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

Full story: Newsday

When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore.
Comments
35,321 - 35,340 of 45,866 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37615
Aug 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

gcaveman1 wrote:
The Earth is warming.
It's real.
It's happening.
It's us.
We can do something about it.
Just returned from the Climate Reality Project Leadership training in Chicago last week. The above is our mantra. Call it religion, if you want. It's the truth.
Anyone who denies the four statements above is either abysmally ignorant, incredibly naive, a bald-faced liar, a pail shill, or all of the above.
Let the games begin....
lol....glad you were inspired by your trip to "climate Mecca"!
What's on your agenda now? Gonna behead some climate change infidels?
Ex-Riversider

Orlando, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37616
Aug 6, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
See what I mean Ozritz...squashing debate. Science has been corrupted.
LOL- a lot of people believe in Santa Clause- that does not make him real

There is much junk science involved in your global warming theories- and a lot of attempts to compare suspect prior data with suspect current data

Since: Mar 09

San Jose, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37617
Aug 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Ex-Riversider wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL- a lot of people believe in Santa Clause- that does not make him real
There is much junk science involved in your global warming theories- and a lot of attempts to compare suspect prior data with suspect current data
Unfortunately most of the junk is involved in denying AGW.

Since: Mar 09

San Jose, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37618
Aug 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
I would love to have a country where moral ethics were held in high regard. That is my wish, but the reality proves otherwise. If there is one thing we all know is that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Corruption is blind and it permeates throughout all of man from personal life to politics to media to science. In no way do I defend Murdoch in his actions. He is immoral. That being said, it is hard to find someone to look up to who is not immoral. There are things I believe in and I hold true to those beliefs, one of those being that the Bill of Rights is supposed to protect us from the absolute power. When I posted the clip of Olbermann calling Bush a fascist, I posted it because I believe that to be true. I believe Bush was grabbing power away from us and placing it into the vast Federal government, thus chipping away at our freedoms. I believe in order for us to retain power, the constitution, especially the first and second amendments are vital to that success. Thatís not outdated, thatís a truth. So when Obama comes out as George Bush on steroids, the same people who called Bush a fascist are now defending his actions and it goes both ways; people who were ok with Bush taking away our freedoms are now blasting Obama. Something is wrong with this picture. We are sheep. We follow a party without thinking for ourselves.
I have come to the conclusion that Occupy is right on the banks, the libertarians are right on the wars, and the Tea Party is right on limited government. Now if I could just meld these into a party, I would love that. But instead the sheep keep voting for the same people over and over blindly believing everything they say and expecting different results. We are so screwed that we have perverts running for office who have no shame or embarrassment for their actions and we have people who will vote for them. So I do realize Murdoch is immoral, but that doesnít mean that what is said by some of the people on Fox is not true, just as what some of the people say on MSNBC is not true. I donít have a problem with MSNBC or Fox airing their views. What I donít like is some people telling others not to watch or listen to something with a different view than their own. We squash free thinking and debate when we attack the people sending out information instead of listening to what each is saying. I always teach my children, donít believe everything you see or hear, research it, then decide.
Possibly there is hope for you! The media needs to report the news, not simply controversy to make a buck and influence politics.
Retired Farmer

Kuttawa, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37619
Aug 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

gcaveman1 wrote:
The Earth is warming.
It's real.
It's happening.
It's us.
We can do something about it.
Just returned from the Climate Reality Project Leadership training in Chicago last week. The above is our mantra. Call it religion, if you want. It's the truth.
Anyone who denies the four statements above is either abysmally ignorant, incredibly naive, a bald-faced liar, a pail shill, or all of the above.
Let the games begin....
I hope that you are right, but I'm afraid you are wrong. Not about the facts, but about whether or not we can or will do anything about it.
gcaveman1

Louin, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37620
Aug 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
See what I mean Ozritz...squashing debate. Science has been corrupted.
The Earth is warming.

It's real.

It's happening.

It's us.

We can do something about it.
gcaveman1

Louin, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37621
Aug 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>lol....glad you were inspired by your trip to "climate Mecca"!
What's on your agenda now? Gonna behead some climate change infidels?
The Earth is warming.

It's real.

It's happening.

It's us.

We can do something about it.
gcaveman1

Louin, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37622
Aug 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

A Republican Case for Climate Action
By WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS, LEE M. THOMAS, WILLIAM K. REILLY and CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN
Published: August 1, 2013, New York Times

EACH of us took turns over the past 43 years running the Environmental Protection Agency. We served Republican presidents, but we have a message that transcends political affiliation: the United States must move now on substantive steps to curb climate change, at home and internationally.

There is no longer any credible scientific debate about the basic facts: our world continues to warm, with the last decade the hottest in modern records, and the deep ocean warming faster than the earthís atmosphere. Sea level is rising. Arctic Sea ice is melting years faster than projected.

The costs of inaction are undeniable. The lines of scientific evidence grow only stronger and more numerous. And the window of time remaining to act is growing smaller: delay could mean that warming becomes ďlocked in.Ē

A market-based approach, like a carbon tax, would be the best path to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, but that is unachievable in the current political gridlock in Washington. Dealing with this political reality, President Obamaís June climate action plan lays out achievable actions that would deliver real progress. He will use his executive powers to require reductions in the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the nationís power plants and spur increased investment in clean energy technology, which is inarguably the path we must follow to ensure a strong economy along with a livable climate.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37623
Aug 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Possibly there is hope for you! The media needs to report the news, not simply controversy to make a buck and influence politics.
But is there hope for you? The thing about power and corruption is that it is inherent in ALL MEN. It doesnít bypass party lines or scientific lines. By you buying into the media spin that anything skeptic/republican/Tea Party/Fox is bad, you are also part of the problem. You are trying to silence the debate. You donít see that those you support could ever be corrupt. Every group whether Occupy, libertarian or Tea Party has something of value to add to the debate, but the political class along with the bankers and multinational corporations keeps us in constant fight mode through the media to keep us from banding together.

One thing I found interesting about the video I posted was that when the people found out that they actually supported someone with totally opposite ideology than their own, they then tried to reconcile that in their minds as just voting for the lesser of 2 evils. So my point in the earlier post was that we continue to vote for the same people over and over and then are confused as to why we still have the same problems plus more. Thatís because there is no difference between the 2 parties. They are both controlled and beholden to the banks and multinational corporations. Itís not just one side that is immune to the perks and benefits of helping these entities; they all benefit each other.

With climate change science, you canít say that only one side is able to be corrupted by power and money without also understanding that the other side also has lots of money and power to gain on the global warming ďcrisis.Ē The IMF and World Bank are proof of that. Basically Africa is being used as a money laundering scheme; money from us the taxpayers through Africa into the hands of banks and corporations and governments in the name of climate change.
chisholm

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37624
Aug 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

kristy wrote:
...edited....But back to what you said:ďAlthough you offer (as usual) no support for your claimed percentages, I suspect they're backward. MSNBC isn't openly a supporter of a major political party and its extremist wing, as Fox is.Ē
You suspected wrong and maybe it is you that really has no clue due to your warped ideology. I havenít quite figured you out. You hate Fox for being biased, but yet canít admit that MSNBC is biased. You hate the IMF/World Bank and corporations because they ruin developing nations, but yet you promote international regulations which go through the exact organizations you hate.
So I'm "wrong" but you can't say how or why. That's pretty much in keeping with the rest of your posts, Kristy.

Fox is biased quite deliberately, and I disapprove of the ideology behind them and of their owner, the vile Rupert Murdoch. I consider them a danger to America. MSNBC and other networks all have their various corporate biases and such, but they don't matter as much to me. I don't see anyone twisting the news or blurring the line between news and commentary the way Fox does.

Not sure what "international regulations" I'm "promoting" which go through the IMF and World Bank. Could you give me your version of this, please?
chisholm

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37625
Aug 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

kristy wrote:
I forgot I wanted to post this youtube video that really shows how we are sheep and that it is not really about what we believe in, but instead it's all about the party. This is why we are screwed. I do have to say there were a couple of people in the video, who may have had their eyes opened.
Obama Supporters Hate His Policies.(The video maker did not support Romney or Obama, just to let you know)
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Niether Mr. Obama or the two major parties have anything to do with global warming, Kristy. It's science, not politics. This is where you consistently veer off in the wrong direction.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37626
Aug 6, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

1

gcaveman1 wrote:
A Republican Case for Climate Action
By WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS, LEE M. THOMAS, WILLIAM K. REILLY and CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN
Published: August 1, 2013, New York Times
EACH of us took turns over the past 43 years running the Environmental Protection Agency. We served Republican presidents, but we have a message that transcends political affiliation: the United States must move now on substantive steps to curb climate change, at home and internationally.
There is no longer any credible scientific debate about the basic facts: our world continues to warm, with the last decade the hottest in modern records, and the deep ocean warming faster than the earthís atmosphere. Sea level is rising. Arctic Sea ice is melting years faster than projected.
The costs of inaction are undeniable. The lines of scientific evidence grow only stronger and more numerous. And the window of time remaining to act is growing smaller: delay could mean that warming becomes ďlocked in.Ē
A market-based approach, like a carbon tax, would be the best path to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, but that is unachievable in the current political gridlock in Washington. Dealing with this political reality, President Obamaís June climate action plan lays out achievable actions that would deliver real progress. He will use his executive powers to require reductions in the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the nationís power plants and spur increased investment in clean energy technology, which is inarguably the path we must follow to ensure a strong economy along with a livable climate.
How Not to Convince Republicans to Address Climate Change

Jonathan H. Adler ē August 3, 2013 10:24 am

Itís fair to say that only one political party today considers climate change to be a problem worth addressing. As readers know, I wish it were otherwise and believe there is a conservative case for addressing climate change. I welcome others to this cause. This NYT op-ed,ďA Republican Case for Climate Action,Ē is not the sort of thing that will help. The article is by four former EPA Administrators who served in Republican Administrations: William Ruckelshaus, Lee Thomas, William Reilly, and Christine Todd Whitman. Neither the message nor the messengers are likely to have much influence with a Republican audience. Itís a case study of how not to try and influence people with differing political priorities.

Letís start with the authors. Yes, all four served Republican Presidents, but none are known as Republican leaders or are particularly influential in Republican circles. Indeed, itís not clear they should all even be identified as Republicans. Whitman may still give money to liberal Republicans, but her co-authors are regular contributors to Democratic campaigns. Reilly, for instance, may have given a primary contribution to Mitt Romney in 2011, but according to OpenSecrets.org the remainder of his recent political contributions have all gone to Democrats, including Elizabeth Warren (who, one should recall, was running against one of the more liberal GOP Senators). Thomas and Ruckelshaus appear to give to both sides. However one wishes to characterize these four, it would not be as ďrespected GOP leadersĒ and they are not likely to carry much weight in politically active GOP circles....
http://www.volokh.com/2013/08/03/how-not-to-c...

Since: Mar 09

San Jose, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37627
Aug 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
But is there hope for you? The thing about power and corruption is that it is inherent in ALL MEN. It doesnít bypass party lines or scientific lines. By you buying into the media spin that anything skeptic/republican/Tea Party/Fox is bad, you are also part of the problem. You are trying to silence the debate. You donít see that those you support could ever be corrupt. Every group whether Occupy, libertarian or Tea Party has something of value to add to the debate, but the political class along with the bankers and multinational corporations keeps us in constant fight mode through the media to keep us from banding together.
One thing I found interesting about the video I posted was that when the people found out that they actually supported someone with totally opposite ideology than their own, they then tried to reconcile that in their minds as just voting for the lesser of 2 evils. So my point in the earlier post was that we continue to vote for the same people over and over and then are confused as to why we still have the same problems plus more. Thatís because there is no difference between the 2 parties. They are both controlled and beholden to the banks and multinational corporations. Itís not just one side that is immune to the perks and benefits of helping these entities; they all benefit each other.
With climate change science, you canít say that only one side is able to be corrupted by power and money without also understanding that the other side also has lots of money and power to gain on the global warming ďcrisis.Ē The IMF and World Bank are proof of that. Basically Africa is being used as a money laundering scheme; money from us the taxpayers through Africa into the hands of banks and corporations and governments in the name of climate change.
BTW, I am a lifelong registered Republican.
I abandoned the party after their corruption and Party over Country attitude. I am not a Democrat. I probably would be classified as a liberal today as would Teddy Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan, and moderate Republican. When you promote a conspiracy claiming that science is simply using global warming as a moneymaking scheme, you are not exactly creditable.

BTW, who holds the feet of the FOX reporters to the fire? If they were most of them would be on welfare. I am not a fan of MSNBC or any other fringe group. However FOX does present an agenda under the guise of "fair and balanced". It is especially dangerous to our nation.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37628
Aug 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Retired Farmer wrote:
<quoted text>
I hope that you are right, but I'm afraid you are wrong. Not about the facts, but about whether or not we can or will do anything about it.
Actually it is not about whether or not we will do something about it but WHEN and how bad it will get because we delayed so long.
Retired Farmer

Kuttawa, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37629
Aug 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually it is not about whether or not we will do something about it but WHEN and how bad it will get because we delayed so long.
There may be a so-called "tripping point" that, after it is reached, an environmental collapse will occur like an avalanche. By the time environmental conditions reach the point that we recognize that the collapse has started, it will be too late. The CO2 causing it will already be in the atmosphere.
Wintergirl

Spring, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37630
Aug 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

http://globalistagenda.com/weaponized-weather...

Ever heard of weaponized weather?

Since: Aug 13

Kailua, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37631
Aug 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Wintergirl wrote:
http://globalistagenda.com/wea ponized-weather/
Ever heard of weaponized weather?
The article describes Project Storm Fury.

Project Stormfury was an attempt to weaken tropical cyclones by flying aircraft into them and seeding with silver iodide. The project was run by the United States Government from 1962 to 1983.

The hypothesis was that the silver iodide would cause supercooled water in the storm to freeze, disrupting the inner structure of the hurricane. This led to the seeding of several Atlantic hurricanes. However, it was later shown that this hypothesis was incorrect. In reality, it was determined most hurricanes do not contain enough supercooled water for cloud seeding to be effective. Additionally, researchers found that unseeded hurricanes often undergo the same structural changes that were expected from seeded hurricanes. This finding called Stormfury's successes into question, as the changes reported now had a natural explanation.

Fidel Castro claimed that Project Storm Fury was an attempt to weaponize hurricanes.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37632
Aug 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
..........So I do realize Murdoch is immoral, but that doesnít mean that what is said by some of the people on Fox is not true, just as what some of the people say on MSNBC is not true. I donít have a problem with MSNBC or Fox airing their views. What I donít like is some people telling others not to watch or listen to something with a different view than their own. We squash free thinking and debate when we attack the people sending out information instead of listening to what each is saying. I always teach my children, donít believe everything you see or hear, research it, then decide.
Good to see that you do not carry bias over into everything.
I have read a lot on Murdoch and it's plain to see he would sell his own mother for the right price. He gave up his birth country citizenship for the sake of business, he divorced his first wife for business. Married an Asian exec to break into the vital Asian market for his empire and now is divorcing again for who knows.
Hardly a beacon of fine moral ethics, he also resisted the onslaught of digital media until forced to realise even he couldn't stop that. Although he denies playing his hand in editorial positions with his newspapers, it's not just by coincidence they all speak with one voice.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37633
Aug 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
..........
With climate change science, you canít say that only one side is able to be corrupted by power and money without also understanding that the other side also has lots of money and power to gain on the global warming ďcrisis.Ē The IMF and World Bank are proof of that. Basically Africa is being used as a money laundering scheme; money from us the taxpayers through Africa into the hands of banks and corporations and governments in the name of climate change.
Kristy, there are some professions we all like to think is beyond corruption. Doctors being one of them, but of course occasionally there will be some bad eggs (eg. Michael Jackson's Doc) that break the mould but they are far in the minority. Scientists would be another of those professions that would rate alongside doctors. For instance what possible motive would a "world wide" conspiracy of science have to just make up this climate science. It makes no logical sense to even think along these lines yet this is a msg that some send out.
The only money to be made from climate science is the development of alternative energy sources and that is just business like the discovery of the elec light bulb. It put a huge dent in the candle & oil lamp business. So it's all part of the human evolution, but it seems some ppl can't move on.
gcaveman1

Louin, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37634
Aug 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

It is notable that this scientific issue has become politicized.

It means that man's hubris once again leads him down the road of destruction.

We think we're so damn smart. And we invented the phrase, "It's not nice to fool Mother Nature."

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

46 Users are viewing the US News Forum right now

Search the US News Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Obama: Offshore 'tax inversions' are unpatriotic 9 min Shinichiro Takizawa 71
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 10 min WhiteDevilKingOfTrolls 1,083,042
Losing Streak Lengthens for Foes of Gay Marriage 10 min Frankie Rizzo 2,692
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 10 min Agents of Corruption 245,705
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 12 min Cornelius Scudmister 146,965
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 13 min Subliminal 113,061
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 15 min John-K 305,176
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 25 min Cecil 52,872
Poll: Romney tops Obama but loses to Clinton 47 min the Light 85
•••
•••