Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page:  « First  ‹ Previous  1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:07 PM on 01/17/2013
I would like to see when paying by debit card an option for me to receive a receipt or not.

while i realize the store i am purchasing from does need a receipt, for most small purchases i would choose "no".

in a lifetime how many trees would that help to save?

if any of you were actually serious, it would be apparent, what is apparent is that you arent serious.

you just want to "win", and no cost is too high
11:03 PM on 01/17/2013
BWAAAHHAAHHAAAHAAHAA...SO SAD!! *snickering under my breath*
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jwl3ss
05:05 PM on 01/17/2013
Al, you forgot this.

In a paper published Tuesday, no less an authority than NASA scientist James E. Hansen wrote, “The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.”

Mr. Hansen is the intellectual godfather of the global-warming movement who advised Al Gore on his Oscar-winning climate-scare flick, “An Inconvenient Truth.” Mr. Hansen has just acknowledged more than the lack of warming. His words confirm nature, not mankind, played the decisive role in directing global temperatures over the past 10 years.

There has been no appreciable warming since 1998, as can be seen in the official forecast from the Met Office, the United Kingdom’s national weather service, which the agency released on Christmas Eve. Presumably, the British government’s climate scientists didn’t want anyone to notice they had lowered their forecast from previous years, with temperatures in 2020 predicted to be no warmer than they were in the late 1990s. Websites such as Climate Depot and Watts Up With That had long ago reported the same phenomenon, only to be ridiculed by the climate-change establishment. It turns out these climate realists were right all along.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/17/global-warming-takes-a-vacation/#ixzz2IGzKzg1x
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
07:52 PM on 01/17/2013
You must be forgetting:
1) the continued rising in global temperatures (including the hottest year by far in the US) which have continued, unabated, 2) the fact that almost all of the ten hottest years have occurred since 2000, 3) massive melting of ice in the Arctic region and in Greenland, 4) the continued rising of the seas, unababted, 5) temperatures in the mid and late 90s and aughts continued to rise, despite a solar minimum, 6) a definite statistical movement in the CEI, 7) widespread melting of permafrost, releasing methylated hydrates as methane gas - a powerful greenhouse gas, 8) and now that you are quoting Hansen, digest this quote of his: "Hansen and colleagues compare temperatures of the past 30 years against a baseline of the temperatures 30 years before then, and show there are far more events toward the extreme end of the average bell curve than there were before.."
08:50 PM on 01/17/2013
Anthony Watts, a college dropout weatherman who was giddy a year or so ago when his friend and Koch Brothers funded researcher Dr. Richard Muller set out to do the most comprehensive study to date that would show that the temperature station records were unreliable and that the Urban Heat Island was the reason the numbers were being perverted with a strong upward bias. Watts chided the scientists researching global warming saying, “I pledge to accept the results no matter what they show.” Ahh, but Tony didn’t! He showed himself to be a reflexive ideologue, even after a member of his team said it’s actually so.

Your wrong about everything else you said. If you actually hung out at science sites you’d understand how your side misrepresents. Your Hansen statement needs a little more research. A couple days ago NASA released a report showing that 2012 was the warmest La Nina year on record. Why you guys get continually sucked in on some bogus claim that it hasn’t warmed in 16 years is sad and so misinformed. Look at the NASA temp record over the past 120 years and you’ll see you’re reading the wrong sources. The Washington Times is not a scientific publication. The blogger I’m linking you to real information from a real climate scientist who can dispel your false notion.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/01/15/1452471/noaa-nasa-2012-warmest-la-nina-year-on-record-sustaining-long-term-climate-warming-trend/
photo
Nathan Brittles
Duc,sequere,aut de via decede
11:04 PM on 01/17/2013
Well, neither is George Soros' THINKPROGRESS.

I am eternally bemused by liberals who throw glass house stones at ''Faux News'' and then have the temerity to dredge up TP and MM, as if it was holy writ.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MrBIgp
If I'm wrong, please show me
04:18 PM on 01/17/2013
Progress is destructive. The classic newspaper model is doomed to be replaced by electronic technology. The newest screens provide an easier to read medium than news print and information can be be delivered at almost no cost. This is good. The current news organizations will have to adapt or die.
06:22 PM on 01/17/2013
You have to pay for the NY Times electronic version now. You can still get 10 free articles per month--not much--and even if HuffPo links to them, your clicking on the link counts in that 10.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MrBIgp
If I'm wrong, please show me
01:56 PM on 01/18/2013
You are correct, but the cost to the times of their electronic edition is minuscule compared to the cost of printing and delivering newspapers.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
boatertone
04:16 PM on 01/17/2013
Something tells me the Huffington post will likely take their articles and posts.
06:24 PM on 01/17/2013
That's nothing new in the news business, but it's still not a free ride for the reader.
04:13 PM on 01/17/2013
The Propaganda Post is actually running this lying , greedy, hypocritical piece of polluter trash and what he wants to say?

And you wonder why the Po is now the acknowledged News of the World of 'journalism?'
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MrBIgp
If I'm wrong, please show me
04:13 PM on 01/17/2013
The best thing Vice President Gore could do for climate change would be to publicly support nuclear power.
04:11 PM on 01/17/2013
Why are all the planets warming up ? Ever heard of the Sun ? Also the ring of Fire has been extremely active . Why not inform people how much heat it is radiating ? Please stop the Chicken Little routine . I realize that the only way you seem to be able to make money is to use fear and the State , but it is getting a little old.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
srheard
Life is full of a number of things.
02:57 PM on 01/17/2013
Maybe there are openings at Rolling Stone, which seems to be holding up the mantle of Journalism these days.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AuldLochinvar
02:57 PM on 01/17/2013
The explanation of anthropogenic global warming is simple. Whereas one hour of sunshine bathes the upper atmosphere of our planet with as much energy as human industrial use requires in about a year, that same quantity of energy must get re-radiated back into space, or the Earth gets hotter. Fortunately, a hotter Earth radiates slightly more energy in the wavelengths of infrared that are less absorbed by CO2, so there's a stabilizing feedback. But it stabilizes at that higher temperature.
The burning of the carbon that was photosynthetically extracted from the CO2 of the Carboniferous Era's atmosphere, is reversing that Era's 64 million years at a rate of 640,000 years for every 1% reduction in the amount of fosilized carbon. The available records indicate that the Earth got cooler by up to 10 degrees Celsius in that Era. Hurricanes are the biggest heat engines known, and a slight increase in the temperature of the oceans supplies them with a very great deal of water vapor as fuel.
02:51 PM on 01/17/2013
i think the only climate crisis Al Gore is worried about is the crisis in his bank account when the climate hype dies down.... after all... "climate change" has made him a VERY rich man....
photo
anthonyve
An exmilitary, excorporate Aussie
07:01 PM on 01/17/2013
His wealth is irrelevent.
Only the data matters.
And the data tells us that AGW is real and is damaging the planet.
08:11 PM on 01/17/2013
yeah... the hockey stick curve was some really solid data....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AuldLochinvar
02:33 PM on 01/17/2013
Al Gore hasn't realized it yet, but nuclear is the true energy alternative.
The reactors presently deployed commercially are amazingly wasteful in their use of uranium. Intrinsically, 7 parts in a thousand of natural uranium is fhe fissile isotope. Of this, I estimate from available public data that we use 2 or 3 of the 7, and generate the equivalent of half that, of fissile plutonium that gets fissioned. So from 1,000 tons, we get somewhat less than 5 tons of fuel that we use. If we were to develop the known means of turning what we do 200 times 8%, not use into fissile material, then instead of nuclear providing 8% of our total energy budget, our present rate of uranium consumption, most of it dumped as "depleted", and most of the rest embarrassing us as "waste", could supply 200 times 8%, in other words sixteen times the energy we actually use. In fact, the "depleted" and "waste" stocks presently in storage could provide what we presently use, for centuries, without even mining any more uranium!
The secret that the energy companies do not want you to know, and which the genuine environmentalists should realise, is that the USA already has such a technology. It was called the Integral Fast Reactor project, proved itself immune to meltdown (by actual deliberate test) a week before Chernobyl, creates no long-lived, trans-uranic waste, and gets better than a gigawatt-year of energy from every ton of fuel.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MrBIgp
If I'm wrong, please show me
04:25 PM on 01/17/2013
I think Al Gore does understands the benefit of nuclear - it just doesn't fit in with his agenda of material austerity. Nuclear could provide plentiful clean energy, Al Gore wants limited energy with government determining its usage.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AuldLochinvar
03:30 AM on 01/18/2013
If you're right about Gore wwanting the government to control our energy usage, my scheme is for the government to build and OWN the reactors, like France did. China is gonna do it, and leave us in the dust if we don't.
02:23 PM on 01/17/2013
Maybe Al can donate some of the millions he received from a company that is funded on big oil to the NYT.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
OldHick
02:36 PM on 01/17/2013
Not to mention that 80% of the money came from cable subscribers, regardless of whether or not they watched CUrrent TV. More people consider that a fix.

Not to mention also that Gore has not even saved one fish. He probably had sushi for brunch.
02:38 PM on 01/17/2013
Better yet, you could actually read the science that's been made available by our best researchers for people without a science background. That way you can learn to focus on the important things.
04:17 PM on 01/17/2013
"Don't pay attention to the spokesperson hucktered to you for all these years! He isn't important! His lies aren't important! Don't pay attention to the oil-rich man behind the green-washing!"
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
new beginning
Practice random acts of kindness-change the world
04:33 PM on 01/17/2013
Gore says one of the important things is the climate change desk at the NYT. They closed it because of financial reasons. Gore has lots of money.

Put A +B+C together and it is reasonable to suggest that Gore could take PERSONAL action for a cause he claims is importnat to him.

That he doesn't tells us a lot. About his values and priorities.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AuldLochinvar
02:21 PM on 01/17/2013
The truly disappointing news is that although Al Gore is dead right about global warming, he is apparently still dead wrong about the solution.
Coal was the successful alternative to the "immediate solar" class of energy resourcesof the 18th century and earlier. Coal, petroleum oil, petroleum gas, and oxygen to burn them, are all "fossil solar". The only new technology, from a source unknown to the greatest energy expert of the 19th century, Lord Kelvin, is the "fossilized" result of the deaths of gigantic stars. It actually supplies the energy for the Earth's tectonic activity, includiing that which we harness as "geothermal", But if you don't live near the Ring of Fire, there's not a lot of that.
I refer to the energy stored in radioactive elements, which is particularly available in thorium and uranium. The US Navy succeeds in being more independent of fuel depots than the ancient "man-o-war" technology, which depended upon the wind, and could make use of winds too gentle to be of any use to modern wind turbines. Our capital ships, both aircraft carriers and submarines, use nuclear power.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Linus521
In wildness is the salvation of mankind
02:13 PM on 01/17/2013
The reason they shut down is, environmentalism and ecology no longer have a voice. Only one voice exists today, and that is climate change with everyone preaching the same voice. "Let's skin the natural, life giving surface of Earth and her natural systems that create and support all life for dead fields of windmills and solar". Where's the voice for the salvation and protection of Earth's ecosystems? Where's the voice for the salvation and protection of plant and animal biodiversity that creates and sustains ecosystems?

Why worry about the climate while we skin away every life-support service, system and cycle that spell life itself? We are raping and scouring away oxygen releasing, the balancing of the gaseous composition of the atmosphere; the circulation of vital nutrients, the natural regulation and moderation of the climate; the climate cooling water cycle; the creation and renewal of soil and the entirety of Earth's biogeochemistry;

purification of air and water; provisions of decomposition, pollination, seed dispersal; 75% of all new medicines, a genetic library; 99% of all pest control and the control and checking of human disease pathogens that kill mankind.

Why worry about the climate while we skin and entomb the life giving, natural systems of Earth?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AuldLochinvar
03:00 PM on 01/17/2013
Nuclear power is the least damaging of all energy technologies. But it seems to work most successfully when a government owns it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Linus521
In wildness is the salvation of mankind
04:22 PM on 01/17/2013
Wind, especially devours immense acres of the natural, life giving body of Earth/ecosystems and are inefficient while they also kill outright, birds, bats and the foods they require. Birds and bats are the bricks and mortar of man's only house, Earth. Science claims we are "suicidal" when we skin ecosystems for any reason. Ecosystems provide us with all our lifelines to life itself.

Doesn't nuclear devour little of the land's natural surface/ecosystems for such high energy yield? "...too much safety in the long run often spells danger." The father of ecology, Aldo Leopold

"All human beings and human activities are embedded in and dependent upon the ecosystems of our planet...Without the services provided by natural ecosystems, civilization would collapse and human life would not be possible". Dr, Paul Ehrlich

An ecosystem is a wild, natural landscape, created by wild, natural, native species of plants and animals or biodiversity.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Bogey907
Like any other man, only more so.
04:29 PM on 01/17/2013
Nuclear power has already caused the worst environmental disasters in history, with the potential for much worse.
04:21 PM on 01/17/2013
The real problem is the birth rate in many regions of the world. Immigration from these regions must be curtailed until their fertility rate drops to European rate. Of course this will have an adverse effect on the Western Governments Ponzi schemes , but the truth is coming to the fore anyways.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Linus521
In wildness is the salvation of mankind
07:17 PM on 01/17/2013
Yes, the gravest problem facing the Earth is human population, ever growing, ever expanding, ever devouring the face and physical body of the Earth and all the reasons Earth supports human existence.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MS Ind
My micro-bio was empty.
02:09 PM on 01/17/2013
That's OK Al, you can just keep carrying the banner on your television cha....

Nevermind.