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

Full story: Newsday 46,744
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Full Story
Mothra

Mesa, AZ

#42311 Dec 31, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Man, we've really stirred up the nest! I believe they have run into some undeniable truth, and it has driven them crazy mad.
Anyone care what a zealot believes?
Coal is King

Hopkinsville, KY

#42313 Dec 31, 2013
From Clay Center, KY:

"That was a US News article not Fox. The Kyoto Protocol is open records, 3rd world counties do not fall under the carbon emissions restrictions. Don't know how Communist China got included as a 3rd world country but India and China can and will burn all the coal they can get their hands on.

We were counting on selling them some but the environmentalist liberal agenda is already fighting that. World consumption of coal will double by 2022 as we shut down our coal fired power plants. China brings a coal fired plant on line at a rate of about one a day. India is begging for coal, that is all over the internet and available for anyone that wants to look it up.

Obama and the EPA are killing our cheapest energy source and our economy for no good reason. Google Chinese coal production Figures and Coal consumption in India, you can research future trends and every report out there points to not only continued us of coal by China and India but they are increasing their reliance on coal.

Obama is destroying the Eastern Ky. Economy and the economy of the U.S. for no good reason. He will not reduce carbon emissions by one ton into the atmosphere, he might reduce it here in the U.S. and drive our energy prices higher in an already bad economy but China and India and the other 3rd world countries are allowed to burn coal by the Kyoto Protocol that he signed off on. Why would the U.S. cripple itself by not using our most abundant energy source while other nations are allowed to use it and in fact will double their consumption of coal.

This is not a sound environmentalist policy and it is the worst energy policy a sane government could ever think of. I can't believe our government would be so stupid as to purposely destroy the chance for is to become energy independent and purposely set about to destroy our economy. "
Coal is King

Hopkinsville, KY

#42314 Dec 31, 2013
Voices from the coalfields.

From Clay Center, KY:

"China, India and third world countries are burning coal and will continue to do so, that is not in dispute, easy to confirm.

It is a scientific fact that the carbon and other elements China, India and the 3rd world countries pump into the atmosphere does not stay in their countries.

The Kyoto Protocol and our stupid EPA regs might have made more since it the burning of coal was banned world wide and every country had to stop burning it. As it stands the largest polluters will be able to burn as much coal as they want and will continue to increase the amount of coal they use.

What good does it do for the President and the EPA to stop our coal production and shut down our coal fired power plants when others are still pumping carbon into the atmosphere? Why are we the ones destroying our economy by driving electrical prices beyond what we will be able to afford with no viable alternative energy in sight? Why are we destroying our local economy and the countries economy for something that is not making one iota's worth of difference?

I know the big plan it to make coal so expensive that the renewables will be able to get a foothold in the energy market and for the government to rake in billions from the carbon tax. Thing is the renewable energy sources are not doable at this time and we are shutting down coal fired plants with no power generation from alternative sources to replace the Power We Lose. Yes they can shut down Louisa and AEP can buy power off the grid at a higher rate but how many coal fired plants can you shut down with nothing on line to replace the power you lose.

It is like a firing squad formed in a circle! The most absolute stupidest concept ever developed by a left wing Democrat. You keep taking power off line provided by coal and hoping power will become so expensive that the alternative sources will come on line. That is a dangerous GD gamble if no other renewable sources are made ready to step in as we lose coal fired powered power plants.

It takes years just to get a nuclear plant approved then 10 years or more to build one. It takes years to get a hydroelectric dam approved and years to build one. You can't have solar when the sun don't shine and you can't put the grid on batteries at night when it don't. Just a stupid concept that no one understands how it got this far with anyone with any common sense not stopping this nonsense before he destroys the country.

He is not making a nickels worth of difference on carbon emissions into the atmosphere because he can't make India and China quit burning it.

He will not reap billions in carbon tax because it is just cheaper for a utility to just shut down the coal fired plant and say to hell with it. He will not see any of the renewables make a big amount of difference because it will take billions of dollars to develop them at a time when he is taking billions out of the economy by raising the power rates beyond any level that will support economic growth.

That's the thing with the liberal tree huggers, they are real good at campaigning, controlling the media and the message, getting their left wing environmentalist elected but never gave any thought as to how they are going to make this carbon tax work or how they can shut down all the coal plants and still have electrical power before the renewables come on line.

If you think ObamaCare was a major screw up and a mess just watch the next 10 years when the carbon tax scheme and the war on coal blows up in their face."
Mothra

Mesa, AZ

#42315 Dec 31, 2013
WARMING SCIENTIST WRONG wrote:
Global warming scientists forced to admit defeat... because of too much ice: Stranded Antarctic ship's crew will be rescued by helicopter
Chris Turney, a climate scientist and leader of the expedition, was going to document 'environmental changes' at the pole. In an interview he said he expected melting ice to play a part in expedition.
They went in search evidence of the world’s melting ice caps, but instead a team of climate scientists have been forced to abandon their mission … because the Antarctic ice is thicker than usual at this time of year.
The scientists have been stuck aboard the stricken MV Akademik Schokalskiy since Christmas Day, with repeated sea rescue attempts being abandoned as icebreaking ships failed to reach them.
Now that effort has been ditched, with experts admitting the ice is just too thick. Instead the crew have built an icy helipad, with plans afoot to rescue the 74-strong team by helicopter.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-25311...
Careful there... you're going to be accused of cherry picking data.

Maybe they all just wanted a helicopter ride.
Coal is King

Hopkinsville, KY

#42316 Dec 31, 2013
Another voice from the coalfields.

From Richmond, KY:

"A lot of the people who cheat the system are very good at it.They know how to get any benefit you could imagine.Living Together is the typical way they cheat the system and it happens in all classes not just the impoverished class.Kentucky has a democrat governor.I think for the most part Ky does vote democrat.The democrat assault on coal has made some democrats cross over and vote republican in recent elections. I agree it does not signify hypocrisy how a person votes. I will say that on my last meeting in lexington while discussing politics a person said " you people up there shouldnt be mining the governments land ".For one thing the land isnt the governments it belongs to private citizens. Another thing was mentioned "most people up in southeast ky are on meth and drugs so they better vote democrat so they can get their welfare" . Its sickening they want us to vote democrat to keep the area down and they dont think for a moment that we need jobs ? The severance shouldnt be sent to places like Lexington it should stay with the county that mined it , The next comment was and it gets worse " You all are racist and thats why you dont like Obama come one admit it". Skin color ? Skin Color has nothing to do with the problems we now face due to Obama. Hes attacked the constitution ,energy sources,spied on Americans, and ruined our economy and probably will bankrupt hospitals in the next year if a miracle doesnt take place soon."

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#42317 Dec 31, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Careful there... you're going to be accused of cherry picking data.
Maybe they all just wanted a helicopter ride.
Exactly, for a start this little expedition was just eco tourists not a boat full of climate scientists, there was one leading the tour. So that's your first cherry pick of the day.
Secondly because the boat got iced in can we now declare climate change is over ?
Is this the other catch phrase you deniers want to put out there now
Mothra

Mesa, AZ

#42318 Dec 31, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly, for a start this little expedition was just eco tourists not a boat full of climate scientists, there was one leading the tour. So that's your first cherry pick of the day.
Secondly because the boat got iced in can we now declare climate change is over ?
Is this the other catch phrase you deniers want to put out there now
Lighten up, Francis.
gcaveman1

Laurel, MS

#42319 Dec 31, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Oz said there was no cost for no cost to 'green' energies. I showed otherwise.
Go back and read the thread, zealot.
No, he didn't.

He said the cost of one would be offset by the elimination of the other. And try to remember that costs are not always measured in monetary terms.

We will not be able to "kill" the fossil fuel industry and probably don't want to. What needs to be done is for the dirty fuels to be, first, supplemented by green energy sources, and then, outweighed by green energy. There are some things petroleum products can do better right now and possibly on into the future, but they need to be phased out over the next few centuries.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#42320 Dec 31, 2013
VeganTiger wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you know what you sound like??! A super corporatist democrat parrot, that's all. Whether or not 1000 kids gets killed by falling nails from the sky every year gives me no excuse to kill one, or "happen to hit one, but not kill". What a pathetic rationale..........
It's pathetic is it ? I'll tell you what is pathetic, more birds get killed by glass buildings by a factor of 5000 or more. "According to the CSE, for every bird killed by a turbine, 5,820, on average, are killed striking buildings, typically glass windows." Yet we still keep building glass sky scrapers no problems at all. So you want to give an example of pathetic rationale, there it is right there. You have no problems with glass buildings yet a bird into a wind turbine is a reason not to build any. Like Mothra says we don't know the definition of irony when it comes to deniers, you give the definition up to new meaning.
Truth Facts

Chillicothe, OH

#42321 Dec 31, 2013
All you Al Gore lovers,how's that climate change working out for ya?Bunch of clowns ,you actually believed what Al Gore sold you.Remind you of another clown?If you like your policy,you can keep your policy.You climate clowns are the laughing stock.Try disneyland,that might work.
litesong

Monroe, WA

#42322 Dec 31, 2013
WARMING SCIENTIST WRONG wrote:
They went in search evidence of the world’s melting ice caps, but instead a team of climate scientists have been forced to abandon their mission … because the Antarctic ice is thicker than usual at this time of year.
As told a hundred times here(but you don't read), the Antarctic sea ice was predicted to increase in 2002, re-affirmed in 2005 & as toxic topix AGW deniers love to show, has proven to be true. So what toxic topix AGW deniers crow about, is why they eat crow, now & into the future.
Truth Facts

Chillicothe, OH

#42323 Dec 31, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
As told a hundred times here(but you don't read), the Antarctic sea ice was predicted to increase in 2002, re-affirmed in 2005 & as toxic topix AGW deniers love to show, has proven to be true. So what toxic topix AGW deniers crow about, is why they eat crow, now & into the future.
20 years from now you will still be posting the same old sht with no actual change in climate change.You will still try to convince people it exist.Your all a bunch of Kooks.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#42324 Dec 31, 2013
Truth Facts wrote:
<quoted text>20 years from now you will still be posting the same old sht with no actual change in climate change.You will still try to convince people it exist.Your all a bunch of Kooks.
Can you explain to us in a rational way why "Billions" of people all over the world suddenly believe in the "tooth fairy"? Because that is essentially what you deniers are saying, anyone who believes in climate change is paying homage to a myth. Like the Religion comparison one believes in God because they choose too, but the warmers believe in a proven science not a f...g myth. Although Deniers such as yourself want to serve up climate change believers like a 60's hippie colony as opposed to other religious beliefs based entirely on faith with no proof.(That is the place you are living in right now and you have the hide to call us kooks!)

“Grow the power within yourself”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#42325 Dec 31, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
It's pathetic is it ? I'll tell you what is pathetic, more birds get killed by glass buildings by a factor of 5000 or more. "According to the CSE, for every bird killed by a turbine, 5,820, on average, are killed striking buildings, typically glass windows." Yet we still keep building glass sky scrapers no problems at all. So you want to give an example of pathetic rationale, there it is right there. You have no problems with glass buildings yet a bird into a wind turbine is a reason not to build any. Like Mothra says we don't know the definition of irony when it comes to deniers, you give the definition up to new meaning.
WOW, you globalist corporate tools raised your bets, didn't you? Last time it was "factor of 10" and now it is a "factor of 5000" (In just a few hours)? With this inflationary application of data and numbers, no wonder nobody believes your hyperbole, not even your own fellows, but purely is playing along the game. Otherwise, this number says NOTHING. You are not even comparing apples to oranges, more like comparing a mosquito to a Condor.

SO, let's talk about birds flying into buildings for a little while. First of all, what kind of birds are we talking about here? ANd where do they live typically? DO they go to Manhattan to feast and then fly back to Niagara Falls? NO, these are RESIDENTIAL, most of the time smaller birds, pigeons and some larger coastal birds. The effect on the ecosystem is MINIMAL.

Then, what kinds of birds get killed in the wind turbines? Pigeons? Sparrows? Hummingbirds? Crows? Magpies?

Nope, what gets killed are Ravens, Eagles (not only the Bald one, but since it is a national bird, I thought it was a worthy example), larger coastal birds, MIGRATORY larger birds and hawks in chase. What is the difference between how these fly and the city-pigeon? Well, for start, most of these birds are TOP-PREDATORS, meaning when 1 is killed it could be environmentally equivalent to thousands of city birds hitting windows. Then, their large wing span is created for a reason: SO they can go far, soar on up going air currents and nosedive fast. Windmill territory tends to be over areas eagles like to soar with transparent surface and good windy conditions (at least on paper, but liberals like to put them up along highways as propaganda). Note that the Kennedy-clan did not want them outside of their property and they never talked about birds as an argument. In hang-gliding on a warm day, if you see an eagle soar, you can just follow it with your glider and you will float on air current. When will we see the first hang-glider pilot get killed in a wind mill? Pretty soon, I would guess, but you libs would probably demonize his/her family if they came out in media at all, you nasty scum (!!).

Anyways, so the birds that soar often use this as a contemplative, recuperative strategy until they need to move. Even though a bird has great top vision, it's ability to sense wind mills head on is very limited. Anyways, this is information more meant for REAL people, not corporatist tools, so look it up yourself guys.

The only similarity between a city fowl and a bald eagle is that they are birds. The entire life habitat of a bald eagle is destroyed if one of the pairs is killed. Then again, YOU LIBERALS NEVER CARE ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT. It is all a lie, joke and hoax to you guys. If someone accidentally hit an eagle while deer hunting, he could face prison time and you libs would love for a "gun owner" to be locked up, wouldn't you?

Finally, those looking for a god analogy here, listen to Helloween and "eagle Fly free". from the 80's. More people are waking up and realizing liberals care as much about the environment as they do about other real issues, meaning NOTHING.





SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#42326 Dec 31, 2013
The new study supplements earlier research published in Geophysical Research Letters demonstrating a link between Arctic sea ice loss and extreme weather particularly in both the summer and winter, including prolongation of "drought, flooding, cold spells, and heat waves."

Last year Prof Duarte was lead author of a paper in the Royal Swedish Academy of Science's journal AMBIO warning that the Arctic was at risk of passing critical "tipping points" that could lead to a cascading "domino effect once the summer sea ice is lost." Prof Duarte said at the time:

"If set in motion, they can generate profound climate change which places the Arctic not at the periphery but at the core of the Earth system. There is evidence that these forces are starting to be set in motion. This has major consequences for the future of human kind as climate change progresses."

[by Dr Nafeez Ahmed, executive director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development and author of A User's Guide to the Crisis of Civilisation: And How to Save It among other books.]

“Grow the power within yourself”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#42327 Dec 31, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you explain to us in a rational way why "Billions" of people all over the world suddenly believe in the "tooth fairy"? Because that is essentially what you deniers are saying, anyone who believes in climate change is paying homage to a myth. Like the Religion comparison one believes in God because they choose too, but the warmers believe in a proven science not a f...g myth. Although Deniers such as yourself want to serve up climate change believers like a 60's hippie colony as opposed to other religious beliefs based entirely on faith with no proof.(That is the place you are living in right now and you have the hide to call us kooks!)
First of all, "billions" may believe in "global warming" or they may not. I don't know. I just don't know many people who talk about this with a straight face. And there are FOR SURE "billions" who don't believe in it. Secondly, you arrogant liberal prikc couldn't help yourself from throwing a stab at faith again, could you? So the "billions" who "believe" in global warming are wholly educated about the topic. Like comparing the loss of top-predator prime wild habitat soaring birds to city-pigeons? Or like the fools trapped in the ice outside Antarctica that blame them being trapped in ice due to WARMING!!

Finally, I think liberals really started becoming rabid, nasty and angry as never before when the entire global warming talk was on. Despite crap science; two email gates clearly showing their agendas; and mega-billionaires, politicians (often the same thing) and other power brokers, you guys are unshakeable and not even willing to admit you may be wrong. And your solutions and plans are so radical that the globalist prison you are creating will be hot enough by itself that I doubt many freedom loving people can survive it anyways. Eventually, you all remind me of some mythical Sauron who just want to destroy everybody and leave a wasteland ignorance and mind-numbness.

Sorry for some wording, not meant personally, but when you guys cannot even comment reasonably over such things, there is no more point. As always, arguing with a crazy liberal only makes you more convinced that you are on to something yourself.

gcaveman1

Laurel, MS

#42328 Dec 31, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Nailed what, zealot?
How many windmills are there compared to buildings?
Gawd... warmists do love to cherry pick their data.
OZ nailed it. Again!

I'll bite. How many windmills are there compared to buildings?

And you're drunk on cherry-wine, picked up off the ground and rotted in your shoe. You drank the cherry juice! Your leaps and lapses of judgement are signs of classic alcoholism. Or of cognitive dissonance.
gcaveman1

Laurel, MS

#42329 Dec 31, 2013
VeganTiger wrote:
<quoted text>
WOW, you globalist corporate tools raised your bets, didn't you? Last time it was "factor of 10" and now it is a "factor of 5000" (In just a few hours)? With this inflationary application of data and numbers, no wonder nobody believes your hyperbole, not even your own fellows, but purely is playing along the game. Otherwise, this number says NOTHING. You are not even comparing apples to oranges, more like comparing a mosquito to a Condor.
SO, let's talk about birds flying into buildings for a little while. First of all, what kind of birds are we talking about here? ANd where do they live typically? DO they go to Manhattan to feast and then fly back to Niagara Falls? NO, these are RESIDENTIAL, most of the time smaller birds, pigeons and some larger coastal birds. The effect on the ecosystem is MINIMAL.
Then, what kinds of birds get killed in the wind turbines? Pigeons? Sparrows? Hummingbirds? Crows? Magpies?
Nope, what gets killed are Ravens, Eagles (not only the Bald one, but since it is a national bird, I thought it was a worthy example), larger coastal birds, MIGRATORY larger birds and hawks in chase. What is the difference between how these fly and the city-pigeon? Well, for start, most of these birds are TOP-PREDATORS, meaning when 1 is killed it could be environmentally equivalent to thousands of city birds hitting windows. Then, their large wing span is created for a reason: SO they can go far, soar on up going air currents and nosedive fast. Windmill territory tends to be over areas eagles like to soar with transparent surface and good windy conditions (at least on paper, but liberals like to put them up along highways as propaganda). Note that the Kennedy-clan did not want them outside of their property and they never talked about birds as an argument. In hang-gliding on a warm day, if you see an eagle soar, you can just follow it with your glider and you will float on air current. When will we see the first hang-glider pilot get killed in a wind mill? Pretty soon, I would guess, but you libs would probably demonize his/her family if they came out in media at all, you nasty scum (!!).
Anyways, so the birds that soar often use this as a contemplative, recuperative strategy until they need to move. Even though a bird has great top vision, it's ability to sense wind mills head on is very limited. Anyways, this is information more meant for REAL people, not corporatist tools, so look it up yourself guys.
The only similarity between a city fowl and a bald eagle is that they are birds. The entire life habitat of a bald eagle is destroyed if one of the pairs is killed. Then again, YOU LIBERALS NEVER CARE ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT. It is all a lie, joke and hoax to you guys. If someone accidentally hit an eagle while deer hunting, he could face prison time and you libs would love for a "gun owner" to be locked up, wouldn't you?
Finally, those looking for a god analogy here, listen to Helloween and "eagle Fly free". from the 80's. More people are waking up and realizing liberals care as much about the environment as they do about other real issues, meaning NOTHING.
Have you actually researched this subject or are you just swallowing the Hannity/Beck/Watts line?

Other than yourself, are there any other authorities you can cite to prove any of the above? Or are you just another blathering idiot on the Internets?
gcaveman1

Laurel, MS

#42330 Dec 31, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
The new study supplements earlier research published in Geophysical Research Letters demonstrating a link between Arctic sea ice loss and extreme weather particularly in both the summer and winter, including prolongation of "drought, flooding, cold spells, and heat waves."
Last year Prof Duarte was lead author of a paper in the Royal Swedish Academy of Science's journal AMBIO warning that the Arctic was at risk of passing critical "tipping points" that could lead to a cascading "domino effect once the summer sea ice is lost." Prof Duarte said at the time:
"If set in motion, they can generate profound climate change which places the Arctic not at the periphery but at the core of the Earth system. There is evidence that these forces are starting to be set in motion. This has major consequences for the future of human kind as climate change progresses."
[by Dr Nafeez Ahmed, executive director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development and author of A User's Guide to the Crisis of Civilisation: And How to Save It among other books.]
I try to take everyone with a grain of salt...I'm a skeptic.

There are people saying we've passed the tipping point and that we may be extinct in 200 years.

I'm hoping they are not right.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#42331 Dec 31, 2013
Like I said in the deniers world let the grandchildren fry, we don't care we wont be around.

The Herald in Scotland Wednesday 1 January 2014
----------
Global temperatures could increase by up to 5°C by 2100, according to a study that suggests the climate is more sensitive to greenhouse gas emissions than previously thought.

By 2200, the world could be 8°C warmer than it was in pre-industrial times if carbon dioxide emissions are not reduced, say scientists.
The study corrected errors in calculating the effect of clouds on global warming.
Lead scientist Professor Steven Sherwood said: "Sceptics like to criticise climate models for getting things wrong, but what we are finding is the mistakes are being made by models which predict less warming, not those that predict more."

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.

New York Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Fiance Visa Was Denied, Now What? (Aug '08) 56 min Angelene lacroix 31
Nassau/Suffolk High School Football (Nov '11) 3 hr Moneytalks 10,613
Yankee talk back 4, or is it 5 (Aug '08) 4 hr Paul Yanks 308,030
Add a word, Drop a word (Dec '09) 6 hr _Zoey_ 9,417
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 7 hr Pearl Jam 305,687
Drop a Word, Add a Word (Jan '10) 7 hr _Zoey_ 9,910
Let's play a game (May '11) 7 hr _Zoey_ 1,041
•••

New York News Video

•••
New York Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

New York Jobs

•••
•••
•••

New York People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

New York News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in New York
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••