Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 58875 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.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#35059 Apr 11, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Well thank you for proving my point that the press release was deceptive. You post a blog where the blogger states this:
“In my view, the astounding and disgusting reaction from deniers like Pielke Jr and others is because they cannot fault the science so they set out to misrepresent it, either deliberately or because they don't have the wit or will to digest it. The Marcott et al paper and the supplementary material is eloquently written and easy to read. The FAQ is perhaps even clearer so that most laypeople should understand it easily.”
And he states this:
“However, Anthony Watts (in his seventeenth protest article) and the Auditor demonstrate that even after all this time and all their protests they still haven't even read the paper, claiming that Marcott et al "finally concede" something that was STATED AT THE OUTSET IN THE PAPER ITSELF (page 1198).”
EXACTLY….So if it is in the paper as this blogger says, then WHY DOES THEIR PRESS RELEASE STATE THIS:
"But when you combine data from sites around the world, you can average out those regional anomalies and get a clear sense of the Earth's global temperature history." What that history shows, the researchers say, is that during the last 5,000 years, the Earth on average cooled about 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit--until the last 100 years, when it warmed about 1.3 degrees F.
According to the blogger on page 1198 of their paper and according to their FAQ, they cannot make any conclusions about the 20th century portion of their paleotemperature stack as it is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of their conclusions.
That is what the Pielke paper was about; it was about the press release versus what is in the paper or FAQ. It’s no wonder this blogger didn’t want to link to Pielke’s site, because the blogger omits the fact that Pielke was talking about the press release and the media and the subsequent quotes from the scientists involved in the paper. Not once did any of these scientists who were interviewed tell us that the 20th century is not the basis of any of their conclusions even though IT WAS IN THEIR PAPER AND FAQ.
It's very simple.

The paper is about holocene temperatures.

The press release is about how holocene temperatures compare to modern temperatures.

No deception there.
kristy

Titusville, FL

#35060 Apr 11, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Who is "smearing", twisty?
Who was so frightened by the graph below that she attacked the author as "deceptive" and "a con artist"- baseless slander?
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/sha...
You lie and slander and then expect a nice civil dialogue?
Who is the sceptical scientist you flaunt? A 90 year old man who hasn't studied climate science for 30 years.
When he did, the group he was part of came to the conclusion that:
"...human activities, notably deforestation and burning of fossil fuels, were contributing to pronounced changes in the global climate."
That's right: the consensus for 30 years has been that human activity is causing global warming.
All deniers can do is quote a few sceptics whose ideas go against the evidence.
Which is why twisty kristy aka krusty the clown is not here for a polite debate.
She is here to throw muck.
See above for my remarks on the con/deception.

Partial list of those skeptical of AGW, CO2 as the main driver of climate and the effects and the computer models:

Lindzen
Spencer
Cristy
Pielke
Curry
Happer
Gray

Signed letter from 125 scientists to UN

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/11/29/o...

43 scientists from Royal Society

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/articl...
kristy

Titusville, FL

#35061 Apr 11, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
It's very simple.
The paper is about holocene temperatures.
The press release is about how holocene temperatures compare to modern temperatures.
No deception there.
Huh? Show me in the press release what you are referring to. Thanks.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#35062 Apr 11, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
See above for my remarks on the con/deception.
Partial list of those skeptical of AGW, CO2 as the main driver of climate and the effects and the computer models:
Lindzen
Spencer
Cristy
Pielke
Curry
Happer
Gray
Signed letter from 125 scientists to UN
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/11/29/o...
43 scientists from Royal Society
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/articl...
"...a few sceptics whose ideas go against the evidence."

Why do you think the people you picked are so into blogging?

Because they haven't been able to convince the scientific community.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#35063 Apr 11, 2013
twisty kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Huh? Show me in the press release what you are referring to. Thanks.
The same one you are.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#35064 Apr 11, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
Good research brings out the best in good people and the worst in bad people. I applaud Drs Marcott and Shakun and their supervisors for impeccable behaviour in the face of the vicious onslaught of lies and defamation from the usual crowd of science deniers, including some science-denying scientists.
.....
In my view, the astounding and disgusting reaction from deniers like Pielke Jr and others is because they cannot fault the science so they set out to misrepresent it, either deliberately or because they don't have the wit or will to digest it. The Marcott et al paper and the supplementary material is eloquently written and easy to read. The FAQ is perhaps even clearer so that most laypeople should understand it easily.
The fact deniers can't fault the science means they can do nothing but misrepresent the research or flop back to their fallback position - climate science is a hoax being perpetrated by scientists all around the world, governments of all political persuasions everywhere, the mainstream media and the informed public - and can be traced back nearly two centuries, from modern climatology back through Plass and Reveille and Broecker and Callendar and Arrhenius all the way back to Fourier and Tyndall (if not to Aristotle).
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/04/dismissive...
1. How many people are part of this conspiracy? Are there enough of them to carry out the plan? What infrastructure and resources does it need? How much time and money did it take and where did this money come from?
2. Explicitly who gains what from the conspiracy and for what price? Is this the easiest way of gaining it? If not, why was it chosen over the easiest way? If it is an old conspiracy — who gains what from maintaining it?
3. How large is the supposed conspiracy and how likely is it to be covered up if has gone on a long time? If there are thousands of conspirators, and the conspiracy has gone on for decades, why have none been defected? Why have none of them leaked the story? If many conspirators are dead, why have none of them told the truth on their deathbeds, or in their wills?
4. If there are many thousands of conspirators, how are they organized? Where are the secret conferences held? How do they keep track of membership? If they are organised through known channels or entities, how do they keep non-members who work there from uncovering the conspiracy?
5. There are many intelligence agencies associated with rival nations, with the ability to expose secrets. If, say, the US government is running a global conspiracy, why have the French, Russian, or Chinese intelligence agencies never revealed it, to cause a major scandal in the United States (If all intelligence agencies are involved, see #2)? If they have, when and where did they do so?
6. Does belief in this theory require accepting that the conspiring entities are incredibly competent, bone stupid, organized and clever, and hopelessly incompetent -- all at the same time?[31]
7. More generally, what if any implausible contradictions does this theory depend upon? A secret well and carefully kept by extremely powerful and aggressive entities, that one or (especially) more "bozos on the bus" happens to know all about, and talk about openly, including on the Web, without being disappeared? A highly organized and thoroughly secret system of concentration camps operated by FEMA, which is famous for its amazingly chaotic, clumsy, and ineffective handling of rescue and recovery after Katrina? An intensely secret program that could be easily discovered and verified by anyone with a common piece of scientific equipment?
God

Custer, SD

#35065 Apr 11, 2013
The devil is mad so things are warming up.
kristy

Titusville, FL

#35066 Apr 11, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
"...a few sceptics whose ideas go against the evidence."
Why do you think the people you picked are so into blogging?
Because they haven't been able to convince the scientific community.
LOL....Real Climate. They are all bloggers.
kristy

Titusville, FL

#35067 Apr 11, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
The same one you are.
I didn't ask what press release, I asked show me what part of the press release you are referring to.
SpaceBlues

United States

#35068 Apr 11, 2013
crrsty is a flake. A dense flake!
SpaceBlues

United States

#35069 Apr 11, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
1. How many people are part of this conspiracy? Are there enough of them to carry out the plan? What infrastructure and resources does it need? How much time and money did it take and where did this money come from?
2. Explicitly who gains what from the conspiracy and for what price? Is this the easiest way of gaining it? If not, why was it chosen over the easiest way? If it is an old conspiracy — who gains what from maintaining it?
3. How large is the supposed conspiracy and how likely is it to be covered up if has gone on a long time? If there are thousands of conspirators, and the conspiracy has gone on for decades, why have none been defected? Why have none of them leaked the story? If many conspirators are dead, why have none of them told the truth on their deathbeds, or in their wills?
4. If there are many thousands of conspirators, how are they organized? Where are the secret conferences held? How do they keep track of membership? If they are organised through known channels or entities, how do they keep non-members who work there from uncovering the conspiracy?
5. There are many intelligence agencies associated with rival nations, with the ability to expose secrets. If, say, the US government is running a global conspiracy, why have the French, Russian, or Chinese intelligence agencies never revealed it, to cause a major scandal in the United States (If all intelligence agencies are involved, see #2)? If they have, when and where did they do so?
6. Does belief in this theory require accepting that the conspiring entities are incredibly competent, bone stupid, organized and clever, and hopelessly incompetent -- all at the same time?[31]
7. More generally, what if any implausible contradictions does this theory depend upon? A secret well and carefully kept by extremely powerful and aggressive entities, that one or (especially) more "bozos on the bus" happens to know all about, and talk about openly, including on the Web, without being disappeared? A highly organized and thoroughly secret system of concentration camps operated by FEMA, which is famous for its amazingly chaotic, clumsy, and ineffective handling of rescue and recovery after Katrina? An intensely secret program that could be easily discovered and verified by anyone with a common piece of scientific equipment?
Let's demand crrsty reply to all.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#35070 Apr 11, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL....Real Climate. They are all bloggers.
Even if you didn't believe in climate science it doesn't matter. The fact is if environmental laws and taxes are introduced it suddenly has real value so becomes an economy in itself. Just as the military machine generates $billions into the economy but that doesn't say everyone believes in war as a solution to all ills.
The logic of conserving energy & resources is not like building a nuke, it can have real value.
Potentially climate protection could create jobs and a whole new economy that thrives especially in developed countries as they have an advantage already with infrastructure. But it won't happen while putting solar panels on your roof or buying an electric car is a decision based on a guilty conscience. It needs governments to act so that it forces you to make those decisions based on a hit to your wallet. Be it in taxes or charges for utilities etc otherwise the only ppl making environmental decisions in changing their lifestyle is Hollywood. Why because when you are loaded it's much easier to think about those doing it hard or trying to create a image perception of doing good while others struggle to survive.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#35071 Apr 11, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL....Real Climate. They are all bloggers.
The difference is that the scientists at Realclimate use their blog to talk about their papers in the scientific literature.

The scientists you mention use blogs to promote ideas that they can't get published in the scientific literature.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#35072 Apr 11, 2013
twisty kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't ask what press release, I asked show me what part of the press release you are referring to.
The same part you are, twisty.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#35073 Apr 12, 2013
Climate was different millions of years ago, climate always changes. Don't panic.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#35074 Apr 12, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Who is "smearing", twisty?
Who was so frightened by the graph below that she attacked the author as "deceptive" and "a con artist"- baseless slander?
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/sha...
You lie and slander and then expect a nice civil dialogue?
Who is the sceptical scientist you flaunt? A 90 year old man who hasn't studied climate science for 30 years.
When he did, the group he was part of came to the conclusion that:
"...human activities, notably deforestation and burning of fossil fuels, were contributing to pronounced changes in the global climate."
That's right: the consensus for 30 years has been that human activity is causing global warming.
All deniers can do is quote a few sceptics whose ideas go against the evidence.
Which is why twisty kristy aka krusty the clown is not here for a polite debate.
She is here to throw muck.
There are a whole lot more trees now in America than a hundred years ago. In fact new growth is out pacing harvesting by up to 42% a year in places. Fossil fuel use is way down and what is being burned is far cleaner than 100 years ago too. Now why doesn't your science factor in these truths?
SpaceBlues

United States

#35075 Apr 12, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Climate was different millions of years ago, climate always changes. Don't panic.
There were no humans then.

This climate change is humans-instigated via burning of fossils such as coal, oil, and natural-gas. Ninety million tons of man-made CO2 are emitted daily into our atmosphere.

Think about it. Feel it in your gut.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#35076 Apr 12, 2013
kristy wrote:
I appreciate the civility of your post!! It's nice to actually see dialogue.

>>Thanks, I try to be civil.:)

1. The theory of AGW is that as CO2 rises, temperature rise.

>>The idea of AGW is that warming is caused or accelerated by human release of greenhouse gases. C02 isn't the only greenhouse gas.

2. That the 20th century increase in temperatures is unprecedented.

>>Incorrect. It would be the degree of human involvement in temperature increases since the mid-19th century that would be "unprecedented."

3. That CO2 is the main driver of the climate and that man is mostly responsible for the increase in the temperatures due to the burning of fossil fuels.

>>I don't know of anyone saying that "C02 is the main driver of the climate," and as noted, warming due to greenhouse gases would have many contributors.

4. That climate modeling is able to predict what will happen in the future.

>>It can with some degree of certainty, which has increased as models and computers have increased in sophistication.

This is what the debate is about. So when we talk about the past temperatures, it is important in the debate as part of the theory is that 20th century warming is unprecedented and when we see CO2 continuing to increase but temperatures staying flat for 17 years, then that needs to be investigated more thoroughly.

>>Again, I don't see why warming needs to be "unprecedented," only that there be a link visible between it and human activities. Also, temperatures have not "stayed flat for 17 years." In fact, about 2/3 of the .8 C increase has occurred since 1980.

I find it interesting that so many people believe in consensus science, as science is all about being skeptical. How can we ever progress if we don't let those scientists who are skeptical speak out without fear of being smeared?

>>Science is also about BUILDING consensuses, of course. And are "warming scientists," for lack of a better term, not also smeared by those who deny warming or AGW?

For example, when I posted about Dyson's views on global warming and climate models, one of the others on this board was trying to portray him as someone with crazy ideas who doesn't have a grasp on the science of biology. There are many scientists now questioning the Earth's cooling ability and they are saying that the models aren't reliable. So we have far to go in this science, it's really just in its infancy, far from settled.

>>We have further to go, but given that we know the Earth is warming and that humans play a role, wouldn't it be prudent to consider what actions may need to be taken? Should we wait and see if warming will spiral out of control, or would that be too late?

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#35077 Apr 12, 2013
57% of human emitted CO2 is removed by the biosphere and oceans.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#35078 Apr 12, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
...4. That climate modeling is able to predict what will happen in the future. >>It can with some degree of certainty, which has increased as models and computers have increased in sophistication....
^^^This is evidence global warming is faith based pseudoscience.

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.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "I have never seen negatives that high," says a... 2 min okimar 135
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min RealDave 1,375,197
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 2 min Abe 222,966
News Americans Fed Up with Illegal Immigration 3 min ima-Ilis Myka Ash... 3
News Trump too divisive, lacks prez temperament: Hil... 4 min Vote For Trump 34
News North Carolina's rush to bigotry 4 min Time again 2,698
News Hillary Clinton: America can't take a chance on... 5 min okimar 6
News Violence follows California Trump rally, about ... 7 min okimar 500
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 11 min Agents of Corruption 381,633
More from around the web