Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 63970 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.

SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#43235 Feb 6, 2014
denier wrote:
No, no I took algera, sienc, math, pre calc, calc, and post calc Spanish ,social sudies ,and automaton mechanics +mk ultra!
hahahaha

Can't you find a scalar for CO2 in tons per day? LOL.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#43236 Feb 6, 2014
denier wrote:
<quoted text>show me the chart that says 90 million tons?
Read my previous post, denier..

“you know i know”

Since: Oct 07

denver

#43237 Feb 6, 2014
denier wrote:
I like how they alter their charts to make it look so drastic ever notice that!
After globull warming failed they switched to AGW, the beauty of that is they can use it to explain anything or deny anything. And they do.

“you know i know”

Since: Oct 07

denver

#43238 Feb 6, 2014
Retired Farmer wrote:
<quoted text>
You may as well give up. I did.
The people who don't want to admit that humans putting all that CO2 back into the atmosphere that God worked for hundreds of millions of years to lock up in coal and petroleum can and will cause the climate to warm cannot be reasoned with. First, the religious ones refuse to admit that the CO2 in coal was ever in the air to begin with. They scoff, "Millions of years.... No way. The earth was created in six days in 4004 BC!" And science. That is irrelevant to them, because, as one told me, "Scientists don't believe in God and His creation, so their science is not valid."
Then there are the ones who have drunk the poison kool-aid put out by the likes of the Koch brothers, two filthy rich old men who want their fossil fuel energy companies to make them even richer.
And it doesn't really matter to either sort. I've had deniers from both camps tell me, "It doesn't really matter because we'll be dead before any real harm is done."
That's probably true, too. Future generations will look back from the devastation and privation that the world will be then and damn them, but... They're already dead.
Filthy? They don't bathe? Source?

I've seen a lot of filthy farmers, goes with the job.

“you know i know”

Since: Oct 07

denver

#43239 Feb 6, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Read my previous post, denier..
Warmers are the deniers, wise up.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#43240 Feb 6, 2014
harmonious wrote:
<quoted text>
After globull warming failed they switched to AGW, the beauty of that is they can use it to explain anything or deny anything. And they do.
Hey, this forum is global warming forum.

You must be in the wrong forum. AGW stands for anthropogenic global warming. Anthropogenic means caused by humans.

Your post is dumb.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#43241 Feb 6, 2014
harmonious wrote:
<quoted text>
Warmers are the deniers, wise up.
LOL. Read my previous post.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#43242 Feb 6, 2014
harmonious wrote:
<quoted text>
Filthy? They don't bathe? Source?
I've seen a lot of filthy farmers, goes with the job.
Etes-vous francais?

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#43243 Feb 6, 2014
Professor Emeritus Fellow wrote:
<quoted text>
Dumbest post ever. Capitalism is about wealth creation, not wealth distribution.
========
The 25-page report, written by Gates and his wife Melinda, who are co-chairs of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, argued that the world is a better place than it has even been before.
Gates predicted that by 2035, there would be almost no poor countries left in the world, using today's World Bank classification of low-income countries — even after adjusting for inflation.
No one is arguing about 3rd world countries getting out of poverty. But unless the economic pie grows, capitalism cannot survive without it growing. Why don't you geniuses tell us how that can happen when all western countries are in negative population growth rates. Besides how do you keep building the pyramid and maintain the environment. Because if the economic pie does not grow that means your share becomes less and less especially if you are sharing that wealth offshore. That is exactly why the 1% er's exist, in the 60's 70% of the American population owned all the wealth of the country. That has eroded to next to nothing for the bulk of the population. Capitalism is the ultimate pyramid scheme, google that line and see what you come up with. Then explain to us how this trickle down stuff works and then you just might get a better understanding of how complex global warming is.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#43245 Feb 7, 2014
Have you found an experiment for climae change mitigation yet?

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

Gauley Bridge WV

#43246 Feb 7, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
No one is arguing about 3rd world countries getting out of poverty. But unless the economic pie grows, capitalism cannot survive without it growing. Why don't you geniuses tell us how that can happen when all western countries are in negative population growth rates. Besides how do you keep building the pyramid and maintain the environment. Because if the economic pie does not grow that means your share becomes less and less especially if you are sharing that wealth offshore. That is exactly why the 1% er's exist, in the 60's 70% of the American population owned all the wealth of the country. That has eroded to next to nothing for the bulk of the population. Capitalism is the ultimate pyramid scheme, google that line and see what you come up with. Then explain to us how this trickle down stuff works and then you just might get a better understanding of how complex global warming is.
Social security?

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#43247 Feb 7, 2014
Retired Farmer wrote:
<quoted text>
You may as well give up. I did.
The people who don't want to admit that humans putting all that CO2 back into the atmosphere that God worked for hundreds of millions of years to lock up in coal and petroleum can and will cause the climate to warm cannot be reasoned with. First, the religious ones refuse to admit that the CO2 in coal was ever in the air to begin with. They scoff, "Millions of years.... No way. The earth was created in six days in 4004 BC!" And science. That is irrelevant to them, because, as one told me, "Scientists don't believe in God and His creation, so their science is not valid."
Then there are the ones who have drunk the poison kool-aid put out by the likes of the Koch brothers, two filthy rich old men who want their fossil fuel energy companies to make them even richer.
And it doesn't really matter to either sort. I've had deniers from both camps tell me, "It doesn't really matter because we'll be dead before any real harm is done."
That's probably true, too. Future generations will look back from the devastation and privation that the world will be then and damn them, but... They're already dead.
The worst thing is they have the chutzpah to play the victim while they're alive.
litesong

Everett, WA

#43248 Feb 7, 2014
harmonious wrote:
After globull warming failed they switched to AGW.......
In 2002 Frank Luntz, advisor to re-pubic-lick-uns, told candidates to use AGW & climate change, to make them more electable.
Mothra

Tempe, AZ

#43249 Feb 7, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>
**poof**

More CO2 into the atmosphere by a global warming hypocrite attempting to be relevant.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#43250 Feb 7, 2014
flack wrote:
'They treat unbelievably tiny differences in temperature that exist only as a statistical artifact as if they told us something! For instance they contrast the 2013 anomaly of .62C with 2010, which is .66C. The difference is only 4 hundredths of one degree Celsius!'--'NOAA also has 2013 as the 4th warmest year, at 0.62 deg C above the global 20th century average of 13.9 deg C. Note that only 0.09 deg C [nine hundredths of one degree] separates their top ten warmest years.'-'Is there any point at which they would concede that a difference is too small to be taken seriously? Thousandths of one degree? Millionths of one degree? Medieval theologians used to debate how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. Theology is alive and well among Warmists!'
OK, genius, now calculate how much energy it took to raise the WHOLE OF THE EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE that .62C (1 degree F).

Tell us how miniscule that is.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#43251 Feb 7, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
**poof**
More CO2 into the atmosphere by a global warming hypocrite attempting to be relevant.
POH that's all you can do to be relevant because you fail to follow science matters.

Are you back from a rip? LOL.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#43252 Feb 7, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Have you found an experiment for climae change mitigation yet?
If it was up your ass, you could find it.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#43253 Feb 7, 2014
harmonious wrote:
<quoted text>
After globull warming failed they switched to AGW, the beauty of that is they can use it to explain anything or deny anything. And they do.
"global warming"

AGW, "anthropogenic global warming"

Confused much?

I see you took my advice and corrected your bad Latin....

When will you learn a little science?
denier

Zion, IL

#43254 Feb 7, 2014
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
If it was up your ass, you could find it.
Aw is somone getting angry no one believes him but litestick and space cadet?

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

Gauley Bridge WV

#43255 Feb 7, 2014
Both agencies agree 2013 continues the 37 year warming climate trend where the annual temperature was above the long-term average. Nine of the 10 warmest years on record are from the 2000’s, the lone exception being 1998. The warmest year on record was 2010 which was 0.66 degrees Celsius (1.19 degrees Fahrenheit) above the long-term average.

NOAA’s 2013 global average, combining surface temperature of the land and ocean was 0.62 degrees Celsius (1.12 degrees Fahrenheit) above the long-term average, which is 13.9 degrees Celsius (57 degrees Fahrenheit). The average surface temperature for land was 0.99 degrees Celsius (1.78 degrees Fahrenheit) above the 20th century average of 8.5 degrees Celsius (47 degrees Fahrenheit). The average ocean temperature was 0.48 degrees Celsius (0.86 degrees Fahrenheit) above the long-term average of 16.1 degrees Celsius (60.9 degrees Fahrenheit).

While both hemispheres experienced record warm temperatures, the southern hemisphere experienced the greater above-average annual temperatures. According to NOAA's global climate report,“Over land, parts of central Asia, western Ethiopia, eastern Tanzania, and much of southern and western Australia were record warm, as were sections of the Arctic Ocean, a large swath of the southwestern Pacific Ocean along with parts of the central Pacific, and an area of the central Indian Ocean.”

The only regions that experienced cooler-than-average temperatures in 2013 were part of the central United States, small sections of the Pacific Ocean and one section of the Southern Ocean.

According to NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the average temperature in 2013 was 14.6 degrees Celsius (58.3 degrees Fahrenheit). Since 1880, the average global temperature has increased by 0.8 degrees Celsius (1.4 degrees Fahrenheit).

Gavin Schmidt, GISS climatologist, said in a statement,“Long-term trends in surface temperatures are unusual and 2013 adds to the evidence for ongoing climate change.” NASA states the increase in greenhouse gas emissions, in particular carbon dioxide, has played a role in the increasing temperatures. In 1880 the carbon dioxide level was measured at 285 parts per million and has increased to 400 parts per million in 2012.

© Copyright 2014 IBT Media Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Ok folks here is what they have done. They took x amount of years and averaged the temperature. Then they started taking the average temperature for each and compared it to the average. Since those years were slightly higher then there was warming. Now keep in mind that the amount of warming is about the thickness of a sheet of paper between the earth and the moon. It's all a scam!!! A redistribution of wealth Marxist scam!!!!

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 Californiaa s anti-Trump `resistancea bills: Wh... 46 min RickySucks 11
News California Attorney General: Constitution, Rule... 3 hr Wildchild 2
News CommuniCare reports its at risk of losing feder... 4 hr Concave 4
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 5 hr Misses Abiff 242,610
News APNewsBreak: Millions of Californians on hook f... 13 hr Geraldo Del La Fuego 9
News First year of community college could soon be f... Tue Concave 1
News Walters: It's time for liberal Californians to ... Tue Concave 11
More from around the web