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

Full story: Newsday 47,018
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Full Story
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#32219 Aug 24, 2012
cricket wrote:
So much for your astounding knowledge of weather patterns and systems.
We know that coal plant operations in one state leads to increased lung diseases in other states which EPA was trying to control, till Pres. George Bush appointed a judge(judges?) that overturned the EPA mission.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#32220 Aug 24, 2012
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Wow. Did he tell you about the dust bowl, depression, WWII, segregation, busing, Nixon, etc.?
Maybe you own a farm with oil wells near a large lake and feel safe and secure with guns, right?
Hey doofus! What part of 'look at the changes he has seen' didn't you understand? God you must be a miserable SOB to be around!!!
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#32221 Aug 24, 2012
Well, the fuel-cycle matters are spread all over. An estimate from the USNRC:

In Appendix L, the NRC staff estimates that the carbon footprint of the fuel cycle to support a reference 1000-MW(e) LWR operating at an 80 percent capacity factor for a 40-year plant life is on the order of 17,000,000 MT of CO2, including a very small contribution from other greenhouse gases (GHGs). Scaling this footprint to the power level of Fermi 3 using the scaling factor of 2 discussed earlier, the NRC staff estimates the carbon footprint for 40 years of fuel cycle emissions to be 34,000,000 MT of CO2 (average annual emissions rate of 850,000 MT, averaged over the period of operation) as compared to a total United States annual emission rate of 5.5 billion MT of CO2 (EPA 2011).
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#32222 Aug 24, 2012
flack wrote:
<quoted text> Hey doofus! What part of 'look at the changes he has seen' didn't you understand? God you must be a miserable SOB to be around!!!
HUH???

Who needs you around? NOBODY.

You're fired!
budd

Pattaya, Thailand

#32223 Aug 24, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>

I certainly don't dispute that the nuclear fuel cycle has a non-zero carbon footprint associated with it - we totally agree.
Thank you for playing. Large means the same thing you think it means. Bigger than small, and certainly not none.
cricket

Winter Park, FL

#32224 Aug 24, 2012
http://www.thelonestarwatchdog.com/2012/08/22...

Court Rules Against EPA for Overreach in Power.

***** A States Rights Victory.*****

Yes, I do realize that warmies just won't get it.
cricket

Winter Park, FL

#32225 Aug 24, 2012
bwahahahahahahahaha

'It's fascinating to take a detailed look at what Time mag told us about global cooling in 1974: It's been happening for three decades; it shows no signs of reversing; it's causing bizarre and unpredictable weather, including drought in Africa; it may be caused by fuel burning, it could be catastrophic for food supplies, etc'

From the Jun 24, 1974, Time Magazine, entitled: "Another Ice Age?"

snip
" As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.

Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. "

http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2012/08/it-fasc...

roflmao.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#32226 Aug 24, 2012
cricket wrote:
Court Rules Against EPA for Overreach in Power.
You mean a 2 person judgement(at least one who was a Pres. Bush appointment).
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#32227 Aug 24, 2012
PHD wrote:
WOW you(to dirtling) are going back into rehab. Good thing we were a little concerned that it may be to late.
PHD..... I disagree with you. Rehab can't correct 'steenking piddling diddling middling mudling mudslinger dirtling', who is a slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig.
cricket

Winter Park, FL

#32228 Aug 24, 2012
New paper finds no evidence of increased humidity in US, contradicts global warming theory

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/08/new...

snip
"Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology finds, contrary to global warming theory, that "little change has occurred in dewpoint and specific humidity" in the U.S. over the 80 year period from 1930 to 2010. The paper also finds "trends in relative humidity show little change for the period 1947 – 2010." Thus, the paper contradicts the theory of a runaway greenhouse effect allegedly due to positive feedback from increased atmospheric water vapor and specific humidity."

Yeah, yeah, warmies, you can save your hot air [response]. We all know you will just cry "unreliable source" or a variation of the same theme.
cricket

Winter Park, FL

#32229 Aug 24, 2012
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean a 2 person judgement(at least one who was a Pres. Bush appointment).
Get over it.

Bush isn't there anymore.

Grownups accept accountibility and responsibility.

Bozo is not a savior who is just 'fixing' what Bush did.

http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/tha...

Naw. I think it's really George Washington's fault. Why not. I could spin that one. Sad thing is, a percentage of people would believe it.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#32230 Aug 24, 2012
cricket wrote:
bwahahahahahahahaha
'It's fascinating to take a detailed look at what Time mag told us about global cooling in 1974....
The bray is actually,'heehawheehaw'. I'd think you've been too long away from other mules, but you've been close to all the topix AGW deniers.

While you snuck reads from the local newsstand, you should have enrolled at university, reading the engineering, chemistry, geology, astronomy, & mathematics journals in the college libraries. 44 Science Papers were published in Science Journals in the 70's & 80's about global warming, while only 7 papers were published about global cooling.

But that's right. Mules can't count too high!
hmmm

Salisbury, NC

#32231 Aug 24, 2012
hmmmm

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#32232 Aug 24, 2012
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
I know, the New Deal kept folks from starving. If FDR had let things play out, we would probably have gone Communistic or Socialistic. When capitalism's bubble bursts, without government intervention, multitudes would suffer greatly. The bullies always take the whole pie.
Did it? Or did it result in more people being hungry. The difference back then is that until the New Deal no one had ever considered the idea of asking the government to help feed the poor. That was usually done on the local level. Groups such as churches would feed those who needed it. It may not be much but it is something churches have been doing for centuries. Something religious organizations are still doing in other places.

As for the New Deal keeping the country from going Communistic or Socialistic, the New Deal was something a socialist or communist would of recommended. If anything the New Deal did the exact opposite of what you claimed. It was some of the reason why the US waited to become involve with WWII. Now if the US had reacted in say 1939 they would of been dealing with Hitler while the Nazi's were still grabbing countries and could kept the body count lower. Japan would of viewed the US in a different light and seen the US as more powerful military as a reason why not to attack. Instead the US turned isolationist and the gas chambers incinerated jews and the Japanese military saw the US as weak and unable to defend it's possessions. A country that could be bullied.
cricket

Winter Park, FL

#32233 Aug 24, 2012
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
The bray is actually,'heehawheehaw'. I'd think you've been too long away from other mules, but you've been close to all the topix AGW deniers.
While you snuck reads from the local newsstand, you should have enrolled at university, reading the engineering, chemistry, geology, astronomy, & mathematics journals in the college libraries. 44 Science Papers were published in Science Journals in the 70's & 80's about global warming, while only 7 papers were published about global cooling.
But that's right. Mules can't count too high!
lol. rofl.
Yeah, like you did all that. Sorry, not believable. Your ignorance on the matter is all too clear.

You have no idea what education background I have or know who I am. Nor will I divulge. noyb.

IF you have any type of edjoomuhkashun, perhaps you should apply some wisdom to it. It's not too late.

BTW...a mule is stubborn animal. The only stubborn I can see are the warmies beliefs in blatant veneer [already proven] lies.

That spells gullible.

Please show us the obscure 44 papers you say were published in the 70's and 80's on global warming as a major belief at that time. Not just one obscure theory from an unreliable source.[And not your thesis from high school]

Please show us and include all the concern for a mmcc WARMING crisis at that same time, all the while MOST others were crapping their pants mainly about cooling, attempting to whip up a frenzy about it to scare and make it believeable.

Warmies think that they can say anything about their cemented beliefs without any proof. All your edjoomuhkashun and you didn't learn to include references yet? lol.

FACT is, a great effort was to make people believe it was cooling, not warming.

Oh, the irony.
PHD

Houston, TX

#32234 Aug 24, 2012
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Did it? Or did it result in more people being hungry. The difference back then is that until the New Deal no one had ever considered the idea of asking the government to help feed the poor. That was usually done on the local level. Groups such as churches would feed those who needed it. It may not be much but it is something churches have been doing for centuries. Something religious organizations are still doing in other places.
As for the New Deal keeping the country from going Communistic or Socialistic, the New Deal was something a socialist or communist would of recommended. If anything the New Deal did the exact opposite of what you claimed. It was some of the reason why the US waited to become involve with WWII. Now if the US had reacted in say 1939 they would of been dealing with Hitler while the Nazi's were still grabbing countries and could kept the body count lower. Japan would of viewed the US in a different light and seen the US as more powerful military as a reason why not to attack. Instead the US turned isolationist and the gas chambers incinerated jews and the Japanese military saw the US as weak and unable to defend it's possessions. A country that could be bullied.
WOW I do believe we have another case of useless babble. On the bright side the Less than a Box of Rocks actually well not really might have learned something in its absence from the topics at hand. Stop your Less than a Box of Rocks ideas you’re scarring the children of the world.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#32236 Aug 24, 2012
budd wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for playing. Large means the same thing you think it means. Bigger than small, and certainly not none.
If you take this country alone, the NRC says it's small.

I came up with about 2 percent of the US CO2. Is that small or large?

P.S. For the present portfolio and without defense stuff.
cricket

Winter Park, FL

#32237 Aug 24, 2012
albedodown wrote:
You have no authority to teach or demand anything from anybody. The idea of 70's global cooling has been discussed here over & over & you missed out that scientists, even then, were compiling more evidence on global warming, not global cooling.
Blah blah blah.

Didn't think you or anyone could prove anything.

Remember that when someone in your deluded & deceived warmie believing crowd asks for proof and references for anything when they give no credible references ever.

Oh wait, any valid references given are automatically dismissed as 'not credible' and even known written history...marked as 'disagree' & 'spam'.

Ignorance gone viral.

YOU have NO AUTHORITY to tell me what I can and cannot request on a lame ass Topix forum.

Someone makes a statement, others can question it.

This thread is like 'Groundhog Day'.

Everything has been discussed over & over & over & over one million different ways.

So what's your problem?

All this over a Time article from the wayback machine? No response when your warmie bud makes statements and lame accusations about any education I may have, acting like a 12 yr old?

Pull up your big boy pants.
If you don't like it, don't read it.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#32238 Aug 24, 2012
crinkedthot wrote:
Pull up your big boy pants.
If you don't like it, don't read it.
Don't worry. The AGW scientists don't ever read your words. Even your topix AGW denier buds make short work of your posts.

Your macho duck fingertaps isn't reminiscent of anything I remember in my aero engineering classes. However, we talked about the Viet Nam protestors & said they wouldn't take over any of the engineering buildings. The demonstrators, would always go to upper campus to make their protests, tho the engineering buildings were right next to the HUB demonstrator gathering point. Just too many military people in the engineering classes.

“EnvironMENTAList ”

Since: Feb 07

Near Detroit

#32239 Aug 24, 2012
Remaining climate blame believers rubber neck car accidents, tattletale at school, get beat up by their sisters, drop roses in elevators, have AOL accounts, PBS bumper stickers, PalmPilots, pagers and disco pants.

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.

Al Gore Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The Religion of Global Warming (Apr '12) 5 hr Earthling-1 23
Thousands Attend Climate March in New York Mon harmonious 75
Thousands march in NYC, around globe over climate Sep 28 Earthling-1 26
5 Reasons why global warming also known as clim... Sep 25 Kid_Tomorrow 15
'Largest-ever' climate change march rolls throu... Sep 24 Just The Facts 27
Fact Check: Obama in Un speech spins statistics Sep 24 T Turner 1
Sunday's Climate Protest Could Be a Turning Poi... Sep 21 Jim the Hoax Denier 3

Al Gore People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE