Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 60115 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.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#35673 May 7, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
We don't have a carbon tax. We don't have cap and trade. We didn't sign the Kyoto protocol. Yet we have reduced our CO2 emissions to 1994 levels while the UK has increased theirs by 10%. What has been the biggest boost in reducing our emissions? The switch to natural gas...private enterprise supplying clean energy to the public, all without the passage of a carbon tax or cap and trade.
but we do subsidize renewables to a tune of one dollar per gallon of biodiesel.....not that i'm complaining, but you gotta deal with the hand that feeds you. <snicker>

however....we do have RIN's....which are sort of a carbon tax with a twist.(not that i'm complaining about that either...it can be pretty lucrative if you play your cards right)

what these people don't understand is that free markets and capitalism WILL always meet the real demands, and face the causes, better than a federal mandate ever could.

so many monday morning quarterbacks here.....but then again....they aren't really in the game. just angry fans on the wrong side of america.
SpaceBlues

United States

#35674 May 7, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>but we do ..so many monday morning quarterbacks here.....but then again....they aren't really in the game. just angry fans on the wrong side of america.
You are telling that to the angriest poster in this thread.

It will bite you, too. Stick around.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#35675 May 8, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah CO2 is plant food. Without CO2, everything dies!
Again, you have no idea what dihydrogen monoxide is! Oh, how about Ozone? Do you know what ozone is?
Do you have any idea of how to discuss warming and climate change intelligently, or do you just make obvious observations and ask dumbass questions?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#35676 May 8, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Deniers are in full force, a dwindling force. When will they concede?
Show me an experimental test of climate change mitigation and I'll concede. What would it take for you to change your mind?

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#35677 May 8, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Show me an experimental test of climate change mitigation and I'll concede. What would it take for you to change your mind?
what would it take to get you to change your trolling or at least troll a new subject?:)

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#35678 May 8, 2013
One experimental test of climate change mitigation published in a peer reviewed journal would be a good start.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#35679 May 8, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Show me an experimental test of climate change mitigation and I'll concede. What would it take for you to change your mind?
But brain, you've already said that mitigation works when you said our releasing of CO2 had mitigated the next ice age occurring. Don't you remember?

Jeez, are you stupid or what?
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#35680 May 8, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
One experimental test of climate change mitigation published in a peer reviewed journal would be a good start.
OK. Here ya go.

Now, shut up and go away.
SpaceBlues

United States

#35681 May 8, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
One experimental test of climate change mitigation published in a peer reviewed journal would be a good start.
You were shown many during your many years of posting many thousands <41,000> of posts.

Time for you to go away. We don't care if you just dropped off like the other deniers, gored, tina, jrs, etc. without a concession because we know you don't understand any science.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#35682 May 8, 2013
Solar winning in the Northwest.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/05/07/1...
Dont drink the koolaid

Minneapolis, MN

#35683 May 8, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
what would it take to get you to change your trolling or at least troll a new subject?:)
Yes, a mitigation experiment... Do you know of one?

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#35684 May 8, 2013
Dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, a mitigation experiment... Do you know of one?
What is the point, are you looking for a quick fix ? Coral reefs are dying all over the world because of increase in acidity and ocean temps. That's a good start. The whole point of fossil fuel burning is to reduce emissions we already know the result of not doing it!
SpaceBlues

United States

#35685 May 8, 2013
Dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, a mitigation experiment... Do you know of one?
Listen. I know many. What are you gong to do with one?
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#35686 May 8, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
What is the point, are you looking for a quick fix ? Coral reefs are dying all over the world because of increase in acidity and ocean temps. That's a good start. The whole point of fossil fuel burning is to reduce emissions we already know the result of not doing it!
What is the point?

I know where it is, on top of their pointy little heads.

Watch as they RUN FOR THE HILLS!

I have told them

1. If you are in a deep hole and don't want to be, STOP DIGGING!
2. We know what causes AGW (or acidification) and we logically conclude (duh), that doing the opposite will reverse the trend.
3. The only reason you would want an experiment AT THIS POINT would be because you are unconvinced that there is a problem. So you reject most of the rest of the world's scientist's (very strong) theory.
4. Which make's you either a fool or a shill or a slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AND 4-time alleged & 4-time proud threatener.

I enjoy all denier posts for their illogical thought and immorality as if watching a horror show, but sometimes wish I could walk out of the theater.

“EnvironMENTAList ”

Since: Feb 07

Near Detroit

#35687 May 9, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Do you comprehend the following?
Carbon dioxide emissions have been altering the climate since the Industrial Revolution, some 200 years ago, though it took us a while to figure that out. NASA scientist James Hansen first warned Congress about the dangers of greenhouse gases in 1988.
But an earlier climate warning came five decades previous, way back in 1938. That’s when Guy Stewart Callendar, an engineer specializing in steam and power generation, published a paper that theorized that carbon dioxide emissions from industrial activity could have a greenhouse effect. His prescient paper appeared in the quarterly journal of the Royal Meteorological Society.
That's just you saying it. I want a scientist to say it "WILL" happen like they say asteroid hits are..........eventual. So as long as it's only you remaining believers doing the lying..........climate blame is dead and real planet lovers are happy not mad a crisis was avoided. You just hate yourself and all of humanity.
Retired Farmer

Crofton, KY

#35688 May 9, 2013
This is about bees (they are dying off, with potentially catastrophic consequences for agriculture and humanity's food supply), but the pesticide companies reaction to it illustrates the same kind of destructive corporate greed that the coal companies and operators of coal fired power plants display in the Global Warming issue.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/05/win...
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#35689 May 9, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
It is obvious from past experience that any, any, environmental consideration must commence from government policy. No marketplace mechanism is inherent to limit environmental concerns. Folks will always move in the direction of economic profits-savings. To initiate some kind of mechanism to limit pollution and other environmental concerns there must be some kind of economic stimulus to change the market direction. We have seen this in such things as asbestos, benzene, lead, chlorofluorocarbons, insecticides, tobacco to name a very few. The industry always howls government interference but they will not change their habits until they are given some economic persuasion. For example, lead in gasoline was not voluntarily removed from gasoline. Industry waited until the very last moment. Benzene was not removed from the workplace until the very last moment by industry. Industry heavily lobbied for the repeal of every one of these items. Why would we think that regulation of CO2 to be any different?
<quoted text>
What is funny is that they believe their own lies. Just look at Dr. James Hansen. Why did he retire last month? Did Climategate have anything to do with it?
And then the is Dr. Michael Mann from Penn State who think he can read tree rings. All tree rings tell you is whether of not the growing conditions are ideal. It will not tell you if it is too hot or cold, if it has the right amount of sunlight, moisture, nutrients, etc. But Dr. Mann thinks he knows.
Oh, the lower tropospheric temperatures have gone DOWN a half a degree centigrade in the past dozen years! WHY? Maybe it is because our Sun is taking a big cat nap? Yep, our Sun is at it's lowest power level in a hundred years and NASA-MSFC (not to be confused with NASA-GISS which is actually Columbia University) says they expect it to go down to the level is was 200 years ago during the Little Ice Age.
http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2...
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_...
But if you still believe in Global Warming might I suggest you move to Canada while there is still room. As for me, I will stay here in Florida where I will be warmer than you will be.
What they don't seem to understand is that CO2 is different than the other environmental problems such as lead, asbestos, etc. Those fixes were done at the industrial level and the public really didn't notice any change to their lifestyle. What they are asking is for everyone to entirely change their way of life. In Europe they have thought of giving out carbon credits to every person, thus limiting how much you drive, how many vacations you take, what kind of car you drive, how warm or cool you keep your house just to name a few. Over here, they want to tax carbon, but these fixes will only affect the poor. The rich will continue with no change in their lifestyle as they can afford to pay for any price increases. So how are the climate activists and politicians trying to make this change attractive to the poor? Rebates. From an article in an LA daily paper:

"The Citizens Climate Lobby is pushing a proposal for a carbon tax as the best way to incentivize a reduction in the emissions of greenhouse gases. The best part of the carbon tax proposal (besides a cleaner environment)? It comes with an annual rebate for all Americans -- a check in the mail for an estimated $1,500 that accounts for the extra consumers will have to pay as energy companies and utilities pass the cost of the tax along to us."

So bribery is the plan. The only thing this plan does is fill the government coffers and then politicians use this money to buy votes.

kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#35690 May 9, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
The models, the observations, the best scientific evidence we have.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment...
In contrast to clowns tripping over their big feet (that would be you, krusty).
From you article: The [current] variation we are seeing in temperature or rainfall is double the rate of the average. That suggests that we are going to have more droughts, we are going to have more floods, we are going to have more sea surges and we are going to have more storms. Prof Beddington's said:“The evidence that climate change is happening is completely unequivocal.”

Here is what the MET office FOIA said about the drought:

Neither the development nor the severity of the 2010/12 drought was exceptional compared with historical events, and its climatological drivers have several similarities with past droughts.There is therefore, as yet, no evidence that it was due to climate change and not part of the natural variability of the climate.

Here is what the MET office FOIA said about the increase in wet weather:

The jet stream, like our weather, is subject to natural variability – that is the random nature of our weather which means it is different from one week, month or year to the next. We expect it to move around and it has moved to the south of the UK in summertime many times before in the past. It has, however, been particularly persistent in holding that position this year – hence the prolonged unsettled weather. This could be due to natural variability – a bad run of coincidence, if you will – but scientific research is ongoing research to investigate whether other factors at play. If low levels of Arctic sea ice were found to be affecting the track of the jet stream, for example, this could be seen as linked to the warming of our climate – but this is currently an unknown.

So even though behind closed doors they state natural variability is at play and that it is UNKNOWN if the Arctic sea ice level is affecting the jet stream and there is ongoing research to see if other factors are at play, they publically make a statement that the evidence climate change is happening is UNEQUIVOCAL. How can you take weather that has been shown to be from natural variability and unknowns and then state you have a trend showing this is due to AGW?
litesong

Everett, WA

#35691 May 9, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
Solar winning in the Northwest.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/05/07/1...
The Northwest takes in many climactic types. southern, specially south-eastern Oregon, borders on Nevada, has dramatically less cloud cover than Seattle. Solar there is a no-brainer.

Presently, solar further north in western Washington is not economical.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#35692 May 9, 2013
mememine69 wrote:
<quoted text>That's just you saying it. I want a scientist to say it "WILL" happen like they say asteroid hits are..........eventual. So as long as it's only you remaining believers doing the lying..........climate blame is dead and real planet lovers are happy not mad a crisis was avoided. You just hate yourself and all of humanity.
Want in one hand and shit in the other and see which one gets full first.

"remaining believers"......LOL...LMA O

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.

Texas Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Corpses of Dead Migrants Plague Rural Texas Cou... 3 min spud 16
News Supreme Court strikes down Texas abortion clini... 1 hr Brilliant Chicky 25
News Michael Barone: Neither candidate is getting th... 14 hr tomin cali 1
News The Latest: Wendy Davis calls abortion ruling g... 16 hr WelbyMD 3
News Still no arrests after fatal shooting at Texas ... 23 hr Vincent The Chin ... 1
News Sharyl Attkisson: Homeland Security Mum on U.S.... Mon spud 7
News Supporter waiting for Donald Trump at a campaig... Mon Would L 2
More from around the web