Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 60659 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.

gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#34406 Feb 22, 2013
marlowe44 wrote:
<quoted text>
Because i know human nature and i know the history of researchers of all stripes wallowing in luxury while they do these so desperately needed "studies".
You think these people are Mother Teresa's?
One of you did come out of my ass this morning.
Knowing human nature as I do, I know it's quite common that there are cheaters among us. Also knowing human nature as I do, I know there are many, many honest people of integrity.

What I'm asking for is the proof you have that climate scientists are cheating the government. If you don't have any proof, then shut the fuggup.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#34407 Feb 22, 2013
marlowe44 wrote:
<quoted text>
No one would accuse you of living in reality if you think those getting government funds aren't living large.
The law says they can't.

http://profmandia.wordpress.com/2010/03/22/ta...
litesong

Everett, WA

#34408 Feb 22, 2013
[QUOTE who="marred & low 44 waist"] researchers of all stripes wallowing in luxury......[/QUOTE]
"marred & low 44waist" regrets NOT getting(couldn't get?) its science & mathematics degrees so he could live in 'luxury like working scientists'. "marred & low 44waist" didn't even get(couldn't get?) its upper class science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra & pre-calc for its poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa.... if it even has that.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#34409 Feb 22, 2013
marlowe44 wrote:
<quoted text>
There's something seriously wrong with you to claim the Koch Bros. are more influential than Georgy Porgy Soros. Until a year ago I had never even heard of the Koch Bros.
I'll wager a search for Soros would dwarf a search for the Koch. Bros.
Soros is a snake, investing in every anti American scheme some leftist crackpot can dream up.
You are psychotically detached from reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activi...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALEC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros_con...

The Kochs & Soros both donate money in the 10s of millions, but thru ALEC, the Kochs' influence is far, far, FAR greater. ALEC literally WRITES the biggest chunk of Republican legislation at the State level, which means the biggest chunk of State legislation period. The Kochs also donate directly to institutions like the Heartland Institute, responsible for decades of anti-science nonsense to poison the public mind. They literally tried to change curricula in American schools to remove science.

Soros does NOTHING like that. Not even close. You are almost certainly suffering from distorted right wing conspiracy theories, as described above.

If you don't like it, don't complain to me, sign on to Wiki. If you have facts & logic on your side, in the small-D democratic environment of Wiki, you'll prevail. O/W, STFU.

So once AGAIN, you're WRONG.
tim

United States

#34410 Feb 22, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
You are psychotically detached from reality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activi...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALEC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros_con...
The Kochs & Soros both donate money in the 10s of millions, but thru ALEC, the Kochs' influence is far, far, FAR greater. ALEC literally WRITES the biggest chunk of Republican legislation at the State level, which means the biggest chunk of State legislation period. The Kochs also donate directly to institutions like the Heartland Institute, responsible for decades of anti-science nonsense to poison the public mind. They literally tried to change curricula in American schools to remove science.
Soros does NOTHING like that. Not even close. You are almost certainly suffering from distorted right wing conspiracy theories, as described above.
If you don't like it, don't complain to me, sign on to Wiki. If you have facts & logic on your side, in the small-D democratic environment of Wiki, you'll prevail. O/W, STFU.
So once AGAIN, you're WRONG.
WIKIPEDIA!!???? ARE YOU SERIOUS? How about National Enquirer?? You have got way to much time on your hands homo.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#34411 Feb 22, 2013
marlowe44 wrote:
<quoted text>
Because i know human nature and i know the history of researchers of all stripes wallowing in luxury while they do these so desperately needed "studies".
You think these people are Mother Teresa's?
One of you did come out of my ass this morning.
Science is structures to militate against venality & deception.

Obviously, all human beings are subject to the normal means of corruption, & scientists are human beings. But what's built into science is the requirement for repeatability.

If a scientist announces a result, other scientists around the world are encouraged to try to repeat it. If the 1st scientist does anything deceptive or dishonest, it will always - ALWAYS - be detected by other scientists, because they'll get different results. If a scientist is found to have been deliberately deceitful, it usually means the end of his/her academic career.

This means that scientists don't lie or cheat nearly as often as other human beings because they CAN'T. They'll be discovered & outed. If they're just wrong, it's embarrassing (remember cold fusion?). If they're lying, it's adios academic career.

These scientists therefore canNOT distort their data like you deniers always claim. It's IMPOSSIBLE.

What's more, while they're human & might be interested in wealth & power now, they're way, way, WAY more interested in being RIGHT. It's best if you're recognized as being right during your lifetime, but it's a whole lot better to be right after you die than to be wrong.

Scientists aren't exaggerating when they say the climate will be such & such in 2100. They just want to have been RIGHT in 2013 about what will happen in 2100.

Beliefs of deniers are inconsistent with science, scientific fact & the behavior of scientists.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#34412 Feb 22, 2013
Erratum:

I meant "structured," not "structures," in the 1st sentence.
tim

United States

#34413 Feb 22, 2013
"Wikipedia is a particularly unreliable source of knowledge and yet, because of a rumored secret-deal with Google, it ranks highly on many searches. But if you searched Google for knowledge about Theology and read any of the 16,000 Wikipedia pages edited by Essjay, an anonymous contributor who claimed to hold two PhDs, then you may wish to seek your nearest library... and fast. Because it turns out that Essjay was lying about his credentials: he is actually 24, doesn't hold any advanced degrees, and has no specialized knowledge of the subjects upon which he wrote. But the damage has already been done. Unknown millions are now walking the earth repeating the fabrications of an overzealous geek. And while Essjay's contributions may have been unmasked anonymous users continue to edit the 2,000,000 English pages in Wikipedia that are unreliably informing the curious at the same time as they homogenize thought."

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#34414 Feb 22, 2013
tim wrote:
<quoted text> WIKIPEDIA!!???? ARE YOU SERIOUS? How about National Enquirer?? You have got way to much time on your hands homo.
Like I said, you're talking to the wrong guy. If you have HALF a gonad & disagree with Wiki, then YOU sign of there & tell them exactly how they're wrong. If you have facts & logic on your side, in the small-D democratic environment of Wiki, you'll prevail.

Otherwise, around here, S.T.F.U. PERIOD.

No, Wiki is NOTHING like the Enquirer. You, however, appear to be not only a coward, but psychotically detached from reality. PERIOD.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#34415 Feb 22, 2013
tim wrote:
"Wikipedia is a particularly unreliable source of knowledge and yet, because of a rumored secret-deal with Google, it ranks highly on many searches. But if you searched Google for knowledge about Theology and read any of the 16,000 Wikipedia pages edited by Essjay, an anonymous contributor who claimed to hold two PhDs, then you may wish to seek your nearest library... and fast. Because it turns out that Essjay was lying about his credentials: he is actually 24, doesn't hold any advanced degrees, and has no specialized knowledge of the subjects upon which he wrote. But the damage has already been done. Unknown millions are now walking the earth repeating the fabrications of an overzealous geek. And while Essjay's contributions may have been unmasked anonymous users continue to edit the 2,000,000 English pages in Wikipedia that are unreliably informing the curious at the same time as they homogenize thought."
And?

Grow a gonad, coward, & sign on THERE. If you don't do that, aroun here, STFU.

“obamabot livs”

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#34416 Feb 22, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
The law says they can't.
http://profmandia.wordpress.com/2010/03/22/ta...
The law says you can't do heroin, smoke crack, rob banks or kill your spouse, but people do it anyway.
wise up.
IF AGW was proved to incorrect the funding and the gravy train would be over.

“obamabot livs”

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#34417 Feb 22, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
You are psychotically detached from reality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activi...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALEC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros_con...
The Kochs & Soros both donate money in the 10s of millions, but thru ALEC, the Kochs' influence is far, far, FAR greater. ALEC literally WRITES the biggest chunk of Republican legislation at the State level, which means the biggest chunk of State legislation period. The Kochs also donate directly to institutions like the Heartland Institute, responsible for decades of anti-science nonsense to poison the public mind. They literally tried to change curricula in American schools to remove science.
Soros does NOTHING like that. Not even close. You are almost certainly suffering from distorted right wing conspiracy theories, as described above.
If you don't like it, don't complain to me, sign on to Wiki. If you have facts & logic on your side, in the small-D democratic environment of Wiki, you'll prevail. O/W, STFU.
So once AGAIN, you're WRONG.
Where do I sign up for some of this Koch Bros. largesse?

You people are fools, trying to make the Koch bros. some kind of boogyman when the left has the entire LSM on it's side.
Ur becoming quite comical.

“obamabot livs”

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#34418 Feb 22, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
When significant parts of the corporate media are openly embracing, and indeed pushing, climate ‘skepticism’, is there any meaningful justification for this in the climate science? No. Geochemist James Lawrence Powell recently conducted an exhaustive study of the peer-reviewed literature on climate science. Going back over 20 years, his search yielded 13,950 scientific papers. Of these, only 24 “clearly rejected global warming or endorsed a cause other than carbon dioxide emissions for the observed warming of 0.8 degrees since the beginning of the industrial era.”
Powell said:
Only one conclusion is possible: within science, global warming denial has virtually no influence. Its influence is instead on a misguided media, politicians all-too-willing to deny science for their own gain, and a gullible public.
Adding:
Scientists do not disagree about human-caused global warming. It is the ruling paradigm of climate science, in the same way that plate tectonics is the ruling paradigm of geology. We know that continents move. We know that the earth is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause.
The notable US science writer Phil Plait “marveled” at Powell’s “persistence in unearthing the facts and figures”, saying:
His premise was simple: if global warming isn’t real and there’s an actual scientific debate about it, that should be reflected in the scientific journals.
But Powell’s findings were clear, says Plait:
There is no scientific controversy over this. Climate change denial is purely, 100 per cent made-up political and corporate-sponsored crap.
When the loudest voices are fossil-fuel funded think tanks, when they don’t publish in journals but instead write error-laden op-eds in partisan venues, when they have to manipulate the data to support their point, then what they’re doing isn’t science. It’s nonsense. And worse, it’s dangerous nonsense. Because they’re fiddling with the data while the world burns.
Which corporate media would that be? CBS? NBC? ABC? MSNBC? CNN? The NYT's? Washington Post?

“obamabot livs”

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#34419 Feb 22, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Knowing human nature as I do, I know it's quite common that there are cheaters among us. Also knowing human nature as I do, I know there are many, many honest people of integrity.
What I'm asking for is the proof you have that climate scientists are cheating the government. If you don't have any proof, then shut the fuggup.
Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
Solyndra ($535 million)*
Beacon Power ($43 million)*
Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
SunPower ($1.2 billion)
First Solar ($1.46 billion)
Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
Amonix ($5.9 million)
Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
Abound Solar ($400 million)*
A123 Systems ($279 million)*
Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
Johnson Controls ($299 million)
Schneider Electric ($86 million)
Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
ECOtality ($126.2 million)
Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
Mountain Plaza, Inc.($2 million)*
Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
Range Fuels ($80 million)*
Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
GreenVolts ($500,000)
Vestas ($50 million)
LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
Navistar ($39 million)
Satcon ($3 million)*
Konarka Technologies Inc.($20 million)*
Mascoma Corp.($100 million)

Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/obama/2012/10/20/li...
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#34420 Feb 22, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
No the Rockefeller Foundation is not the same as the UN. WWF was created by the UN though and actually I was wrong about Greenpeace...they weren't created by the UN. UNESCO is a specialized agency of the UN. In 1948, the Director of UNESCO (Julian Huxley) established the UICN as the environmental arm of UNESCO and Huxley then created the WWF under UICN. There is nothing evil about debt for nature other than we the taxpayers are on the hook and these environmental groups get a lot of land for from countries all over the world, so you know, they can stop things like dams that might help those in poverty get electricity. But my point was in response to a link that stated these environmental organizations operate on a limited budget and I was just pointing out that they don’t. They have lots of money.
This was my original question to this thread:“Just wondering, can politicians, governments, and NGOs who promote AGW be corrupt and greedy or is that only limited to big oil and scientists who are skeptical of AGW?”
So what you are saying is that scientists who publish papers that have results showing man is not the main contributor to global warming, they are then puppet masters of the oil companies. So my question is how come that only works one way? Scientists can’t be puppet masters of governments? Someone stated earlier that governments are broke, yet they continue funding climate science. Governments are looking at ways to fix the financial messes they have made. Having a crisis and taxing brings lots of money into the coffers. So if you can say that big oil is funding science to protect their interests, political leaders in our government also need to protect their interests to keep their power and bring in lots of cash.
As to your survey, yeah, I can’t believe there are 3% of scientists who don’t think the Earth has warmed in the last 100 years. And yes, probably 84% believe man has an impact. What the debate is over is how much man drives climate versus natural forces.
Naomi Oreskes did a study and everyone agrees, because you know, that’s how science works. Once everyone agrees, then you move on and discredit anyone who comes along and questions the settled, no-debate science.
In honor of Naomi and her "merchants of doubt" I will post this from Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt (an expert reviewer from the IPCC) who wrote a book last year called “The Cold Sun: Why the Climate Disaster Won’t Happen.” He has this to say:
“The IPCC decision-makers are fighting tooth and nail against accepting the roles of the oceans, sun, and soot.” Accordingly, IPCC models are completely out of whack.“The facts need to be discussed sensibly and scientifically, without first deciding on the results.”
So why did you throw out that Greenpeace was a child of the UN? Right wing hysteria? And the WWF was only very indirectly the product of UN collaboration.

And you somehow misunderstood that the oil and coal companies are the puppetmasters who control their own small group of scientists. Scientists who are continually proven wrong in their poor research and sloppy reasoning, not to mention what appears to be outright lying at times.

So, since you seem to have comprehension problems on top of your conspiracy-everywhere mindset, I don't see where you have much credibility, especially when you lack any hard proof.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#34421 Feb 22, 2013
marlowe44 wrote:
<quoted text>
The law says you can't do heroin, smoke crack, rob banks or kill your spouse, but people do it anyway.
wise up.
IF AGW was proved to incorrect the funding and the gravy train would be over.
IF.

The biggest word in the English language.

Or as Daddy used to say, "If a bullfrog had wings, he wouldn't bump his ass when he jumped."
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#34422 Feb 22, 2013
marlowe44 wrote:
<quoted text>
Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
Solyndra ($535 million)*

Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/obama/2012/10/20/li...
SO

WHAT?

What does this prove?

Besides the fact that you are a Fox News dittohead?

Fox News, known for its unfair and unbalanced news, and its unbalanced staff.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#34423 Feb 22, 2013
marlowe44 wrote:
<quoted text>
Where do I sign up for some of this Koch Bros. largesse?
You people are fools, trying to make the Koch bros. some kind of boogyman when the left has the entire LSM on it's side.
Ur becoming quite comical.
Yup, those mainstream media are SO leftist they got the election EXACTLY right! The right-wingers, meanwhile, got it all wrong. Who's biased & who isn't?

You people have NO clue what left wing media even are. NO clue. It's CERTAINLY not the MSM.

Here ya go, sign up for Koch bros $$:

http://heartland.org/

However, if you REALLY want to be on the gravy train, you'll have to get elected to Statewide office as a Repub, then work with ALEC. They'll put you in touch with lots of money people. Then they'll write the legislation for you to propose. You won't even have to read it!

http://www.alec.org/

The Koch brothers have essentially taken over the Republican Party, gotten rid of anyone resembling a moderate (remember all those moderate Repubs?) & made it over in the image of their father, a co-founder of the John Birch Society.

Luckily, you radicals will never win another national election. You're WAY more lost than the Demos were in the 70s & 80s. Clinton & the DLC dragged the Demos back to the center. You need at least that much now.

But the funny thing is that you don't even realize it. You actually think YOU'RE the ones who are the Americans, when you're SO far outside American political history you're completely detached from reality.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#34424 Feb 22, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
SO
WHAT?
What does this prove?
Besides the fact that you are a Fox News dittohead?
Fox News, known for its unfair and unbalanced news, and its unbalanced staff.
Actually, gcaveman1, I think you mean "Faux 'News'"!

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#34425 Feb 22, 2013
marlowe44 wrote:
<quoted text>
Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
Solyndra ($535 million)*
Beacon Power ($43 million)*
Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
SunPower ($1.2 billion)
First Solar ($1.46 billion)
Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
Amonix ($5.9 million)
Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
Abound Solar ($400 million)*
A123 Systems ($279 million)*
Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
Johnson Controls ($299 million)
Schneider Electric ($86 million)
Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
ECOtality ($126.2 million)
Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
Mountain Plaza, Inc.($2 million)*
Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
Range Fuels ($80 million)*
Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
GreenVolts ($500,000)
Vestas ($50 million)
LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
Navistar ($39 million)
Satcon ($3 million)*
Konarka Technologies Inc.($20 million)*
Mascoma Corp.($100 million)
Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/obama/2012/10/20/li...
ALL the TINY subsidies the government gives to renewable energy are INCREDIBLY trivial compared to what they give the oil (& other fossil fuel) industries. The gov gives them billions every year in direct subsidies, lets them drill on government land for a song, & on & on.

Then there are the trillion-dollar oil wars in the Middle East. And if you think Iraq wasn't about oil, I've got this great bridge to sell you.

But of course, the most important subsidy of all is the lack of a carbon tax. Like millions (maybe billions around the world) of other people & their governments, you probably suffer from the hallucinatory psychotic delusion that it is "free" to emit carbon into the atmosphere.

It most assuredly is NOT free. It will be almost incalculably expensive in the future. It is already costing us hundreds of billions of dollars a year, NOT counting the above subsidies.

If you think the switch from high carbon to low carbon energy will be expensive, wait till you see the cost of not switching. If you think the US national debt is large, wait till you see the cost of unmitigated AGW/CC. The national debt is very, very, very tiny in comparison.

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) 1 min flack 1,404,481
News Mexico tells Donald Trump if he wants a wall, h... 2 min kuda 6
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 31 min District 1 219,532
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 3 hr Brian_G 391,297
News In 10th convention speech, Bill Clinton faces t... 6 hr Years Of Viagra A... 1
News The View that Putin's Advisor Has on Obama's Uk... (Nov '14) 9 hr Tn clm 6,108
News Obama to address convention of disabled veterans (Aug '13) 11 hr Go Blue Forever 22
More from around the web