Expert: We must act fast on warming

Sep 24, 2008 Full story: Kansas.com 27,060

Droughts, melting ice caps and glaciers, rising sea levels and mass extinctions will all be a reality unless the U.S. and the world cut back on carbon emissions dramatically, said James Hansen, director of ...

Full Story
litesong

Everett, WA

#27883 Aug 5, 2014
[QUOTE who="lyin' brian"]It takes three assumptions......:[/QUOTE]

First assumption:
"lyin' brian" thought it could get away with being a sleepy sleazy slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AND alleged & proud threatener.

Second assumption:
"lyin' brian" thought it could be scientific with its lack of science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra & pre-calc in its poorly earned hi skule DEE-ploooma.

Third assumption:
"lyin' brian" thought it was accurate with its errors of 1 million TIMES, 1000 TIMES, 3000 TIMES, 73+ million TIMES, 2.5+ trillion TIMES, & 3.5+ trillion TIMES.

"lyin' brian" is all this....... & much less!
litesong

Everett, WA

#27884 Aug 5, 2014
[QUOTE who="lyin' brian"]Our fossil fuel emissions are insignificant.....[/QUOTE]

"lyin' brian".....made errors of 1 million TIMES, 1000 TIMES, 3000 TIMES, 73+ million TIMES, 2.5+ trillion TIMES, & 3.5+ trillion TIMES.

"lyin' brian" is all this....... & much less!
SoE

Sioux Falls, SD

#27885 Aug 5, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>

. The consensus is meaningless,
Consensus has been wrong in the past but successful, duplicable, reliable experimental tests are seldom misleading..
Then I would say why are you wasting time here ?
The word seldom from you ? Hahaha
SoE

Sioux Falls, SD

#27886 Aug 5, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text> insignificant, like dinosaur farts,.
perfect parallel to your posts.....
SoE

Sioux Falls, SD

#27887 Aug 7, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>An atmospheric threat of the Chernobyl kind? No way!
But underground threat to water, yes.
Do you see a criticality threat?
[in 2011] Whistleblower on MSNBC: Criticality possible at Hanford We could end up with explosion like Fukushima Warns of larger release of radioactive material (VIDEO)
..........
sorry I didn't get back to you sooner
..........
An atmospheric threat of the Chernobyl kind? No way!
..........
I've always been under the assumption gamma radiation ,other forms of radiation and their various other ionizing components were the same irrespective there origin were the same.
..........
But underground threat to water, yes.
..........
I will allow myself the assumption that that would pose a threat to most forms of life including
ours.
..........
Do you see a criticality threat?
..........
eventually yes...I've always suggested that those wishing to get a clearer feel of the hazard
take a tent and spend a leisurely couple weeks camping in the storage site...
SoE

Sioux Falls, SD

#27888 Aug 7, 2014
It doesn't surprise in the least that J.R. Oppenheimer and A. Sakharov
ended up taking the position they did....
They knew....

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#27889 Aug 8, 2014
SoE wrote:
Then I would say why are you wasting time here ? The word seldom from you ? Hahaha
It's fun to argue the total lack of experimental tests for climate change mitigation.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#27890 Aug 8, 2014
SoE wrote:
<quoted text>
..........
sorry I didn't get back to you sooner
..........
An atmospheric threat of the Chernobyl kind? No way!
..........
I've always been under the assumption gamma radiation ,other forms of radiation and their various other ionizing components were the same irrespective there origin were the same.
..........
But underground threat to water, yes.
..........
I will allow myself the assumption that that would pose a threat to most forms of life including
ours.
..........
Do you see a criticality threat?
..........
eventually yes...I've always suggested that those wishing to get a clearer feel of the hazard
take a tent and spend a leisurely couple weeks camping in the storage site...
Well, I had figured Topix deletion as nobody commented.

My Chernobyl reference is meaningful but we can't say more without knowing more. There are reports now, however, on it.
SoE

Sioux Falls, SD

#27891 Aug 13, 2014
Believe half what you see (go to completely understand) and nothing that you read .(reports)....
I had a young lady acquaintance whose job was monitoring rad sites..
The pressure to "fudge" the reports became so great from the various interests that it lead to a nervous breakdown ....
I new her well enough to believe what she told me...
She" respectfully" quit that job, went back to school and is now in a completely different field...
Off hand I would suggest if you wish more in the way of factual information regarding Chernobyl and the surrounding area you go to the site and then draw conclusions....
There have been some reports originating from there that I find questionable regarding inhabitants that are still in the area...(those that refused to leave or returned after numerous attempts to move them)
If true those reports would change much of the way radiation exposure would be viewed in the future
It's your call...
SoE

Sioux Falls, SD

#27892 Aug 13, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>It's fun to argue the total lack of experimental tests for climate change mitigation.
Argue ?....hahaha.....Well, arguing is much easer than understanding..also less time consuming... Fun ?
stuart

Melbourne, Australia

#27893 Aug 13, 2014
Coal miners and miners in general should be forced to back fill timber trees.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#27894 Aug 14, 2014
Still not one of you experts can or have posted a long term study of what you believe in . Yet everyone of you would demand the same for a new drug ,type of surgery but not in what you believe in . why ? If you demand long termed studies for these and other thing why not for what you believe in ?
But look ! Again the country is having record cooling across the nation in mid August ! yea yea yea we all know it's because of globull,climate unfounded never studied horse hockey ! So please post what long termed study shows this cooling trend to back up any proof !!
After all you warmers blame EVERY type of any kind of change on this or that yet , never offer any long termed proof but only half hearted studied ,skewed failed computer models !
SoE

Sioux Falls, SD

#27895 Aug 14, 2014
home in lincoln county wrote:
After all you warmers blame EVERY type of any kind of change on this or that yet , never offer any long termed proof but only half hearted studied ,skewed failed computer models !

My,...well, it certainly didn't take long for you to show why it would appear that way to you !

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#27896 Aug 14, 2014
SoE wrote:
Argue ?....hahaha.....Well, arguing is much easer than understanding..also less time consuming... Fun ?
Excuses waste time, the scientific method means good science is tested and refined. Experiments define science; not populist politicians or crony climate fear monger billionaires promising climate stability and saving us from catastrophic man made climate disruption. You can sell media with catastrophe stories by blaming your political enemies for bad weather only so long until your viewers realize their being played for fools.
litesong

Everett, WA

#27897 Aug 14, 2014
[QUOTE who="lyin' brian"]Excuses waste time.....[/QUOTE]

The least effect of your errors, which are 1 million TIMES, 1000 TIMES, 3000 TIMES, 73+ million TIMES, 2.5+ trillion TIMES, & 3.5+ trilllion TIMES, was a waste of time.
SoE

Sioux Falls, SD

#27898 Aug 14, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Excuses waste time, the scientific method means good science is tested and refined. Experiments define science; not populist politicians or crony climate fear monger billionaires promising climate stability and saving us from catastrophic man made climate disruption. You can sell media with catastrophe stories by blaming your political enemies for bad weather only so long until your viewers realize their being played for fools.
I'm truly beginning to wonder if.. you.. even understand what you are saying.
It looks as though 3/4 of your post has absolutely no scientific merit at all...
Where do you get your baseline the National Persecutor ?
>..........>
You can sell media with catastrophe stories by blaming your political enemies for bad weather only so long until your viewers realize their being played for fools.
..........
and I apply the math, rate of change, and direction where exactly ?
..........
I believe most here realize who is trying to play who for fools....

SoE

Sioux Falls, SD

#27899 Aug 14, 2014
stuart wrote:
Coal miners and miners in general should be forced to back fill timber trees.
I'm not sure what the post is supposed to state exactly. Back fill timber trees ?
Perhaps it's a slightly different use of language...
In the U.S. most mining concerns are now required to reclaim the land to it's original
configuration (generally).....There are exceptions but to receive a permit to mine generally a
bond is required for any medium to large scale operation....
There is also a number of regulatory hurdles one must follow...
I live not to far from one of the largest gold mines and their reclamation cost ran well into millions of dollars....There are still some issues yet to be resolved which will probably take a number of years....
The mine is now a physics science lab.....
also I'm not sure if you are relating the post ,in some fashion, to global warming ?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#27900 Aug 15, 2014
There's never been an experimental test of climate change mitigation; that's how you can know it's a hoax and man made catastrophic climate disruption is pseudoscience.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#27901 Aug 15, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
There's never been an experimental test of climate change mitigation; that's how you can know it's a hoax and man made catastrophic climate disruption is pseudoscience.
You have never passed a science test so how would you know?
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#27902 Aug 15, 2014
Topix is possibly the only place where a denier thinks about reaching millions by lying, misrepresenting, denying climate science.

A denier never addresses the continuous release of man-made CO2 in the rates of 110 million per day, equivalent in energy to about 500,000 hiroshima's every day.

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.

Science / Technology Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 41 min Ooogah Boogah 173,776
Astronauts getting 3-D printer at space station 2 hr DOnT OBEY ALL ORDERS 4
Bill Maher Takes Aim at Minnesota Congressman 4 hr Obama Bad 104
Alibaba symbol of China's new tech giants 4 hr well 5
Space station shipment contains 3-D printer; Sp... 5 hr Kid_Tomorrow 3
Post your FeaturePoints referral code to get re... 9 hr Sabrina 17
Researchers rekindle vaccine-autism debate 14 hr Starts with Vaccines 3
•••

Science / Technology People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••