Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 64309 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

#36589 Jun 18, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>Lake Michigan and the other great lakes water levels have nothing to do with climate change!! There levels are cyclical....just like climate!!! Get over your hoax.. The real Americans aren't buying into your faux calamity. Do you think we're as stupid as you?
You poor soul, fighting against the majority. Rebel without a cause.

Everyone who knows anything up there says you're wrong. They have been taking the measurements and seeing the effects. You're a little blind know-nothing boy sitting in whatever slum you call home.

Even your polling data is off. A majority of Americans accept the fact that humans are causing climate change.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#36590 Jun 18, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You poor soul, fighting against the majority. Rebel without a cause.
Everyone who knows anything up there says you're wrong. They have been taking the measurements and seeing the effects. You're a little blind know-nothing boy sitting in whatever slum you call home.
Even your polling data is off. A majority of Americans accept the fact that humans are causing climate change.
psssst.....even though science isn't based off consensus or majority opinion, you managed to still get your stats wrong, son! lol

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/...

i didn't know sharecropping was called a business, btw.

my home is over 4000 square, paid for in full by my own hard work two years ago. oh, you must be a 99er.....you think the "bankstas" caused the housing collapse, huh? LOL
Kyle

Columbia City, IN

#36591 Jun 18, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>lol.....ALWAYS demanding other people do what you refuse to do yourself. typical....so typical.
Listen up, a-hole. I just linked - and you just quoted the link - to a pretty effin' compelling visualization of the current trend.

Your response was very scientific.

You spouted infantile insults and projection.

Thanks for the concession.

or would you care to HONESTLY discuss that video I linked to?
Kyle

Columbia City, IN

#36592 Jun 18, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>There levels are cyclical....just like climate!!!
You've admitted to the action of CO2. CO2 is rising well over 100X faster than at any time in the historical record. How do you square those facts with your dismissal of climate as merely "cyclical"? Seems to me that you have some 'splainin' to do.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#36593 Jun 19, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>psssst. global warming is driven by political and economic interests........except you people won't get the joke until you're paying for what you promoted. a raw deal.
lol...
Really informative scientific treatise. But that is as good as I expected. You are an empty vessel.
Dont drink the koolaid

Eden Prairie, MN

#36594 Jun 19, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
It's this simple. If any scientist had a coherent and sensible scientific revelation that we needn't be worried about fossil-fuel greenhouse-gas emissions causing a dangerous global warming problem, that scientist would write what would very quickly become the most celebrated research paper ever published. The publication would be in one of the world's most prestigious science journals, and that journal would be proud to have the honor and privilege. Literally hundreds of other scientists would quickly validate the research, and the author of the paper would become the most famously celebrated scientist in history.
http://globalecologist.org/talking.html
Yup, imagine a prestigious science journal basically admitting that they were deceptive ,stupid and just plain wrong about their position on AGW .

As they said in the "climate gate" email... will do whatever it takes to prevent such a paper from being published.

It is what climate scientists call their "scientific method".
Retired Farmer

Cadiz, KY

#36595 Jun 19, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You gotta be some dumass 20-something kid who never paid attention in history class.
I wouldn't bet on it. I heard a college educated man in his mid-70s say the same thing the other day. He also said, "Anybody that wants a job can get a job. The ones that don't just need to get hungry enough."

Fellow went on to advocate cutting public education to the point that tax funded free school for most kids ended with the 8th grade and only taught reading, writing, and basic arithmetic.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#36597 Jun 19, 2013
Dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
Yup, imagine a prestigious science journal basically admitting that they were deceptive ,stupid and just plain wrong about their position on AGW .
As they said in the "climate gate" email... will do whatever it takes to prevent such a paper from being published.
It is what climate scientists call their "scientific method".
Yup, a great world wide conspiracy. LOL

If you don't get your information from those who study, just where do you get it? Bet I know.....
Dont drink the koolaid

Eden Prairie, MN

#36598 Jun 19, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Yup, a great world wide conspiracy. LOL
If you don't get your information from those who study, just where do you get it? Bet I know.....
Another interesting assumption. But we get our information from the same sources. One difference is you tend to embrace the conclusions and prophecies made by the status quo where I tend to draw my own conclusions based on what seems rational. Yes, I know. You do not view my perspective as rational though I have yet to read a logical reason as to why... logical fallacies known in science as "appeal to authority"and "ad hominem" have been the only challenges to my various points of debate.

Sir, if you or any one else cares to debate Climate Change without relying on those two methods we could enjoy a truly intelligent conversation.

Sincerely,
koolaid
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#36599 Jun 19, 2013
Dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
Another interesting assumption. But we get our information from the same sources.
An untruth.
Dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
One difference is you tend to embrace the conclusions and prophecies made by the status quo
Status quo would be an invalid term. It is more properly the 'authoritative science' which is hardly a fixed value. Science by real scientists continues to move, hence not a 'status quo' ever.
Dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
where I tend to draw my own conclusions based on what seems rational. Yes, I know. You do not view my perspective as rational though I have yet to read a logical reason as to why... logical fallacies known in science as "appeal to authority"and "ad hominem" have been the only challenges to my various points of debate.
Sir, if you or any one else cares to debate Climate Change without relying on those two methods we could enjoy a truly intelligent conversation.
Sincerely,
koolaid
Dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
where I tend to draw my own conclusions based on what seems rational.
That is,to say, sounds good to you. Yes. You never let good science come between you and the answer you want.
Dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I know. You do not view my perspective as rational though I have yet to read a logical reason as to why
Logical? Logic is a way to go wrong with confidence, based on invalid premises and assumptions. Which you seem to 'like'. Reason and data are the only 'truths' and you avoid them.
Dont drink the koolaid wrote:
logical fallacies known in science as "appeal to authority"
Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy when IMPROPER authority is presented as validating a conclusion. That is YOUR line when you like the answer given. Taking the 'Authoritative science' from the actual experts is NOT 'appeal to authority'.
Dont drink the koolaid wrote:
"ad hominem" have been the only challenges to my various points of debate.
Pointing out that your 'authorities' are not valid in the climate sciences or are cranks is NOT 'ad hominem' but more 'peer review'.
Dont drink the koolaid wrote:
Sir, if you or any one else cares to debate Climate Change without relying on those two methods we could enjoy a truly intelligent conversation.
Sincerely,
koolaid
If you want an intelligent debate, you are going to have to give up these silly rants and actually select a point TO debate based on valid science. You are probably not up to it. Or at least you have never tried it in the past. But the issue is AGW, not climate change. Do you understand that the global average temperature has an effect on the 'heat engine' that is climate? Nobody knows exactly what that effect will be, but it is definitely disruptive to an economy that is predicated on a steady state. Adaption is EXPENSIVE when billion dollar investments are concerned. So do you want to debate AGW (science)? Even on the SUBJECT, you need to be returned to reason. It cannot augur well for your side in any real debate.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#36600 Jun 19, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>psssst. global warming is driven by political and economic interests........except you people won't get the joke until you're paying for what you promoted. a raw deal.
lol...
False, but Denierism IS driven by political and economic interests - Big Energy's money and political support is behind practically all Denierism in one way or another. Green energy and reduction in fossil fuels is the LAST thing these very wealthy, powerful, and corrupt people want.

I'm sure they appreciate you carrying their water for them, though. Do they pay you? How much? I'll bet you work cheap...:)

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#36601 Jun 19, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
False, but Denierism IS driven by political and economic interests - Big Energy's money and political support is behind practically all Denierism in one way or another. Green energy and reduction in fossil fuels is the LAST thing these very wealthy, powerful, and corrupt people want.
I'm sure they appreciate you carrying their water for them, though. Do they pay you? How much? I'll bet you work cheap...:)
we humans create co2 just by living and breathing! I don't intend to support a tax on our rights to do that. I also don't need an agenda to defend that right, dumb azz .

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#36602 Jun 19, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>we humans create co2 just by living and breathing! I don't intend to support a tax on our rights to do that. I also don't need an agenda to defend that right, dumb azz .
Another stupid strawman. All animals emit CO2. Where do they ultimately get their carbon? From plants. Where do plants get their carbon? Ultimately from CO2 in the atmosphere. Plants do this by photosynthesis. Light reaction--(6CO2 + 6H20 -> C6H1206 + 6O2). Animals "burn" the glucose molecule by adding O2 and releasing CO2. C6H12O6 -> 6CO2 + 6H2O. Even you should be able to see that all that balances. No one is advocating a tax on those reactions. Get real!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#36603 Jun 19, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
An untruth.
<quoted text>
Status quo would be an invalid term. It is more properly the 'authoritative science' which is hardly a fixed value. Science by real scientists continues to move, hence not a 'status quo' ever.
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
That is,to say, sounds good to you. Yes. You never let good science come between you and the answer you want.
<quoted text>
Logical? Logic is a way to go wrong with confidence, based on invalid premises and assumptions. Which you seem to 'like'. Reason and data are the only 'truths' and you avoid them.
<quoted text>
Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy when IMPROPER authority is presented as validating a conclusion. That is YOUR line when you like the answer given. Taking the 'Authoritative science' from the actual experts is NOT 'appeal to authority'.
<quoted text>
Pointing out that your 'authorities' are not valid in the climate sciences or are cranks is NOT 'ad hominem' but more 'peer review'.
<quoted text>
If you want an intelligent debate, you are going to have to give up these silly rants and actually select a point TO debate based on valid science. You are probably not up to it. Or at least you have never tried it in the past. But the issue is AGW, not climate change. Do you understand that the global average temperature has an effect on the 'heat engine' that is climate? Nobody knows exactly what that effect will be, but it is definitely disruptive to an economy that is predicated on a steady state. Adaption is EXPENSIVE when billion dollar investments are concerned. So do you want to debate AGW (science)? Even on the SUBJECT, you need to be returned to reason. It cannot augur well for your side in any real debate.
My original synopsis still stands. Either he is colossally ignorant, politically motivated or a paid shill.
Dont drink the koolaid

Minneapolis, MN

#36604 Jun 19, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
An untruth.
<quoted text>
Status quo would be an invalid term. It is more properly the 'authoritative science' which is hardly a fixed value. Science by real scientists continues to move, hence not a 'status quo' ever.
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
That is,to say, sounds good to you. Yes. You never let good science come between you and the answer you want.
<quoted text>
Logical? Logic is a way to go wrong with confidence, based on invalid premises and assumptions. Which you seem to 'like'. Reason and data are the only 'truths' and you avoid them.
<quoted text>
Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy when IMPROPER authority is presented as validating a conclusion. That is YOUR line when you like the answer given. Taking the 'Authoritative science' from the actual experts is NOT 'appeal to authority'.
<quoted text>
Pointing out that your 'authorities' are not valid in the climate sciences or are cranks is NOT 'ad hominem' but more 'peer review'.
<quoted text>
If you want an intelligent debate, you are going to have to give up these silly rants and actually select a point TO debate based on valid science. You are probably not up to it. Or at least you have never tried it in the past. But the issue is AGW, not climate change. Do you understand that the global average temperature has an effect on the 'heat engine' that is climate? Nobody knows exactly what that effect will be, but it is definitely disruptive to an economy that is predicated on a steady state. Adaption is EXPENSIVE when billion dollar investments are concerned. So do you want to debate AGW (science)? Even on the SUBJECT, you need to be returned to reason. It cannot augur well for your side in any real debate.
where to begin :-)
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#36605 Jun 19, 2013
Dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text> where to begin :-)
That is only ONE of your problems.

How about with the atmospheric balance BEFORE AGW? How much do you know?

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#36606 Jun 19, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>we humans create co2 just by living and breathing! I don't intend to support a tax on our rights to do that. I also don't need an agenda to defend that right, dumb azz .
Listen, you pay someone to deal with your crap that comes from other parts of your body. It sure makes sense to pay for the crap that comes out of your mouth. All have a big impact on the environment.
litesong

Everett, WA

#36607 Jun 19, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
You're a little blind know-nothing boy sitting in whatever slum you call home.
Its slum home is......'middleofthedownwrongg ully' where its open sewer is.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#36608 Jun 19, 2013
Dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
Yup, imagine a prestigious science journal basically admitting that they were deceptive ,stupid and just plain wrong about their position on AGW .
As they said in the "climate gate" email... will do whatever it takes to prevent such a paper from being published.
It is what climate scientists call their "scientific method".
Good one!

Assuming scientific publications had personalities like yours.

Course, you guys always forget the whistle-blowers and turncoats.

And you'll never admit there's just no good science for your pet project.

Plus, Phil Jones doesn't really look like Satan to you, does he?
Anonymous

Fremont, CA

#36609 Jun 19, 2013
Hyperbranched polyester modified nanoparticles can greatly enhance impregnating varnish performance. propi-onate(HMPA) as filler, using insulating impregnating varnish as matrix to prepare thermal conductivity impregnating varnish to study its performance. Get the following conclusions:(a) hyperfunctional Al2O3 nanoparticles can effectively improve the dispersion performance and interface compatibility of the particles in the varnish, when the particles filling amount is 20%, hyperfunctional Al2O3 nanoparticles can still evenly dispersed in the varnish, almost invisible agglomeration, while the particles without modification have serious agglomeration.(2) varnish filled with hyperfunctional Al2O3 nanoparticles, its impact strength, thermal conductivity is significantly improved. When the filliUsing Al2O3 nano-particles modiffied by aliphatic hyperbranched polydihydroxytoluene ng amount is 20%, varnish filled with hyperfunctional Al2O3 nanoparticles reaches maximum impact properties which are 4.96 times than non filled. When the filler content is 25% and filled with hyperfunctional Al2O3 nanoparticles, impregnating varnish thermal conductivity reaches the maximum which is 1.82 times than non filled.(3)composite volume resistivity is increased if filling with hyperfunctional Al2O3 nanoparticles , but increased slightly, keep within an order of magnitude, the varnish is still able to maintain good electrical insulation. Weihai CY Dendrimer Technology Co. Ltd forwards from "Study of Impregnating Varnish Modified with Hyperbranched Al2O3 Nanoparticles" Fu JiFang a, b, Xiao Yinglin a, Chen Yi a, b, Shi Liyi a, b, Chen Liya a, Zhong Qingdong a, b (a. Nano-Science and Technology Research Center of Shanghai University ; b. School of Materials Science and Engineering, Shanghai University, Shanghai 200072) Insulation Materials, 2011, 44 (2), 4-8

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) 3 min Canuk 1,658,442
News Obama: Protect democracy or risk taking path of... 57 min CodeTalker 263
News How did Doug Jones win? Women and millennials p... 57 min bottlecap 20
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 hr loose cannon 243,095
News White House will override Obama's climate plan 2 hr inbred Genius 1,630
News Osama Bin Laden reportedly calls Obama 'powerle... (Sep '09) 4 hr Breast Cancet 76
News Will Donald Trump be invited to the royal wedding? 5 hr ardith 100
More from around the web