Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 60201 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.

chisholm

Columbus, OH

#37538 Jul 30, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>We've been emitting CO2 that way for a million years; mother nature has adapted by now. Don't panic, water vapor is a greenhouse gas; we wouldn't survive without that anymore than we can survive without carbon dioxide.
Perhaps he meant to suggest that including human exhalations in the C02 count was a fatuous idea? Perhaps even deliberately fatuous, in fact?

You do seem to post a lot of irrelevant comments as if they were answers to real questions, I must say.
Bargeman

Kuttawa, KY

#37539 Jul 30, 2013
Reading all the scientific gobbleygook on here is like listening to a bunch of idiot savants babbling minelessly to each other.
Bargeman

Kuttawa, KY

#37540 Jul 30, 2013
chisholm wrote:
<quoted text>
So ignorant, backward, and regressive a statement I have to assume you are trolling with it, so I'll leave it at that. Collect angry, outraged responses somewhere else.
Actually that statement pretty much sums up how people thought about it in the 19th century. It's almost like the Coal King is a Rip Van Winkle that went to sleep in about 1890 and just woke up.
Cordwainer Trout

Lexington, KY

#37541 Jul 30, 2013
It's the middle of summer and there were new record low temperatures across the mid-West, frost in Minnesota... not a word from the Climatologist in Chief.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#37542 Jul 30, 2013
Cordwainer Trout wrote:
It's the middle of summer and there were new record low temperatures across the mid-West, frost in Minnesota... not a word from the Climatologist in Chief.
What is your point?? You are experiencing cold weather. Cold weather will occur pretty much every year at some point. The issue HERE is global warming (a small but critical change in the AVERAGE GLOBAL temperature which can cause disruption in the 'usual climate norms'(climate change). Some places will be warmer, colder, wetter and drier. And which extremes will occur within the 'norms' even then.

The way to determine if your climate is changing is to have a 'baseline' of weather that says what conditions will occur say ones in a century, then see if their occurence is more or less frequent than that. There is a large and growing database of data that shows that climates ARE changing around the world. For example, the number of 'extreme heat' records is now much much more prevalent than the historical 'cold weather' extreme records.

By this we know that the CLIMATE is likely changing, even if day to day weather may hit 'too hot' and 'too cold' for some.
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#37545 Jul 31, 2013
chisholm wrote:
<quoted text>
I was speaking of you, of course, so trying to pass it off onto NASA is a bit disingenuous. You could at least take responsibility for repeating NASA's comment.
As to NASA, their phraseology could've been better, but I have to assume they meant that their graph would go back to following the general upward trend after a short-term dip or two of the kind any climate graph would be expected to take. Every single year's temperature isn't what's important, obviously, only the general trend over a longer period of years.
NASA made it sound, unfortunately, like warming had stopped and was starting again. That only encourages Deniers to take their comments the wrong way, unfortunately.
My, my, my, aren't you being contentious. Using words like disingenuous and denier hardly leads to debate. Didn't you just post that I was guilty of not wanting a debate, just an argument? Funny how posting the words of NOAA (not NASA as you posted) makes me the one that is contentious and NOAA is disingenuous. It is obvious you are not looking for a debate, so I find your hypocrisy very amusing.
litesong

Everett, WA

#37546 Jul 31, 2013
Cordwainer Trout wrote:
It's the middle of summer and there were new record low temperatures across the mid-West, frost in Minnesota...
The heat went to the Arctic, where temperatures have been mid-twenties defC(80degF)...... oh, yeah, & pushed Arctic cold to the south. Yeah....... winter or summer, heat is pushing Arctic cold to the south.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#37547 Jul 31, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
My, my, my, aren't you being contentious. Using words like disingenuous and denier hardly leads to debate.
One can't have a debate on science with someone who doesn't understand science.

One can't have a scientific debate with someone who confuses scientific statements about one hemisphere of the Earth with statements about the globe as a whole; someone who confuses scientific statements about attribution of events with statements about attribution of a series of events; someone who confuses scientific statements about adjusted temperatures with statements about unadjusted temperatures...
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#37548 Jul 31, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
The heat went to the Arctic, where temperatures have been mid-twenties defC(80degF)...... oh, yeah, & pushed Arctic cold to the south. Yeah....... winter or summer, heat is pushing Arctic cold to the south.
OMG....did you really just post that? The temperatures in the Arctic have been 80 degrees F? I don't know where you get your information, but you need to find better sources or at least check your sources. The temperatures in the Arctic haven't gone above 35 degrees F and as of today, the Arctic is at freezing 32 F, way earlier than usual. For it to have been 80 F, that would be 300 Kelvin and the graph for the Arctic temperatures only goes to 280.

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#37549 Jul 31, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
One can't have a debate on science with someone who doesn't understand science.
One can't have a scientific debate with someone who confuses scientific statements about one hemisphere of the Earth with statements about the globe as a whole; someone who confuses scientific statements about attribution of events with statements about attribution of a series of events; someone who confuses scientific statements about adjusted temperatures with statements about unadjusted temperatures...
I think you better give that speech to litesong.
chisholm

Columbus, OH

#37550 Jul 31, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
My, my, my, aren't you being contentious. Using words like disingenuous and denier hardly leads to debate. Didn't you just post that I was guilty of not wanting a debate, just an argument? Funny how posting the words of NOAA (not NASA as you posted) makes me the one that is contentious and NOAA is disingenuous. It is obvious you are not looking for a debate, so I find your hypocrisy very amusing.
So, only you can be contentious...when someone gets contentious with you in turn, they're to be denounced as a "hypocrite" and as "contentious" themselves?

LOL..excellent. This is clearly what you want, not debate. You're just a Denier with a taste for arguing minutiae, IOW.

Thanks..:)
chisholm

Columbus, OH

#37551 Jul 31, 2013
Cordwainer Trout wrote:
It's the middle of summer and there were new record low temperatures across the mid-West, frost in Minnesota... not a word from the Climatologist in Chief.
Climate isn't just weather, Trout. Don't even you know that by now?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#37552 Jul 31, 2013
chisholm wrote:
Perhaps he meant to suggest that including human exhalations in the C02 count was a fatuous idea? Perhaps even deliberately fatuous, in fact? You do seem to post a lot of irrelevant comments as if they were answers to real questions, I must say.
People have been exhaling CO2 ten thousand times longer than we've been burning oil for energy. Chis doesn't get to define relevancy; we're all here to argue the issues.
chisholm

Columbus, OH

#37553 Jul 31, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>People have been exhaling CO2 ten thousand times longer than we've been burning oil for energy. Chis doesn't get to define relevancy; we're all here to argue the issues.
Yes, that's the kind of post I was talking about. Here's the definition:

fat·u·ous
/&#712;faCHo&#862;o &#601;s/Adjective

: complacently or inanely foolish : silly <a fatuous remark>

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#37554 Jul 31, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
OMG....did you really just post that? The temperatures in the Arctic have been 80 degrees F? I don't know where you get your information, but you need to find better sources or at least check your sources. The temperatures in the Arctic haven't gone above 35 degrees F and as of today, the Arctic is at freezing 32 F, way earlier than usual. For it to have been 80 F, that would be 300 Kelvin and the graph for the Arctic temperatures only goes to 280.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Out come the big clown feet again.
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#37555 Jul 31, 2013
chisholm wrote:
<quoted text>
So, only you can be contentious...when someone gets contentious with you in turn, they're to be denounced as a "hypocrite" and as "contentious" themselves?
LOL..excellent. This is clearly what you want, not debate. You're just a Denier with a taste for arguing minutiae, IOW.
Thanks..:)
.

I really don't care if you are contentious or if I'm contentious or if anyone else is. You were the one who was so concerned about my statement about warming resuming being contentious. I've never lectured anyone about whether their posts are debate or contentiousness. It seems funny to me that if you have posted here for any length of time you would have realized everyone here likes to argue, so not sure why a quote from NOAA gets me singled out as the one not wanting a debate.
SpaceBlues

United States

#37556 Jul 31, 2013
Not the first time. A trypical denier of topix variety.

Not debate-worthy.
SpaceBlues

United States

#37557 Jul 31, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>People have been exhaling CO2 ten thousand times longer than we've been burning oil for energy. Chis doesn't get to define relevancy; we're all here to argue the issues.
Not you. Your reasons are questionable.

For years and years, you do the same denial without an atom of learning.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#37559 Jul 31, 2013
Coal is King wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. The minimalist government, low taxes, low spending, free market model that I advocate BUILT America. We had great industries, working people worked, and there were jobs for them to do. The socialist welfare-nanny state, nationalize, regulate, subsidize every hare brained scheme that some quack dreams up that you advocate has been DESTROYING it since 1932.
There is a common theme that runs through history, and one of those themes "ignorance is bliss" like history repeats itself over and over. Science has always had to deal with ignorance right through out the ages. Wise people learn from it, the ignorant repeat it.
A one time when the Earth was viewed as the centre of the universe and all the planets passed in a heavenly perfect circle around it. A hundred years would pass before that view was proved to be wrong, in the meantime those who discovered and promoted an orbit around the sun like Galileo were imprisoned by the church. A couple hundred years on Hubble discovers the universe is expanding against the popular conception that it was static. Climate science is no different, only this time we haven't got 200 yrs to say we made a big mistake. It's too late then, but it's the same sort of ignorance that holds back man's progress. Refusing to believe facts discovered because it conflicts with religious beliefs or threatens a lifestyle. For those who crave to live in that static past and can't move on. Well it's people like the coal king & the denier crowd who are stuck in that twilight zone not as they would have you believe those socialist scientists!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#37560 Jul 31, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a common theme that runs through history, and one of those themes "ignorance is bliss" like history repeats itself over and over. Science has always had to deal with ignorance right through out the ages. Wise people learn from it, the ignorant repeat it.
A one time when the Earth was viewed as the centre of the universe and all the planets passed in a heavenly perfect circle around it. A hundred years would pass before that view was proved to be wrong, in the meantime those who discovered and promoted an orbit around the sun like Galileo were imprisoned by the church. A couple hundred years on Hubble discovers the universe is expanding against the popular conception that it was static. Climate science is no different, only this time we haven't got 200 yrs to say we made a big mistake. It's too late then, but it's the same sort of ignorance that holds back man's progress. Refusing to believe facts discovered because it conflicts with religious beliefs or threatens a lifestyle. For those who crave to live in that static past and can't move on. Well it's people like the coal king & the denier crowd who are stuck in that twilight zone not as they would have you believe those socialist scientists!
Simple answers are for simple people. The world is becoming very complex. There are very few simple answers. No matter how the conservatives want the simple answers of yesterday, they just are not going to happen. There will be more government regulations and taxes will always be necessary. There will be increasing problems due to pollution and spreading resources among more and more people. We need to understand that if our income is more than $35,000 a year, we are in the top one (1) percent of income earners in the world. There is no way the earth's resources could support an average income of that magnitude.

Even in the USA today, we see technology replacing workers. That along with jobs going to illegals and offshore, how are the multitudes here going to keep their lifestyles? As the income gap increases, the civil unrest will increase. We must become realistic about the problems facing us and work to reduce their impact as much as possible.

It is time to get real about pollution, resources, global warming, income gaps,jobs for the masses. It is time to put away the partisan dreams of yesterday year and face the realities of today and tomorrow. Those are the facts, folks.

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 Brexit, More Bad News For Black Women 2 hr Regulator 10
News 18,000 Illegal Aliens Caught in 5 Months - In S... 3 hr Quirky 29
News Texas Muslims open doors for the start of Ramadan (Jun '15) 5 hr Black Sunni Day 25
News Corpses of Dead Migrants Plague Rural Texas Cou... 9 hr HOLLA ISABELLA 57
News Former Gov. Dolph Briscoe Dies (Jun '10) Thu rstinpce 39
News How Ruth Bader Ginsburg just won the next abort... Thu Uber-Bro of the U... 2
News Supreme Court strikes down Texas abortion clini... Jun 29 Retired SOF 38
More from around the web