words, Godwin said that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably makes a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis.
Coal is King

Cadiz, KY

#36773 Jul 4, 2013
All of you are still evading the question: What will happen to our economy if we deny ourselves coal, a proven energy source that we have plenty of, and rival countries go on using it to full capacity?

Are you claiming that what the geology textbook, A Student Guide to Energy, and the Encyclopedia of Energy, Natural Resources, and Environmental Economics say about the depletion of natural gas is false?
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#36774 Jul 4, 2013
Coal is King wrote:
All of you are still evading the question: What will happen to our economy if we deny ourselves coal, a proven energy source that we have plenty of, and rival countries go on using it to full capacity?
Are you claiming that what the geology textbook, A Student Guide to Energy, and the Encyclopedia of Energy, Natural Resources, and Environmental Economics say about the depletion of natural gas is false?
No one is evading anything.

The truth is, we don't know. This is as new to us enviro-nazis as it is to you denier-scum.

It's a new world. We have to figure out how we can transition from fossils fuel to green. Fossil fuel products are NOT 100% bad. But they actually need to be valued more. What you can do with petroleum products is simply amazing, and we have taken them for granted for so long because they were so cheap.

We know we can get power from the sun and the wind. Why not use that and save all the precious oil and plastic that we can.

Why is this such a complicated problem?

Hint. It isn't.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#36775 Jul 4, 2013
Coal is King wrote:
All of you are still evading the question: What will happen to our economy if we deny ourselves coal, a proven energy source that we have plenty of, and rival countries go on using it to full capacity?
Are you claiming that what the geology textbook, A Student Guide to Energy, and the Encyclopedia of Energy, Natural Resources, and Environmental Economics say about the depletion of natural gas is false?
I believe you have that wrong, it just depends on where you want to be in the queue to reap the benefits of a world wide ban on emission polluting practices. Its either at the front or the back. Every country has it coal on their "Hit" list including China. If no break through tech comes along in the next 5-6 yrs to burn it clean, I promise you coal will be phased out and replaced by something else. That's your reality, deny it all you want but the weight of opinion now on all leading countries including the developing ones, that measures have to be taken to limit man's CO2 emissions. All of Europe has started, now China,even India which is going down the Nuke road. So here you will have the USA out on its own like a deer caught in the headlights. Obama is well aware of that, and he is also aware that doing it via congress is like the dark skinned guy speaking out at the local KKK meeting. So he is doing it on his own as best he can manage. In the long run it will be for the good of the country and for the rest of the world. Like all transitions in history it won't be without pain but it sure will be with benefit.
litesong

Everett, WA

#36776 Jul 4, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
Obama is.......aware that doing it via congress is like the dark skinned guy speaking out at the local KKK meeting.
Yeah, re-pubic-lick-uns refresh themselves with tea party members directly from a KKK cross burning. Previously, national re-pubic-lick-uns got direction from KKK southern governors.
Coal is King

Cadiz, KY

#36777 Jul 5, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, re-pubic-lick-uns refresh themselves with tea party members directly from a KKK cross burning. Previously, national re-pubic-lick-uns got direction from KKK southern governors.
It is apparent that you failed middle school history. Back in the days of the KKK in the 1920s the South was ruled by Democrats.
CTM

New Milford, CT

#36778 Jul 5, 2013
The past several administrations have let energy, oil,coal, natural gas, sun and wind, run them. Whatever could make a ton of money gets preference despite what damage it will do. It's all money. Oil still making 10 billion $$ a quarter, coal still has a lobby so they have to share, natural gas came around after Boone Pickens pushed and bought its' way in. While cheap it is polluting our water table to no end. Sun and wind get virtually free money from the current administration,aka, Solyndra. I believe if there was any honesty and/or transparency to the energy lobby in its entirety we would have OShinskys batteries running truly efficient electric cars, sun and wind would be government owned and regulated to the point of costing about 10% of current costs, and a car that runs on water would be created or just taken out from under wraps. H2O, Helium and Oxygen, two of the most explosive gasses on earth, do you really think the oil biz wants that? This would require politicians and big business to be honest, so this will probably stay a dream for a long time..

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#36779 Jul 5, 2013
CTM wrote:
The past several administrations have let energy, oil,coal, natural gas, sun and wind, run them. Whatever could make a ton of money gets preference despite what damage it will do. It's all money. Oil still making 10 billion $$ a quarter, coal still has a lobby so they have to share, natural gas came around after Boone Pickens pushed and bought its' way in. While cheap it is polluting our water table to no end. Sun and wind get virtually free money from the current administration,aka, Solyndra. I believe if there was any honesty and/or transparency to the energy lobby in its entirety we would have OShinskys batteries running truly efficient electric cars, sun and wind would be government owned and regulated to the point of costing about 10% of current costs, and a car that runs on water would be created or just taken out from under wraps. H2O, Helium and Oxygen, two of the most explosive gasses on earth, do you really think the oil biz wants that? This would require politicians and big business to be honest, so this will probably stay a dream for a long time..
Much of that may be true, but a car running on water? The physics is just not there. It takes as much (really a little more because of efficiencies) energy to dissociate water into hydrogen and oxygen gas as it will yield on recombining. It is just a pipe dream.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#36780 Jul 5, 2013
Coal is King wrote:
<quoted text>
It is apparent that you failed middle school history. Back in the days of the KKK in the 1920s the South was ruled by Democrats.
If you recall, the South is Republican today. The same folks who were Democrats back then.
SpaceBlues

Humble, TX

#36782 Jul 5, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
If you recall, the South is Republican today. The same folks who were Democrats back then.
Much has been written about this matter.

Gosh remember Wallace et al. From Wikipedia:

After the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the old argument that all whites had to stick together to prevent civil rights legislation lost its force. More and more whites began to vote Republican, especially in the suburbs and growing cities. Newcomers from the North were mostly Republican; they were now joined by conservatives and wealthy Southern whites, while liberal whites and poor whites, especially in rural areas, remained with the Democratic Party.[1]

A huge portion of Representatives, Senators, and voters who were referred to as Reagan Democrats in the 1980s were conservative Southern Democrats. An Interesting exception has been Arkansas, whose state legislature has been continued to be majority Democrat (having, however, given its electoral votes to the GOP in the past three Presidential elections, except in 1992 and 1996 when "favorite son" Bill Clinton was the candidate and won each time) until 2012, when Arkansas voters selected a 21-14 Republican majority in the Senate.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#36783 Jul 5, 2013
Coal is King wrote:
All of you are still evading the question: What will happen to our economy if we deny ourselves coal, a proven energy source that we have plenty of, and rival countries go on using it to full capacity?
Are you claiming that what the geology textbook, A Student Guide to Energy, and the Encyclopedia of Energy, Natural Resources, and Environmental Economics say about the depletion of natural gas is false?
On the off-chance that's a serious question (one which I haven't seen anyone "evading," incidentally), we obviously can't go from current coal usage to zero in a couple of years. We'll have to phase it out very gradually, in fact, given the amount we use for generating electricity. In fact as we phase out its use, we'll probably continue exporting it for some time afterward.

Natural gas will fill in a lot of the void over the next few decades, but we desperately need renewable resources if we're going to continue. They're going to continue to work on hydrogen fuel cells, for example, which offer a lot of hope for the future.
CTM

New Milford, CT

#36784 Jul 5, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Much of that may be true, but a car running on water? The physics is just not there. It takes as much (really a little more because of efficiencies) energy to dissociate water into hydrogen and oxygen gas as it will yield on recombining. It is just a pipe dream.
......Hmm, my thought was to just ignite the gas. But which dream has more of a chance, the car running on water or honest politicians serving the people like in the beginning?
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#36785 Jul 5, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
So the solution is to burn more coal in the USA. How will that solve anything? That is like a middle school boy saying, "Everyone else is doing it, why can't I?"
But they are actually shutting down coal power in many areas due to the extreme costs of the pollution generated. tinyurl.com/lbyzxys

Some try to make it an 'us vs them' issue but it is hardly that. Even the southern US where coal used to be king is starting to real from the long term health and economic impacts.

And alternatives such as solar and wind are around 'grid parity' even now so in 2012 more WIND capacity was added than coal.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#36787 Jul 5, 2013
CTM wrote:
<quoted text>......Hmm, my thought was to just ignite the gas. But which dream has more of a chance, the car running on water or honest politicians serving the people like in the beginning?
I assume by "burning the gas" you are referring to the hydrogen gas made from the water. That is dumb because it takes as much energy to change water into the gases as it will yield when burning the gas....Definitely the politicians serving the people because a car running on water is just not feasible.

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.

Global Warming Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Poll Will it, won't it? Part 3 (Aug '12) 1 hr TTITT 3,021
Stick a fork in it. The Global Warming forum is... 7 hr budd 3
News If climate scientists are in it for the money, ... 9 hr don t drink the k... 3
Poll How do you spell 40 as a word? (Jul '10) 14 hr IB DaMann 565
mau nomor togel jitu hub om agus 085396801745 d... 19 hr yahya 2
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 22 hr IB DaMann 9,642
News What happens if we burn all the fossil fuels? Mon litesong 8
More from around the web