Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 54490 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

Phoenix, AZ

#37682 Aug 8, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>There is continual effort to improve it [peer review] but you need to allow the researchers a LOT of freedom or you risk throwing out good research because of the reviewers biases.
Hmmm... seems the only thing I've heard of "improving" peer review of late was a bunch of "scientists" plotting ways to stack the deck in their favor.

You were talking about Climategate, weren't you?
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#37683 Aug 8, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll tell you all about "peer review" and how it has worked through history, Remember Darwin & the theory of evolution that is still going through "peer review" in some of your closed minds.
What about Galileo who come up with the outrageous theory that the earth was not the centre of the universe. He was arrested for that effort defying the church teachings. How about Einstein's theory of relativity. How about the peer review on that, and Da Vinci etc etc. Were they all motivated by fame & fortune or did they just so happen to be seeking the finest of human endeavours the TRUTH!
The denial of climate science on the basis its about money is the same as the flat earth society. Totally absurd. What about the mapping of Human Genome was this a another sham as well? Did all those scientists working on that project for the good of mankind do it for money ? I mean the results were shared with the world, it didn't end up being patented by Apple for instance.
Did you even read what Mothra posted?
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#37684 Aug 8, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
As you've seen, many hold "peer review" as the gold standard standard of "science".
I searched for "peer review gold standard" and found many interesting articles challenging that notion.
The following is from an article on medical peer review:
--Fraud, flawed articles and corrections have haunted general interest news organizations. But such problems are far more embarrassing for scientific journals because of their claims for the superiority of their system of editing.
A widespread belief among nonscientists is that journal editors and their reviewers check authors' research firsthand and even repeat the research. In fact, journal editors do not routinely examine authors' scientific notebooks. Instead, they rely on peer reviewers' criticisms, which are based on the information submitted by the authors.
While editors and reviewers may ask authors for more information, journals and their invited experts examine raw data only under the most unusual circumstances.
In that respect, journal editors are like newspaper editors, who check the content of reporters' copy for facts and internal inconsistencies but generally not their notes. Still, journal editors have refused to call peer review what many others say it is — a form of vetting or technical editing....
Many nonscientists perceive reviewers to be impartial. But the reviewers, called independent experts, in fact are often competitors of the authors of the papers they scrutinize, raising potential conflicts of interest.
Except when gaffes are publicized, there is little scrutiny of the quality of what journals publish....
Despite its flaws, scientists favor the system in part because they need to publish or perish. The institutions where the scientists work and the private and government agencies that pay for their grants seek publicity in their eagerness to show financial backers results for their efforts.
The public and many scientists tend to overlook the journals' economic benefits that stem from linking their embargo policies to peer review. Some journals are owned by private for-profit companies, while others are owned by professional societies that rely on income from the journals. The costs of running journals are low because authors and reviewers are generally not paid.
A few journals that not long ago measured profits in the tens of thousands of dollars a year now make millions, according to at least three editors who agreed to discuss finances only if granted anonymity, because they were not authorized to speak about finances.
Any influential system that profits from taxpayer-financed research should be held publicly accountable for how the revenues are spent. Journals generally decline to disclose such data.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/02/health/02do...
The case of Diederik Stapel who had 30 fraudulent peer-reviewed papers published comes to mind. In determining how he got away with it, one of the major reasons was that he had a powerful and prestigious position in the area of psychology, and no one wanted to question him, as I’m sure it would not be helpful to their careers.

http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2011/12/...
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#37685 Aug 8, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Take the development of the West:
Although few Americans think about this, much of the Western United States as we know it today is the creation of various federal programs. It has been that way from the very beginning, starting with government-sponsored explorations of the West in the early and mid-19th century. It continued with the federal government providing the money and troops for the depressingly efficient program of “Indian removal.” The government also sold public land to settlers for low prices and sometimes even gave it away. The RAILROADS, which spurred so much growth in the West, would not have been built without massive SUBSIDIES from the federal government. And today, much of the farming in many Western areas is made possible by federal water projects, substantial parts of the ranching are subsidized by the artificially low grazing fees on federal property, and much of the mining is made more profitable by dirt cheap access to federal land. Cities like Los Angeles and Las Vegas would dry up and blow away without the federally funded dam and canal projects that provide water to those arid regions. So it is ironic that while anti-big government sentiment is very strong in parts of this region, the West literally would not and could not exist as it does today without the sustained help of the federal government.
Get over it. The government has played a major role in everything from large water projects to space exploration. Space exploration itself led to many innovative inventions that has spurred the economy in many sectors. I could go on for hours. Government is good. It is our friend. What would we do withour it?
Let me clarify what I meant. In the example of the railroads, it started out private, but soon the government was involved because of course land was needed for the railways, but government also realized how important railroads would be for transportation of mail, military, etc. But there was also a need for the citizens; same with the car, electricity. There was a want and a need, especially from the public. Everyone was getting a benefit from these new inventions. So when I say aren’t we putting the cart before the horse, I mean that what the government is doing now is something it has never done. It is guaranteeing loans and subsidizing alternative energy which is something that the public isn’t demanding and really doesn’t want and the alternative energy we are investing in has not been proven to be successful in replacing what we have. Like I said, it feels like we have been set up to fail. If no one wants to buy these products, then we are just wasting money.

So what to do? You have to get the public to buy into the alternative energy plan and you do that through guilt and fear. You all do that every day on this thread. You post every article you can find that shows what will happen if we don’t do anything. I’m sure gcaveman has tons of stuff on his flash drive that will scare the crap out of everyone. The media does it every day, and in fact, just this week 2 articles came out that were highly touted by the media: 1) that 50 billion tons of methane will be released from the Arctic in the next 2 decades and 2)global warming will lead to increased barroom brawls, rapes, civil wars, and international disputes.

Just some advice, the public, I’m sure would love cheap alternative energy, nobody is against that. We would like a nice transition from fossil fuels to something that is dependable and will work for a nation of 300 million. But instead the scare tactics are getting more and more outrageous and the public is totally going to tune all this out while rolling their eyes. I do believe AGW science is in the midst of “jumping the shark.”
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#37686 Aug 8, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
Andrew Hoffman, Fall, 2012:
First, climate change is not a “pollution” issue. Although the US Supreme Court decided in 2007 that greenhouse gases were legally an air pollutant, in a cultural sense, they are something far different. The reduction of greenhouse gases is not the same as the reduction of sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, or particulates. These forms of pollution are man-made, they are harmful, and they are the unintended waste products of industrial production. Ideally, we would like to eliminate their production through the mobilization of economic and technical resources. But the chief greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, is both man-made and natural. It is not inherently harmful; it is a natural part of the natural systems; and we do not desire to eliminate its production. It is not a toxic waste or a strictly technical problem to be solved. Rather, it is an endemic part of our society and who we are. To a large degree, it is a highly desirable output, as it correlates with our standard of living. Greenhouse gas emissions rise with a rise in a nation’s wealth, something all people want. To reduce carbon dioxide requires an alteration in nearly every facet of the economy, and therefore nearly every facet of our culture. To recognize greenhouse gases as a problem requires us to change a great deal about how we view the world and ourselves within it. And that leads to the second distinction.
Climate change is an existential challenge to our contemporary worldviews. The cultural challenge of climate change is enormous and threefold, each facet leading to the next. The first facet is that we have to think of a formerly benign, even beneficial, material in a new way—as a relative, not absolute, hazard. Only in an imbalanced concentration does it become problematic. But to understand and accept this, we need to conceive of the global ecosystem in a new way.
Yes we must all change our way of living and thinking except of course Al Gore. Don't you think Al should lead by example? How many people did you say attended that conference in Chicago? Oh, yeah 1500 from 70 different countries. WOW. How did they all get there? How did you get there? Did they fly, drive? How did Al get there? Private jet? Did he have a limo or just a rental car? How many speakers were flown in? I'm sure you had a big convention room. How much electricity did all of you consume for the 2-3 days you were there? You tell us you got written materials. For 1500 people, that's a lot of paper. Everyone got a flash drive for their computers and I'm sure everyone was using their iphones, you know those ones coming from dirty China. And next years conference is in San Francisco, yeah!!

But here's a thought, next year stay home and teleconference.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#37687 Aug 8, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, it was you who brought up funding. So it's you that needs to provide the evidence. Go back and re-read the posts.
But you won't. You never do. You prattle on about evil profit for a couple weeks, then drop it without ever providing any evidence.
Then amazingly a while later you bring it up again as if everyone forgot you didn't address it earlier.
None of them actually read the posts or try to even understand what is being said. In response to one of your posts about peer-review AKA Bozo replied to you and said,“Science is good. What would we do without it?”

So AKA Bozo breaks it down to you think science is bad and that you want to do away with science. Sometimes I feel like these people are like the minions from Despicable Me. Is there any kind of critical thinking going on? They also always bring up Fox News, as if Fox News is the problem with the world....2 posters just the other day posted the exact same thing that Fox is a danger to America.

Since: Mar 09

San Jose, CA

#37688 Aug 8, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes we must all change our way of living and thinking except of course Al Gore. Don't you think Al should lead by example? How many people did you say attended that conference in Chicago? Oh, yeah 1500 from 70 different countries. WOW. How did they all get there? How did you get there? Did they fly, drive? How did Al get there? Private jet? Did he have a limo or just a rental car? How many speakers were flown in? I'm sure you had a big convention room. How much electricity did all of you consume for the 2-3 days you were there? You tell us you got written materials. For 1500 people, that's a lot of paper. Everyone got a flash drive for their computers and I'm sure everyone was using their iphones, you know those ones coming from dirty China. And next years conference is in San Francisco, yeah!!
But here's a thought, next year stay home and teleconference.
So instead of taking the evidence head-on, you and your cohorts must resort to creating a fall guy like old Al Gore. Global warming is not about Al Gore or how he lives, it is about all of us and how we live. Having temper tantrums and trying to prove that the scientific process is flawed is not exactly rational.

Sure there are a few who get emotional and jump to the conclusion that we must change overnight and revert to caveman tactics. Some folks even sold off everything they had and went to the mountains to await the rapture but that is not how the science community views the future.

There are considerations. CO2 is accumulating in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels. The climate is warming. CO2 is implicit in this warming. Those are the facts. What we must do is to get a handle on these facts and find some way to live with them in the future. If it takes a lifestyle change, then that is what we should try to accomplish. Our social order is heavily dependent upon cheap fossil fuels. Change will be difficult but probably doable. Placing our heads in the sand and crying foul is not going to do it. Blaming Al Gore is not going to do it. Calling it a great world-wide government-scientist conspiracy is not going to do it.

Get real. It is a problem facing mankind. Quit denying it, that is counterproductive.

Since: Mar 09

San Jose, CA

#37689 Aug 8, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me clarify what I meant. In the example of the railroads, it started out private, but soon the government was involved because of course land was needed for the railways, but government also realized how important railroads would be for transportation of mail, military, etc. But there was also a need for the citizens; same with the car, electricity. There was a want and a need, especially from the public. Everyone was getting a benefit from these new inventions. So when I say aren’t we putting the cart before the horse, I mean that what the government is doing now is something it has never done. It is guaranteeing loans and subsidizing alternative energy which is something that the public isn’t demanding and really doesn’t want and the alternative energy we are investing in has not been proven to be successful in replacing what we have. Like I said, it feels like we have been set up to fail. If no one wants to buy these products, then we are just wasting money.
So what to do? You have to get the public to buy into the alternative energy plan and you do that through guilt and fear. You all do that every day on this thread. You post every article you can find that shows what will happen if we don’t do anything. I’m sure gcaveman has tons of stuff on his flash drive that will scare the crap out of everyone. The media does it every day, and in fact, just this week 2 articles came out that were highly touted by the media: 1) that 50 billion tons of methane will be released from the Arctic in the next 2 decades and 2)global warming will lead to increased barroom brawls, rapes, civil wars, and international disputes.
Just some advice, the public, I’m sure would love cheap alternative energy, nobody is against that. We would like a nice transition from fossil fuels to something that is dependable and will work for a nation of 300 million. But instead the scare tactics are getting more and more outrageous and the public is totally going to tune all this out while rolling their eyes. I do believe AGW science is in the midst of “jumping the shark.”
A little crawfishing here?
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#37690 Aug 8, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes we must all change our way of living and thinking except of course Al Gore. Don't you think Al should lead by example? How many people did you say attended that conference in Chicago? Oh, yeah 1500 from 70 different countries. WOW. How did they all get there? How did you get there? Did they fly, drive? How did Al get there? Private jet? Did he have a limo or just a rental car? How many speakers were flown in? I'm sure you had a big convention room. How much electricity did all of you consume for the 2-3 days you were there? You tell us you got written materials. For 1500 people, that's a lot of paper. Everyone got a flash drive for their computers and I'm sure everyone was using their iphones, you know those ones coming from dirty China. And next years conference is in San Francisco, yeah!!
But here's a thought, next year stay home and teleconference.
I've mentioned teleconference for global warming summits several times. Imagine the t-shirts:

My Dad attended the 2015 Global Warming Summit and all I got was this lousy screen cap.

LOL

Remember the global warming conference in 2007 where over 10,000 jets descended on Bali?

Plane-pool anyone?
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#37691 Aug 8, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
None of them actually read the posts or try to even understand what is being said. In response to one of your posts about peer-review AKA Bozo replied to you and said,“Science is good. What would we do without it?”
So AKA Bozo breaks it down to you think science is bad and that you want to do away with science. Sometimes I feel like these people are like the minions from Despicable Me. Is there any kind of critical thinking going on? They also always bring up Fox News, as if Fox News is the problem with the world....2 posters just the other day posted the exact same thing that Fox is a danger to America.
Agreed.

I cited an article critiquing the peer review process from a medical site, and Hype jumped to a rant on "profit" and the evil oil companies.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#37692 Aug 8, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed.
I cited an article critiquing the peer review process from a medical site, and Hype jumped to a rant on "profit" and the evil oil companies.
And he was correct.

P.S. You thought there would be room only for your lies. You were WRONG.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#37693 Aug 8, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
A little crawfishing here?
It's not like when dirt was around.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#37694 Aug 8, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
Mothra before shooting off at the mouth about green house research. You might want to look at the subsidies given to fossil fuel producers and then say hand on heart how that was money well spent.
http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/
That's all it does per its instructions.

Moth has hardly any comprehension of science matters.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#37695 Aug 8, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>And he was correct.
P.S. You thought there would be room only for your lies. You were WRONG.
As if there couldn't be a better example, you trot out this little bit of wisdom.

Do keep up.

Go back a few posts and see to what I was replying, and then explain (if you can) how your post is not an example of such.

"You thought there would be room only for your lies."

While you're attempting to say that I'm lying, you admit you do.

LOL
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#37696 Aug 8, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>And he was correct.
P.S. You thought there would be room only for your lies. You were WRONG.
Repeat necessary with these deniers.

Comprehension is lacking with them.
litesong

Monroe, WA

#37697 Aug 8, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Moth has hardly any comprehension of science matters.
Anyone named "motheaten" has hardly any comprehension of science matters.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#37698 Aug 8, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Repeat necessary with these deniers.
Comprehension is lacking with them.
"P.S. You thought there would be room only for your lies. You were WRONG."

Hee-hee... you're doubling down, I see.

It's been a while since I've broken sentences down, but let's give it a try, shall we?

Removing all the modifiers, here's you're basic statement:

>>You thought there would be room.

A simple statement. Could mean anything.

But let's add to it:

>>You thought there would be room only....

"only"? Use of that word here adds emphasis to "room", as in 'more room'. So you're acknowledging a bigger room.

>>You thought there would be room only for your lies.

A 'bigger room' for what? Lies. But taken in conjunction with 'only' you're saying that more lies are possible in the room. Whose lies? Not mine, you've alleged those already exist. So who else?

Why 'you', course. You're the only person left in the conversation.

>>You thought there would be room only for your lies. You were WRONG.

And as if you didn't already trip yourself up, you now admit that the alleged lies in a room are actually part of a larger room stocked with your lies.

Lesson over.

'nuf said

.... except LOL
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#37699 Aug 8, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Anyone named "motheaten" has hardly any comprehension of science matters.
Oh look, the NW troll returns with mindless blather.

Without a doubt you'll get some positive icons (self administered?) with your nonsense.

Pity, you can't see you're just a useful idiot pawn.

But perhaps you like being a useful idiot pawn. In that case, congratulations.
poaaddle

Pittsburgh, PA

#37700 Aug 8, 2013
youtube.com/watch... …… Well this is August people
I doubt Global warming now in effect
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#37701 Aug 8, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
So instead of taking the evidence head-on, you and your cohorts must resort to creating a fall guy like old Al Gore. Global warming is not about Al Gore or how he lives, it is about all of us and how we live. Having temper tantrums and trying to prove that the scientific process is flawed is not exactly rational.
Sure there are a few who get emotional and jump to the conclusion that we must change overnight and revert to caveman tactics. Some folks even sold off everything they had and went to the mountains to await the rapture but that is not how the science community views the future.
There are considerations. CO2 is accumulating in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels. The climate is warming. CO2 is implicit in this warming. Those are the facts. What we must do is to get a handle on these facts and find some way to live with them in the future. If it takes a lifestyle change, then that is what we should try to accomplish. Our social order is heavily dependent upon cheap fossil fuels. Change will be difficult but probably doable. Placing our heads in the sand and crying foul is not going to do it. Blaming Al Gore is not going to do it. Calling it a great world-wide government-scientist conspiracy is not going to do it.
Get real. It is a problem facing mankind. Quit denying it, that is counterproductive.
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.

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.

California Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 12 min Coffee Party 196,892
Can the people of California get rid of the go... 8 hr witness 1
News Cigarette tax poll: California voters overwhelm... 8 hr witness 4
News Minimum-wage hike and oil-drilling ban are amon... 9 hr politicians are c... 1
News $2 more for cigarettes? California tobacco tax ... 10 hr Citizen 2
News Obamacare: Poll shows rising support throughout... 15 hr RustyS 1
News DMV denies drivers license to man with no hands 17 hr Joe Balls 1
More from around the web