Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 61464 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.

“I'm Hillary's Deplorable”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#32524 Oct 1, 2012
mememine69 wrote:
With 26 years of science saying "maybe" I can prove it's not real, so besides your "they say" prove to us that the crisis will happen. What has science done or said that proves it will happen?
They haven't done even one single experiment that indicates climate change mitigation is possible. Without experimental data, all we have is pseudoscience.
PHD

Houston, TX

#32525 Oct 2, 2012
SpaceBlues wrote:
[C]limate change can lead to a substantial decrease in the maximum body weight of fish.
Now if the climate change could stop the dirtling from useless babble all will be good.

“EnvironMENTAList ”

Since: Feb 07

Near Detroit

#32526 Oct 2, 2012
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Stop playing games.
How does your garden grow?
Fear Monger, Answer the question!
What has your world of science done to "prove" any crisis "WILL" happen, not just might happen? How can they say we are at the brink of no return and still not say it "WILL" happen? What could be worse, a comet hit?
Answer the question fear monger!
SpaceBlues

United States

#32527 Oct 2, 2012
mememine69 wrote:
<quoted text>Fear Monger, Answer the question!
What has your world of science done to "prove" any crisis "WILL" happen, not just might happen? How can they say we are at the brink of no return and still not say it "WILL" happen? What could be worse, a comet hit?
Answer the question fear monger!
Learn science. You, lazy one.
PHD

Houston, TX

#32528 Oct 2, 2012
More and less science that the dirtling spews all day.You can't count useless babble cut and paste as science.

“I'm Hillary's Deplorable”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#32530 Oct 2, 2012
SpaceBlues wrote:
Learn science. You, lazy one.
Experiments are repeatable, good experiments mean you can be certain of getting results within an error range. Without experiments, there is only uncertainty, pseudoscience - not science.
litesong

Everett, WA

#32531 Oct 2, 2012
me me me getting mine in the 69 position wrote:
What has your world of science.....
At least, "me me me getting mine in the 69 position" admits that he doesn't know science. He agrees with 'steenking piddling diddling middling mudling mudslinger dirtling' that toxic topix AGW deniers know nothing of science & mathematics.
SpaceBlues

United States

#32532 Oct 2, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Experiments are repeatable, good experiments mean you can be certain of getting results within an error range. Without experiments, there is only uncertainty, pseudoscience - not science.
Why why good grief!

No, not all experiments are repeatable.

No, good experiments don't mean you can be certain of getting results within an error range.

No, there's always uncertainty with or without experiments.

Conclusion: it shows that you don't understand science. Btw, there's no pseudoscience but there are people like you who don't know science.
Teddy R

San Francisco, CA

#32533 Oct 2, 2012
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Why why good grief!
No, not all experiments are repeatable.
No, good experiments don't mean you can be certain of getting results within an error range.
No, there's always uncertainty with or without experiments.
Conclusion: it shows that you don't understand science. Btw, there's no pseudoscience but there are people like you who don't know science.
Oh, good grief yourself.

The scientific method depends upon three basic requirements for performing good experiments:

(i) Hypotheses must be falsi&#64257;able—that is, it must be possible to design an experiment to either support or refute the hypothesis. Therefore, the hypothesis must pertain to properties that are both observable and measurable.

(ii) Experiments must be controllable; the experimenter should be able to change only one variable at a time and measure the change in results.

(iii) Finally, experiments should be both repeatable, meaning that the researcher can perform them several times and get similar results, and reproducible, meaning that others can recreate the
experiment and obtain similar results.

If it ain't in line with this model, it ain't science.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#32534 Oct 2, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, good grief yourself.
The scientific method depends upon three basic requirements for performing good experiments:
(i) Hypotheses must be falsi&#64257;able—that is, it must be possible to design an experiment to either support or refute the hypothesis. Therefore, the hypothesis must pertain to properties that are both observable and measurable.
(ii) Experiments must be controllable; the experimenter should be able to change only one variable at a time and measure the change in results.
(iii) Finally, experiments should be both repeatable, meaning that the researcher can perform them several times and get similar results, and reproducible, meaning that others can recreate the
experiment and obtain similar results.
If it ain't in line with this model, it ain't science.
Observations are not "experiments" but they are an important aspect of science.
SpaceBlues

United States

#32535 Oct 2, 2012
Oh Teddy-come-lately-again.

Everything is not about you. Experiment design is much more than slicing onions.

Let's see. Wkipedia: In engineering and other physical sciences, experiments are a primary component of the scientific method.

In brief, the scientific method relies on these three requirements for performing experiments:

(i) Hypotheses must be falsifiable — that is, it must be possible to design an experiment to either support or refute the hypothesis. Therefore, the hypothesis must relate to properties that are both observable and measurable.

(ii) Experiments must be controllable; the experimenter should be able to change only one independent variable at a time and measure the change in results.

(iii) Finally, experiments should be both repeatable, meaning that the researcher can perform them several times and get the same results, and reproducible, meaning that others can recreate the experiment and obtain the same results.

Read more for more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiment
SpaceBlues

United States

#32536 Oct 2, 2012
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Observations are not "experiments" but they are an important aspect of science.
Welcome back.

An observational study is used when it is impractical, unethical, cost-prohibitive (or otherwise inefficient) to fit a physical or social system into a laboratory setting, to completely control confounding factors, or to apply random assignment. It can also be used when confounding factors are either limited or known well enough to analyze the data in light of them (though this [is sometimes] rare when social phenomena are under examination). In order for an observational science to be valid, confounding factors must be known and accounted for. In these situations, observational studies have value because they often suggest hypotheses that can be tested with randomized experiments or by collecting fresh data.

(Wikipedia)

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#32537 Oct 2, 2012
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Welcome back.
An observational study is used when it is impractical, unethical, cost-prohibitive (or otherwise inefficient) to fit a physical or social system into a laboratory setting, to completely control confounding factors, or to apply random assignment. It can also be used when confounding factors are either limited or known well enough to analyze the data in light of them (though this [is sometimes] rare when social phenomena are under examination). In order for an observational science to be valid, confounding factors must be known and accounted for. In these situations, observational studies have value because they often suggest hypotheses that can be tested with randomized experiments or by collecting fresh data.
(Wikipedia)
Been on vacation but I see the whack-a-mole mentality of the deniers is still ongoing. Nothing much here is interesting or informative. It gets tiring simply reacting to the misinformation of the unabashed few.
SpaceBlues

United States

#32538 Oct 2, 2012
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Been on vacation but I see the whack-a-mole mentality of the deniers is still ongoing. Nothing much here is interesting or informative. It gets tiring simply reacting to the misinformation of the unabashed few.
Nice for you but we missed your presence.

Haven't you noticed any change? The deniers are in a disarray. They get even more confused with each repeat of their outdated, incorrect denier blog material.

Some of them have disappeared.
Northie

Spokane, WA

#32539 Oct 2, 2012
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Nice for you but we missed your presence.
Haven't you noticed any change? The deniers are in a disarray. They get even more confused with each repeat of their outdated, incorrect denier blog material.
Some of them have disappeared.
Correction: many have disappeared. A few years ago, these climate forums were packed with deniers howling that the climate was actually cooling, that climate scientists were deeply divided, that this was all a commie hoax, and so on. That, I'm happy to say, is nearly all gone. The fanatically political stragglers left here are merely the few and the sad.
Eek

Sweden

#32540 Oct 2, 2012
Eek.
litesong

Everett, WA

#32541 Oct 2, 2012
Northie wrote:
Correction: many have disappeared. A few years ago, these climate forums were packed with deniers howling that the climate was actually cooling, that climate scientists were deeply divided, that this was all a commie hoax, and so on. That, I'm happy to say, is nearly all gone. The fanatically political stragglers left here are merely the few and the sad.
Its nice to think so. However, toxic topix AGW deniers are letting the impetus of the disastrous collapse of Arctic sea ice in AUGUST, that has carried on THROUGHOUT SEPTEMBER, REACHING A STAMMERINGLY DEEP LOW EXTENT & VOLUME & NOT ICING MUCH AT ALL, ALL THE WAY INTO OCTOBER(LET THAT SINK IN)...... yeah, toxic topix AGW deniers just got nuttin' to support their continued denial. Time will allow them to reclaim their denial..... just let some time flow into the past.

toxic topix AGW deniers are good at destruction, disaster & descension...... by denying it all.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#32542 Oct 3, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, good grief yourself.
The scientific method depends upon three basic requirements for performing good experiments:
(i) Hypotheses must be falsi&#64257;able—that is, it must be possible to design an experiment to either support or refute the hypothesis. Therefore, the hypothesis must pertain to properties that are both observable and measurable.
(ii) Experiments must be controllable; the experimenter should be able to change only one variable at a time and measure the change in results.
(iii) Finally, experiments should be both repeatable, meaning that the researcher can perform them several times and get similar results, and reproducible, meaning that others can recreate the
experiment and obtain similar results.
If it ain't in line with this model, it ain't science.
Your citing a model taken from computer science where one can control every variable as the ideal for climate science where one can control none?

http://books.google.co.uk/books...

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#32543 Oct 3, 2012
Correction: You're..

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#32545 Oct 3, 2012
Nauseous wrote:
Correction: many have disappeared. A few years ago, these climate forums were packed with deniers howling that the climate was actually cooling, that climate scientists were deeply divided, that this was all a commie hoax, and so on. That, I'm happy to say, is nearly all gone. The fanatically political stragglers left here are merely the few and the sad.
It's quite understandable why few people with a modicum of sense post here.
Unless you're blind, you must have noticed that litesout, harvey, PHDumbo, Spambrat, Slewpid and a few others clog up this forum with steaming piles of shit.

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.

Barack Obama Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min NotSoDivineMsM 1,431,571
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 5 min Jacques in Ottawa 225,454
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 30 min freebird 395,232
News Longtime GOP Texas Gov. Perry wins another term (Nov '10) 36 min Defiant1 23,515
News FBI releases notes from Clinton email investiga... 1 hr reality 34
News News Trump on unarmed Clinton guards: 'Let's se... 1 hr Go Blue Forever 726
News Trump: I reversed birther stance 'to get on wit... 2 hr BabyDoll 54
More from around the web