Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, May 06, 2014

Global warming is rapidly turning America the beautiful into America the stormy, sneezy and dangerous, according to a new federal scientific report. And those shining seas? Rising and costly, the report says. Climate change's assorted harms "are expected to become increasingly disruptive across the nation throughout this century and beyond," the National Climate Assessment concluded Tuesday. The report emphasizes how warming and its all-too-wild weather are changing daily lives, even using the phrase "climate disruption" as another way of saying global warming.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

Corky

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

Still, it's not too late to prevent the worst of climate change, says the 840-page report, which the White House is highlighting as it tries to jump-start often stalled efforts to curb heat-trapping gases.

"Climate change, once considered an issue for a distant future, has moved firmly into the present," the report says. "Corn producers in Iowa, oyster growers in Washington state and maple syrup producers in Vermont are all observing climate-related changes that are outside of recent experience."

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"However, if the nation and the world don't change the way they use energy, "we're still on the pathway to more damage and danger of the type that are described in great detail in the rest of this report," said study co-author Henry Jacoby, co-director of the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Jacoby, other scientists and White House officials said this is the most detailed and U.S.-focused scientific report on global warming."

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2014-05-06 11:09 AM | Reply | Flag:

Weather disrupts lives, not global warming which has not taken place for the last 17 years.

#2 | Posted by MSgt at 2014-05-06 01:38 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

I thought this was a thoughtful response to the terror children are now living with when they are told they are about to end of the world.....

Instead this just compounds the issue...

#3 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2014-05-06 02:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

#3 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

The world will end eventually. You know that, right?

#4 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-05-06 02:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Tomorrow, President Obama is going to do interviews with meteorologists all across the country about a new climate change report. I hope they ask him about Benghazi."

- Fox News host Dana Perino

#5 | Posted by Derek_Wildstar at 2014-05-06 04:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

Study: Global Warming Disrupts Americans' Lives

The positives of a warming planet arguably outweigh the negatives.

Not to mention, none of the proposed lefty measures will have any kind of impact on the rate of warming but will greatly reduce the standard of living (often with disastrous results) for millions upon millions of people.

#6 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-05-06 04:25 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Enjoy the positive effects of warming and adapt to the negatives.

Greatly exacerbating energy costs and in the process scorching endangered birds (solar) and giving them the food processor treatment (wind turbines) in order to utilize highly expensive, unreliable and wholly inadequate energy is NOT my idea of environmentalism.

#7 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-05-06 04:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

Wow, these scientists have figured out that our weather in all its forms are going to be disrupting our lives throughout this century. They are so smart.

#8 | Posted by moneywar at 2014-05-06 04:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

Wow, these scientists have figured out that our weather in all its forms are going to be disrupting our lives throughout this century. They are so smart.

#8 | POSTED BY MONEYWAR

Without climate alarmists pontificating I never would have been able to figure out that our brutal winter resulted in roads that looked like they had been carpet-bombed (once all of the ice melted) and thus caused me to blow a tire and bend the rim on my car.

#9 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-05-06 04:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's just such a toss-up who to believe. 99 percent of climatologists or politically motivated deniers.

Decisions, decision.

#10 | Posted by Corky at 2014-05-06 04:37 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 3

You mean the climatologists aren't politically motivated...LOL!

#11 | Posted by moneywar at 2014-05-06 04:46 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 3

The positives of a warming planet arguably outweigh the negatives.

This statement is insane. If global warming continues it will cause more severe hurricanes, increased droughts, wildfires, floods and famine and massive societal upheaval in coastal areas that are inundated by rising sea levels. Where's the benefit coming from to balance all that out, exactly?

#12 | Posted by rcade at 2014-05-06 04:58 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 4

It's just such a toss-up who to believe. 99 percent of climatologists or politically motivated deniers.

First off, it's NOT 99%.

Secondly, science is a discipline that eschews consensus.

Take diet science. For the past 50 years or so, saturated fats were wrongly blamed for a variety of health problems. So a push toward complex carbohydrates occurred and the result was worse than the ingestion of saturated fats. Now, all of a sudden, these co-called experts are beginning to sheepishly admit that their assumptions and theories were wrong.

Climate science is exponentially more complex and far less understood than diet science. I don't point that out to discount the AGW theory. I merely point out that it remains a theory that is ripe for challenge, particularly in light of the fact that ALL of the climate models have managed to over-state carbon-sensitivity.

#13 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-05-06 05:03 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

If global warming continues it will cause more severe hurricanes, increased droughts, wildfires, floods and famine

Observation and empirical evidence have shown that, thus far, the elevation of these problems have been minimal.

On the plus side...

Longer harvest seasons and an expansion of land available to farm increases food production.

Far more people die each year from extreme heat than extreme cold. According to the AGW science, most of the warming will occur at night-time - hardly a recipe for heat-stroke.

and massive societal upheaval in coastal areas that are inundated by rising sea levels.

The inundation, to the extent that it occurs, will be slow and predictable. The best means of adapting to it as having the means to adapt, i.e. wealth. Unnecessarily skyrocketing the cost of energy makes adaption more difficult.

You guys act like anything outside of a narrow sliver of temperature range, either way, will result in apocolypse, as if our current climate temps are Utopia for all of life on this planet.

#14 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-05-06 05:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Observation and empirical evidence have shown that, thus far, the elevation of these problems have been minimal. "

It's possible that extreme weather events like Katrina and Sandy have nothing to do with global warming. Doesn't change the fact that fossil fuels are finite and their consumption needs a managed contraction.

#15 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-05-06 05:25 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

massive societal upheaval in coastal areas that are inundated by rising sea levels. Where's the benefit coming from to balance all that out, exactly?
#12 | Posted by rcade

Most of the coastal states are populated by liberals. The rising seas will cleanse the earth of that scourge. Yes, it will affect the Deep South somewhat, but that's a small price to pay for getting rid of NYC and LA. Also, since most black people aren't good swimmers, it will go a long way to solving the race problem too.

#16 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-06 06:02 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

This statement is insane. If global warming continues it will cause more severe hurricanes, increased droughts, wildfires, floods and famine and massive societal upheaval in coastal areas that are inundated by rising sea levels. Where's the benefit coming from to balance all that out, exactly?

#12 | POSTED BY RCADE AT 2014-05-06 04:58 PM | FLAG: | NEWSWORTHY 1

Actually global warming is much more survivable for the earth's population than global cooling. Note that in northern Alaska and Canada long ago there were forests, etc., and obviously no polar cap. Conversely a new ice age would eliminate much farmland till we would be unable to sustain the worlds population.

#18 | Posted by MSgt at 2014-05-06 06:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

You mean the climatologists aren't politically motivated...LOL!

#11 | Posted by moneywar

Have you ever seen 99.9 percent of any group agree on politics? Yet 99.9 percent of climate scientists agree on man made climate change.

How do you explain both republican and democrat climatologists agreeing about man made climate change? Are you saying they share the same politics?

It's pathetic every time an idiot is "skeptical" about 99.9 percent of climate scientists who agree, and not skeptical about the 0.1 percent who disagree with it while taking paychecks from the heritage foundation.

If the oil whores were sharing their profits with you, it would make sense, but it they're not then you're a chump.

#21 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-05-06 06:23 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Actually global warming is much more survivable for the earth's population than global cooling. Note that in northern Alaska and Canada long ago there were forests, etc., and obviously no polar cap. Conversely a new ice age would eliminate much farmland till we would be unable to sustain the worlds population.

#19 | Posted by MSgt

Ah the new oil whore argument: climate change is good!

Let's see, it started off with: there is no climate change.
Then it was: well maybe the climate is changing, but it's not because of oil
Now it's: climate change is good for some people!

Ever wonder why the oil companies hired the same scientists and lawyers as the tobacco companies? They're great at finding the right lie to fool all the suckers.

#22 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-05-06 06:26 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Scientific theory need observable phenomenon to be validated. I am not a denier, but they can't tell us how may hurricanes, tornadoes or other events will happen over the next few years, hence the theory is probably flawed.

Doesn't change the fact that fossil fuels are finite and their consumption needs a managed contraction.

#15 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-05-06 05:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

very true, go nuclear fusion!

#23 | Posted by danv at 2014-05-06 06:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

#20 | Posted by nullifidian

You're trying to give yourself a NW flag?

coastal areas that are inundated by rising sea levels.

#12 | Posted by rcade

If I owned property along the Florida coast, I'd already be trying to sell it.

#24 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2014-05-06 06:39 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

very true, go nuclear fusion!

That goal is so illusive. Ever since I was a kid, nuclear fusion was always about 15 years in the future. Still is.

#25 | Posted by goatman at 2014-05-06 06:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

#22 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2014-05-06 06:26 PM | FLAG: There is continuous climate change, we did not start it and we will not stop it. The only constant IS CHANGE. Only the ever grasping governments/UN, etc., trying for more monies and control of the people chose to use this non issue to attain their goals.

Why do I call it a non issue - because we can do nothing more than adapt or die as mankind is incapable of reversing global cooling or warming.

#26 | Posted by MSgt at 2014-05-06 06:53 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

While change may be constant, rate of change is not.

Any discussion of climate change that doesn't address rate of change is like talking about medicine by saying "everyone dies eventually."

#27 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-06 07:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

That goal is so illusive. Ever since I was a kid, nuclear fusion was always about 15 years in the future. Still is.

#25 | Posted by goatman at 2014-05-06 06:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

same thing said about going to space and proving atoms exist, we do both regularly now.

It is only a matter of money, and enough scientists and engineers on the problem. The proof of concept is our sun, it is entirely feasible. Again, how many times have scientists thought something impossible only to be proved wrong by hardworking innovators. But some technology, like fusion, will take a long-term, concerted effort by many nations, but the pay-off is unimaginable.

#28 | Posted by danv at 2014-05-06 07:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

Why do I call it a non issue - because we can do nothing more than adapt or die as mankind is incapable of reversing global cooling or warming.
#26 | Posted by MSgt

Are you saying we are incapable of stopping the human activities that are changing climate, or that human activities are not capable of changing the climate?

I'm pretty sure you're saying the latter, which is not accurate, but the former is looking to be sadly accurate.

We stopped acid rain. The snow isn't brown any more in Pittsburgh. The prairie is no longer a dust bowl. Maybe you have to be of a certain age or certain mindset to understand that we can make messes and we can clean them up too.

#29 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-06 07:13 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"very true, go nuclear fusion!"

That goal is so illusive. Ever since I was a kid, nuclear fusion was always about 15 years in the future. Still is.

#25 | Posted by goatman

Plus the fossil fuel industry damn sure doesn't want it to work.

#30 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2014-05-06 07:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

Plus the fossil fuel industry damn sure doesn't want it to work.

#30 | POSTED BY WHATSLEFT

???

There really is no "fossil fuel industry". There are energy industries who spend millions on alternative energy sources than the current fossil fuels they invest in. Did you really think they are so stupid they aren't looking towards the future to keep their relevance alive? They are this stupid and you "oil-is-bad" folks can't outsmart them? Not a flattering admission.

Educate yourself. Your jerking knee belies your true feelings. Or, give me some evidence that the energy companies don't want nuclear fission to work and I'll gladly retract this post.

Knee-jerk jerks. Sheesh

#31 | Posted by goatman at 2014-05-06 07:22 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

not fission, fusion. Sorry

#32 | Posted by goatman at 2014-05-06 07:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

Goatman, it makes sense that entrenched players in any industry both attempt to suppress external threats to their business model while working internally to develop those same disruptive technologies. Especially if they've read "The Innovator's Dilemma," which they certainly have.

That being said, nuclear fusion on the National Ignition Facility scale is too big a project for someone like XOM to pursue. They're more into stuff like biofuels, as it's a drop-in replacement for conventional oil.

The military would love if 80-90% of the freight they moved to fight a war wasn't fuel. On the other hand, if they weren't so reliant on all that oil, there wouldn't be much of a rationale for recent wars in the first place.

#33 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-06 07:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

Ignition fusion is one way, but there is an alternative, and IMO a better way,

www.iter.org

#34 | Posted by danv at 2014-05-06 07:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm still hoping Pons and Fleischmann make a comeback...

#35 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-06 07:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm still hoping Pons and Fleischmann make a comeback.

The odds of that happening are exactly the same as cold fusion happening. Martin Fleischmann is dead

#36 | Posted by goatman at 2014-05-06 08:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

Take diet science. For the past 50 years or so, saturated fats were wrongly blamed for a variety of health problems. So a push toward complex carbohydrates occurred and the result was worse than the ingestion of saturated fats. Now, all of a sudden, these co-called experts are beginning to sheepishly admit that their assumptions and theories were wrong.

#13 | Posted by JeffJ

Crap................. the food pyramid was designed by the dept of ag. There never was science behind it.

#37 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-05-06 08:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

Holy moly.
Sniper is schooling JeffJ on science.

#38 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-06 08:25 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Educate yourself. Your jerking knee belies your true feelings. Or, give me some evidence that the energy companies don't want nuclear fission to work and I'll gladly retract this post.

Knee-jerk jerks. Sheesh

#31 | Posted by goatman

Damn near every lib I know start the conversation by saying......"Thoes damn oil companies control this country." Then they continue, "All they want to do is raise the price of oil."

#40 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-05-06 08:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

What a load. Obama is behind the times. All the scientist have admitted we are not having global warming.
The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.

www.dailymail.co.uk

The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.

The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.

This means that the ‘plateau' or ‘pause' in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.

i.dailymail.co.uk
Here are three not-so trivial questions you probably won't find in your next pub quiz. First, how much warmer has the world become since a) 1880 and b) the beginning of 1997? And what has this got to do with your ever-increasing energy bill?

You may find the answers to the first two surprising. Since 1880, when reliable temperature records began to be kept across most of the globe, the world has warmed by about 0.75 degrees Celsius.

From the start of 1997 until August 2012, however, figures released last week show the answer is zero: the trend, derived from the aggregate data collected from more than 3,000 worldwide measuring points, has been flat.

#42 | Posted by tmaster at 2014-05-06 08:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

Someone tell me that the climate never changed until man came on the scene.

Who would ever make such a claim? The time during which man evolved along with so many of the organisms we rely on for our existence is noteworthy for a relatively stable climate. That's reason to be concerned when we destabilize it.

You know that animals are obligate heterotrophs, right? That means we have to eat other organisms to survive. We can only synthesize, what, ten of the twenty amino acids required for life? We're in this together. A world inhospitable to the plants and animals we need to survive is inhospitable to us.

#43 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-06 08:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

the trend, derived from the aggregate data collected from more than 3,000 worldwide measuring points, has been flat.
#42 | Posted by tmaster

I notice the trend of climate denier talking points is also flat.

#44 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-06 09:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

How is something that's not happening harming the US.

Even the UN report found no warming.
Nasa finds no warming.

ICE at the pols is thicker than normal.

This is all junk science.

#45 | Posted by tmaster at 2014-05-06 09:17 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Trying to decide whether the climate alarm-ism is a religion or a superstition.
Leaning toward superstition, isn't man influencing the weather at the heart of the rain dance?
But then most religions speak of atonement for your sins, isn't that at the heart of a carbon tax?

A lot of people believe with no real facts or proof. Predictions have been wrong. But then in the Bible if a profit was wrong didn't they kill them?

So maybe not a religion but a superstition since the people who have been wrong continue to be wrong.

#46 | Posted by sawdust at 2014-05-06 09:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

How is something that's not happening harming the US.

Even the UN report found no warming.
Nasa finds no warming.

ICE at the pols is thicker than normal.

This is all junk science.

#45 | Posted by tmaster at 2014-05-06

You know of course that NASA, among other organizations, contributed to this report. And they do not support your hypothesis.

#48 | Posted by Sord at 2014-05-06 10:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

Crap................. the food pyramid was designed by the dept of ag. There never was science behind it.

#37 | POSTED BY SNIPER

Whatever.

Scientific 'consensus' regarding saturated fats has changed dramatically in the last few years.

#49 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-05-06 10:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

endangered birds (solar) and giving them the food processor treatment (wind turbines)

Sorry JeffJ. If you oppose wind turbines or solar panels as bird killers (the Audobon Society doesn't but they're for the birds), I assume you also oppose microwave towers, high rise buildings and house cats, all of which are vastly more deadly to birds than wind turbines.

#51 | Posted by northguy3 at 2014-05-06 10:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

here is continuous climate change, we did not start it and we will not stop it. The only constant IS CHANGE.

And the inconstant thing is the rate of change. Which we definitely do affect.

The earth is warming. The Earth is cooling. Man didn't cause it.

There is nothing mankind can do about it.

The end.

What the deniers are basically saying is things like terrorist attacks are never going to stop, so we might as well stop trying to prevent them. Hell of an attitude for a supposed military officer.

Since we're all going to die, why bother with cancer research or medical care in general, BOAZ? Or whining about abortions? Or black on black violence?

#52 | Posted by northguy3 at 2014-05-06 10:55 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

There really is no "fossil fuel industry".

Yeah, Goat, it was all just a coincidence with all those oil company guys showing up at the WH to sit with Dick Cheney and divvy up that map of Iraq's oil fields in late 2002. Or how that non-existent industry hires lobbyists and buys elected officials of all stripes.

I know he who pays the piper picks the tunes, but shouldn't you stick to Gregorain chants and stay away from singing cheerleading songs?

#53 | Posted by northguy3 at 2014-05-06 11:02 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Yeah, Goat, it was all just a coincidence with all those oil company guys showing up at the WH to sit with Dick Cheney and divvy up that map of Iraq's oil fields in late 2002. Or how that non-existent industry hires lobbyists and buys elected officials of all stripes.
#53 | Posted by northguy3 at 2014-05-06 11:02 PM | Reply | Flag

cant say that isn't true, but the USA and its oil companies, the last I have read, were blocked out of oil contracts. Call that irony.

#54 | Posted by danv at 2014-05-06 11:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

Longer harvest seasons and an expansion of land available to farm increases food production.

Sorry Jeff, what increasing temperatures are doing is reducing economically viable agricultural areas and forcing farming onto minimally useful soils. The US's major aquifer is already done more than a foot, and no longer replenishing, pushing production costs up. When Iowa becomes a cattle range like Nevada, where is the corn going to be grown, the mountains of Alaska? Or are you suggesting American farmers move to Siberia?

#56 | Posted by northguy3 at 2014-05-06 11:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

The positives of a warming planet arguably outweigh the negatives.

Not to mention, none of the proposed lefty measures will have any kind of impact on the rate of warming but will greatly reduce the standard of living (often with disastrous results) for millions upon millions of people.

Have to agree with the FF on this genius work of comedy.

First, can you expound on the first claim?

Second, I agree. But acknowledging the house is on fire will at least stop someone from throwing around more gasoline.

#57 | Posted by jpw at 2014-05-07 12:16 AM | Reply | Flag:

Enjoy the positive effects of warming and adapt to the negatives.

*facepalm*

Dude. That. Is. The. Problem.

It's also the reason why those who say "duh...the climate has always cycled" are such morons.

It's not that things are changing. It's that the kinetics of change appear to be much higher than in the past.

No one worries that Earth won't survive it. That's not even a question on the radar.

The question is whether we humans, who have formed civilizations and societies in a time of relative climatic calm, can adapt fast enough to meet the problems associated with the changes.

Not an easy task, certainly not one so wistfully stated.

#58 | Posted by jpw at 2014-05-07 12:29 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

29 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2014-05-06 07:13 PM | FLAG: Snoof - acid rain was mostly caused by man and of course with due diligence greatly reduced, HOWEVER man does not start nor stop global warming/cooling. It is hubris to think that we can have any but a minute {no I am not saying 60 seconds as I expect you to be confused due to the same spelling} affect on the cycles our planet goes through. Fact is, the sun has more influence than anything mankind will ever do. So oh wise one, do tell us just how we will change that?

ps: Are you aware that there has been more than one Ice Age? This means that there has been more than one age of global warming also -- get it?

#59 | Posted by MSgt at 2014-05-07 12:30 AM | Reply | Flag:

If the oil whores were sharing their profits with you, it would make sense, but it they're not then you're a chump.

NW and worth repeating.

I love MSGT's post above yours where magically global cooling will the bane of our existence but warming just means an expansion of everything warm and fuzzy.

Far too often "skeptics" check their logic at the door of a house that agrees with them.

#60 | Posted by jpw at 2014-05-07 12:56 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

ICE at the pols is thicker than normal.

This is all junk science.

#45 | Posted by tmaster

My understanding is the area is larger, but thickness isn't.

Also, the increased area in Antarctica is due to sea ice whereas the ice that matters, land ice, is not increasing but is still decreasing.

#61 | Posted by jpw at 2014-05-07 01:45 AM | Reply | Flag:

It is hubris to think that we can have any but a minute {no I am not saying 60 seconds as I expect you to be confused due to the same spelling} affect on the cycles our planet goes through.
#59 | Posted by MSgt

Can you explain why the oceans have become more acidic in recent years?
I can.

#62 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-07 02:05 AM | Reply | Flag:

It is hubris to think that we can have any but a minute {no I am not saying 60 seconds as I expect you to be confused due to the same spelling} affect on the cycles our planet goes through.

LOL condescension from a 'duh...the climate has always cycled' apostle.

#63 | Posted by jpw at 2014-05-07 02:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

It is hubris to think that we can have any but a minute... affect on the cycles our planet goes through.

^

That is hubris, actually.

And it's not really about the cycles our planet goes through on the timescale of tens of thousands of years. It's about keeping a firm hand on the tiller for, say, the next century.

#64 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-07 03:58 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

#52 | POSTED BY NORTHGUY3

Golden eagles don't fly into buildings because they don't inhabit cities.

Wind farms are placed in the middle of nowhere and they are killing endangered birds at a torrent pace.

#65 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-05-07 07:01 AM | Reply | Flag:

torrent = torrid

#66 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-05-07 07:01 AM | Reply | Flag:

It's about keeping a firm hand on the tiller for, say, the next century.

#64 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Except that what you are proposing won't do squat to slow the rate of warming, nothing whatsoever, yet it will cost hundreds of billions and cause the greatest harm to the impoverished.

I am going to kill this thread right here and now:

Let's accept that the AGW theory is legitimate and that the computer models are at least somewhat accurate (that they always prove to over-state warming as well as extreme weather notwithstanding).

What do we do about it?

None of your carbon reduction schemes will have any measurable impact, yet cost trillions to the global economy over the course of a century. That being the case, why do it? Why do you people keep advocating for something like this?

#67 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-05-07 07:07 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

Global Warming, then Climate Change and what do we hear now, Climate Disruption? Sounds like a tax looking for a problem...

#69 | Posted by sawdust at 2014-05-07 07:28 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

exactly..

#70 | Posted by boaz at 2014-05-07 08:38 AM | Reply | Flag:

[...] Making a blanket statement that "If global warming continues it will cause more severe hurricanes, increased droughts, wildfires, floods and famine and massive societal upheaval in coastal areas that are inundated by rising sea levels" is not good science.

The models have proven to be inaccurate and the changes to day to day weather due to the warming to date haven't matched those forecasts. Winters were supposed to be milder and/or gone, and hurricanes were supposed to be on the rise and stronger...

Only problem is we've seen the exact opposite.

So while the climate is changing, stating as fact what the changes to daily and seasonal weather is just wrong... They've been wrong, and will continue to be for sometime. There is a weak grasp on this, and when we look back to know we'll chuckle at how naive we were when we thought we knew what the actual impacts would be.

#76 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2014-05-07 11:31 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

This is not a lib or con debate...

Neil

#77 | Posted by boyracer_x at 2014-05-07 11:50 AM | Reply | Flag:

"LOL, these same "scientists" predicted that the arctic sea ice would be non-existent by 2013 and come to find out it has grown by 50%.

#75 | Posted by fishpaw

One person claimed the Arctic could see ice-free summers by 2013-2016.

Arctic sea ice has not grown by 50%. That was one region during one winter. Arctic ice still grows during winter, but overall Arctic ice is indeed shrinking.

#78 | Posted by Derek_Wildstar at 2014-05-07 01:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

Kwrx25: You're accusing me of bad science while claiming that global warming models should have accounted for "changes to day to day weather"? Classic.

#80 | Posted by rcade at 2014-05-07 02:28 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

yes, and it's theorized that the continued reduction of this ice, could cause ocean current changes that would drive a run away ice cycle, plunging us back into a "snowball earth" phase.

That loops back into earlier statements of droughts and wildfires as definitive outcomes of current warming not being compatible with forecasted outcomes of melting arctic ice.

The models are still not accurate enough, and *cough* scientists are stating "factual" coming effects.

It's a stick in the eye to the scientific process.

#81 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2014-05-07 02:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

Kwrx25: You're accusing me of bad science while claiming that global warming models should have accounted for "changes to day to day weather"? Classic.

That's a misrepresentation of what I said.

When one says that our climate is changing...winters will be warmer... that has a day to day weather consequence. If I go through winter after winter and they are cold and snowy... while the climatologist is saying that winters will be a thing of the past. Those two things don't jive.

the climate is the macro collection of day to day weather. That is what I meant, and we were not witnessing day to day this winter what we were supposed to be based on climatology forecasts.

btw, don't forget, I've stated multiple times my B.S. Degree is in Meteorology, please try to read what I've typed through that lens. I know damn well that you can't judge global warming on day to day measurements. I can however point out that we've been told that winters were supposed to have been a thing of the past in New England yet it was still snowing in April here.

#82 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2014-05-07 02:47 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

I know damn well that you can't judge global warming on day to day measurements.

Me too. And I know hurricane strength year-to-year is not necessarily indicative of global warming either. I ignore short-term predictions, as do scientists studying the issue. Most of that is coming from bad science reporting in the media.

#83 | Posted by rcade at 2014-05-07 02:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sorry Jeff, what increasing temperatures are doing is reducing economically viable agricultural areas and forcing farming onto minimally useful soils.

#56 | Posted by northguy3

Who died and put you in charge of the theromstat? Tell me nor, what temp are you going to set as the high and low?

#87 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-05-07 03:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

"If the oil whores were sharing their profits with you, it would make sense, but it they're not then you're a chump."

Damn, who's paying the dividends on my EXXON stock? obummer?

#88 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-05-07 03:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's like George Carlin said;

"I'm an entropy fan...I thought, what a wonderful thing! ...there's nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The people are ------... the planet isn't going anywhere. We are. We're going away. Pack your ----, folks."

#90 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2014-05-07 04:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

No DR lefty has yet 100% left the grid and stopped using gasoline so they can't be too concerned about THEIR usage of fossil fuels. Seems they are ONLY concerned about other's use of them.

#89 | Posted by e_pluribus_unum

That's the most moronic argument used on the Retort on any subject.

#91 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

I can't address the DRers, of course, but I have a neighbor down the street a ways who is a rabid opponent of excessive energy use and against usage of fossil fuels (which bring us most of our electricity in San Antonio). But guess which of the two of us is the one who hang dries their laundry, who doesn't use paper towels (only rags), who occasionally rides the bicycle to the store, and who composts rather than send raked leaves, cut grass and food waste to the landfills?

Yep, it's me. Not her.

#92 | Posted by goatman at 2014-05-07 05:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

If you want to limit heat trapping gases tell this Administration to shut up.

#93 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-05-07 05:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

The carbon footprint of producing 2.2 pounds of marijuana indoors, one study says, is equivalent to driving across country seven times.
#96 | Posted by paneocon

Driving what, a bicycle?

#98 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-07 07:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

Global Warming, then Climate Change and what do we hear now, Climate Disruption? Sounds like a tax looking for a problem...
#69 | Posted by sawdust at 2014-05-07 07:28 AMFlag: | Newsworthy 2

exactly..
#70 | Posted by boaz


Shell Shock, Battle Fatigue, Operational Exhaustion, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.
I guess that's all -------- too.
www.youtube.com

#100 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-07 09:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

I am waiting for the ultimate global warming/climate change/climate disruption study:
Publish the political party registrations, campaign contributions and government/private grant sources of these science gasbags.
The 'scientific' conclusions will have a remarkable concurrence with such factors, I bet.

#101 | Posted by Diablo at 2014-05-08 12:43 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Where's the benefit coming from to balance all that out, exactly?

#12 | POSTED BY RCADE

All the redwoods may die out but at least I will finally be able to grow mold free tomatoes in my back yard.

#104 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-05-08 11:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

Snoofy, it would be nice if for once you could debate what you disagree with with something factual.
#103 | Posted by fishpaw

What facts do you see as being in play?
Diablo's position isn't based in fact.
He also presupposes the results of his proposed study, which isn't how science works.
Hey, I just used a fact. Happy?

#105 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-08 04:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort