cliffside!!!

[loki]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123299459

Construction crews are battling the Pacific Ocean to save a cliff-top apartment building in Pacifica, a San Francisco suburb. It's the kind of scenario likely to occur up and down the West coast in years to come, as climate change and rising sea levels threaten oceanfront properties.

WTF?!!!! i'm sure that was happening before.... 100 years ago, and will happen 500 years from now... it's not our fault.

*trying to keep this apolitical*

[Satty]

Honestly, thats what you get for building on a seaside cliff.

[Drew Dowdell]

*places bet on the Pacific Ocean winning..... eventually*

[67impss]

Only way to win is to move the homes and brace up the apartments. Don't mess with mother nature she wins always. Kinda like building & rebuilding in a flood plane

[loki]

*places bet on the Pacific Ocean winning..... eventually*

i agree. it's much larger and stronger than anything we've ever done... haha

maybe they should replace all the dirt with diamond material. LOL

i sent an email reporting my complaints.... maybe they'll read it on air friday...?> lol

Edited February 3, 2010 by loki

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Reminds me of the 'brilliant' people here who build huge houses on the sides of mountains and then 'can't believe their eyes' when it rains hard and the house slides off.

[Croc]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123299459

WTF?!!!! i'm sure that was happening before.... 100 years ago, and will happen 500 years from now... it's not our fault.

*trying to keep this apolitical*

Look at some aerial photography--those buildings, when built, were far from the cliffside. Erosion has been pretty bad around there.

Another area with similar issues is the Isla Vista neighborhood right by UC Santa Barbara. There, they used to have a really wide beach between the sea cliffs and the ocean, but after a La Nina in the late 70s, the beach got washed away and now many of the buildings are overhanging the edge of the cliff.

Now let's put on our thinking caps here--of COURSE this has happened in the past and happened naturally. What's at issue is the acceleration due to climate change. To act like we, humans, are completely blameless in this is just asinine and ignorant. Given this situation, what are we going to do about it? That's the real test of humanity--how are we going to solve these problems? Burying our heads in the sand like ostriches pretending it doesn't exist isn't going to solve anything.

[ocnblu]

Oh settle down. It's irreversible and it is not our fault. Can we stop the wind from blowing? The sun from shining? The waves from pounding? Noooooooo, sparky.

[Croc]

Oh settle down. It's irreversible and it is not our fault. Can we stop the wind from blowing? The sun from shining? The waves from pounding? Noooooooo, sparky.

Asinine and ignorant. The atmosphere is made up of many gases, and they interact and react with each other, ultraviolet radiation, and water. Increases in ozone-eating gases allow more UV light to pass through to earth, leading to increased levels of sunlight intensity. This can cause more evaporation from water on the ground. Gases in the air interact/react with UV light forming compounds that retain heat in the atmosphere--the "greenhouse effect." The reason "global warming" has given way to "climate change" is because it isn't just warming that takes place--scientists have figured out that excessive carbon outputs have thrown off equilibrium, and while warming effects have been observed, it seems frequency and intensity of weather events has been increasing as well. This makes sense when you think about it--the environment is a system, and a change in one part, like heat levels, has logical consequences like increased evaporation. What does this cause? It's unfolding like a domino effect, but we don't yet know with certainty what the end results of these chain reactions will be--but what has been observed over decades is that certain meteorological phenomena are increasing in frequency and intensity.

Check out how dramatic it's been; cliffside hasn't changed in 40 years:

<a href="http://www.historicaerials.com/?poi=9792"><img src="http://www.historicaerials.com/featuredPOIImage.aspx?poi=9792" /></a>

<a href="http://www.historicaerials.com/?poi=9793"><img src="http://www.historicaerials.com/featuredPOIImage.aspx?poi=9793" /></a>

<a href="http://www.historicaerials.com/?poi=9794"><img src="http://www.historicaerials.com/featuredPOIImage.aspx?poi=9794" /></a>

Go to Bing Maps aerial photography and see what it looked like in most of 2009.

Additionally, this video shows some birds-eye views from news coverage of how, in the last few months, the cliffs have eroded:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> Edited February 3, 2010 by Croc

[loki]

Croc your "scientists have figured out that excessive carbon outputs have thrown off equilibrium, and while warming effects have been observed, it seems frequency and intensity of weather events has been increasing as well.".... you are assuming we had equilibrium and that it would have continued without us. 1. this is not provable because this is not testable, 2. we are one large event, volcano, storm, or something away from throwing a wrench into a "equalized" earth.

placing blame on storms from "climate change"...do you believe the scientists have a crystal ball and know what is going to happen, and know somehow it would not have happened either next year or 2 years in the future anyway? part of this seems like Schrodinger's cat but you can know the outcome based on computer simulations without actually doing the test. that is not science.

[avant1963]

I still can't figure how anyone can see the amount of crap we humans have spewed into the air and water over the past 200 years and not think is has any effect on speeding up the natural processes of the Earth.

Humans aren't the only cause - we are just speeding some things up. - That is something that most scientists do believe.

[loki]

I still can't figure how anyone can see the amount of crap we humans have spewed into the air and water over the past 200 years and not think is has any effect on speeding up the natural processes of the Earth.

Humans aren't the only cause - we are just speeding some things up. - That is something that most scientists do believe.

you mean like even the "systems" to combat the change?

"Forests Are Growing Faster, Ecologists Discover; Climate Change Appears to Be Driving Accelerated Growth"

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100201171641.htm

i saw an article a while ago about how air pollution (haze formers) increased how fast trees grew too, cause of the increase in light at all angles.

sadly our wetlands do need to be revitalized, and our waterways need to have fewer harmful obstacles placed by us, like dams.

[67impss]

The whole existence of man's pollution would be like the tip of a pin compared to Mt Everest, in relation to just the smallest volcano outburst. No man is just part of this Earth and in noway is controlling the weather anymore than the dinosaurs did. Cow's aren't anymore burdensome than the bison were. Sun spot cycles are more the controller than anything. Getting down now

[67impss]

you mean like even the "systems" to combat the change?

"Forests Are Growing Faster, Ecologists Discover; Climate Change Appears to Be Driving Accelerated Growth"

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100201171641.htm

i saw an article a while ago about how air pollution (haze formers) increased how fast trees grew too, cause of the increase in light at all angles.

sadly our wetlands do need to be revitalized, and our waterways need to have fewer harmful obstacles placed by us, like dams.

Yeah I agree in the whole clean-up and all but in relation to the problems at hand. I'm a hunter and the forest is my backyard if ya know what I mean.

[loki]

The whole existence of man's pollution would be like the tip of a pin compared to Mt Everest, in relation to just the smallest volcano outburst. No man is just part of this Earth and in noway is controlling the weather anymore than the dinosaurs did. Cow's aren't anymore burdensome than the bison were. Sun spot cycles are more the controller than anything. Getting down now

actually bison are better, they leave the grasses' roots and saliva helps the grasses heal and regrow., pretty sure cows don't, for erosion's sake... if we could only harness cows methane production... lol

[Croc]

you mean like even the "systems" to combat the change?

"Forests Are Growing Faster, Ecologists Discover; Climate Change Appears to Be Driving Accelerated Growth"

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100201171641.htm

i saw an article a while ago about how air pollution (haze formers) increased how fast trees grew too, cause of the increase in light at all angles.

sadly our wetlands do need to be revitalized, and our waterways need to have fewer harmful obstacles placed by us, like dams.

Doesn't help much at all when you consider the deforestation rates around the world.

[Croc]

Croc your "scientists have figured out that excessive carbon outputs have thrown off equilibrium, and while warming effects have been observed, it seems frequency and intensity of weather events has been increasing as well.".... you are assuming we had equilibrium and that it would have continued without us. 1. this is not provable because this is not testable, 2. we are one large event, volcano, storm, or something away from throwing a wrench into a "equalized" earth.

Um, yes, that's common sense...including the common sense that this is limited to the industrial and post-industrial eras. That's not that long ago, and is a quite testable hypothesis.

===========================

Let's talk about those volcanoes, too, while we're at it. How often do volcanoes erupt? How often do big eruptions occur? What do we know about large eruptions...that they have altered earth's climate for years following? Oh, yea, that's right. Now think about all those sudden carbon emissions and how long it takes for things to go "back to normal" following an event. Now compare that to a sustained, daily pollution of carbon from factories all around the world. How many years of global factories would it take to equal a single, moderate volcanic eruption?

These are the questions to consider. But to assert that there is no effects on climate from pollution just shows such a fundamental ignorance of basic knowledge and scientific principles.

[Drew Dowdell]

The whole existence of man's pollution would be like the tip of a pin compared to Mt Everest, in relation to just the smallest volcano outburst. No man is just part of this Earth and in noway is controlling the weather anymore than the dinosaurs did. Cow's aren't anymore burdensome than the bison were. Sun spot cycles are more the controller than anything. Getting down now

All you've proposed is that we're slower than volcanos but can do just the same amount of damage.

A fire can destroy your house in 10 minutes. Termites take 10 years. Either way, in the end you still have a destroyed house.

[Croc]

Edited February 3, 2010 by Croc

[SAmadei]

All you've proposed is that we're slower than volcanos but can do just the same amount of damage.

A fire can destroy your house in 10 minutes. Termites take 10 years. Either way, in the end you still have a destroyed house.

So... your suggesting we can stop volcanos? Or regulate the sun? The climate is going to change... perhaps our released greenhouse gases have staved off a disasterous ice age? We don't know.

Hey, instead of worrying about the BS global warming, why don't we look back to the cleaning up the pacific ocean trash dump or fixing up the toxic disasters on the DEP superfund list... or perhaps try to stop the pollution attrocities being done in third world nations as we outsource our trash reclaimation to places with lax environmental law?

[Drew Dowdell]

I'm in favor of not shooting ourselves in the foot.

[loki]

Doesn't help much at all when you consider the deforestation rates around the world.

well if you think we have the authority to go into another country and force that to end... we also have a military that puts out more emissions than the autos on our highways, and bombs and politics reducing productive land that could feed or just help people in general.

Hey, instead of worrying about the BS global warming, why don't we look back to the cleaning up the pacific ocean trash dump or fixing up the toxic disasters on the DEP superfund list... or perhaps try to stop the pollution attrocities being done in third world nations as we outsource our trash reclaimation to places with lax environmental law?

yes. we need to clean up our own act before getting into anyone else's business, that goes from litter, to legalizing such pollution because of the EPA, something that doesn't have the authority to do what it is doing most times.

[Croc]

So... your suggesting we can stop volcanos? Or regulate the sun? The climate is going to change... perhaps our released greenhouse gases have staved off a disasterous ice age? We don't know.

Bull. If we just staved off an ice age then we would be MAINTAINING climates instead of watching the polar ice caps disintegrate at a rapidly increasing pace.

Hey, instead of worrying about the BS global warming, why don't we look back to the cleaning up the pacific ocean trash dump or fixing up the toxic disasters on the DEP superfund list... or perhaps try to stop the pollution attrocities being done in third world nations as we outsource our trash reclaimation to places with lax environmental law?

False substitution.

well if you think we have the authority to go into another country and force that to end... we also have a military that puts out more emissions than the autos on our highways, and bombs and politics reducing productive land that could feed or just help people in general.

Huh? We just need to join the rest of the developed world in beginning to regulate this stuff. Your assertion--that because we cannot police the rest of the world, we should do nothing ourselves--is just asinine.

Seriously, the irony--that I, a "socialist" Democrat, am arguing for climate change legislation to protect existing individual property rights from accelerated environmental forces at the hands of collective man against a self-proclaimed "Libertarian"--is not lost on me.

Edited February 4, 2010 by Croc

[loki]

Huh? We just need to join the rest of the developed world in beginning to regulate this stuff. Your assertion--that because we cannot police the rest of the world, we should do nothing ourselves--is just asinine.

did you miss my comment on SAmedei's comment? i'm assuming you did....

[ocnblu]

Best thing to do is give up all technological advances man has made in the last 200 years. Then it will only take us 200 years to return the earth to her pristine state.

[Croc]

Best thing to do is give up all technological advances man has made in the last 200 years. Then it will only take us 200 years to return the earth to her pristine state.

Why? Technology got us to the point we can actually start making significant progress in curbing our pollution output...it's not like we can't curb our pollution--we've developed alternative fuels, created air scrubbers for factory smokestacks, and we're even beginning implementation of pollution-cleansing concrete.

Why throw the baby out with the bathwater?

Edited February 4, 2010 by Croc

[loki]

Why? Technology got us to the point we can actually start making significant progress in curbing our pollution output...it's not like we can't curb our pollution--we've developed alternative fuels, created air scrubbers for factory smokestacks, and we're even beginning implementation of pollution-cleansing concrete.

and regulations that have kept many of these things, and even better things from being researched and implemented.

[SAmadei]

Bull. If we just staved off an ice age then we would be MAINTAINING climates instead of watching the polar ice caps disintegrate at a rapidly increasing pace.

Perhaps they were weakened ten years ago during the hot decade and now that new ice was building up on a damaged foundation, it collapsed. I'm just speculating.

Huh? We just need to join the rest of the developed world in beginning to regulate this stuff. Your assertion--that because we cannot police the rest of the world, we should do nothing ourselves--is just asinine.

Well, we don't have to police anyone... but we are wealthy enough (and our government is pissing away enough of our tax dollars) that we can give undeveloped countries incentives to not pollute their lands and surrounding oceans with some of the worse toxins ever.

Why? Technology got us to the point we can actually start making significant progress in curbing our pollution output...it's not like we can't curb our pollution--we've developed alternative fuels, created air scrubbers for factory smokestacks, and we're even beginning implementation of pollution-cleansing concrete.

I think OCN is being sarcastic. However, there ARE people who seemingly would be happy if the entire human race threw out everything, donned lioncloths and wandered back into the forests and jungles.

[ocnblu]

See now I don't really mind loincloths. Loincloths are fine.

[Drew Dowdell]

See now I don't really mind loincloths. Loincloths are fine.

+1..... for some people

[SAmadei]

+1..... for some people

If I posted a photo of me in a loincloth, the server would crash and burn from all the people linking to poorlydressed.com.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Asinine and ignorant. The atmosphere is made up of many gases, and they interact and react with each other, ultraviolet radiation, and water. Increases in ozone-eating gases allow more UV light to pass through to earth, leading to increased levels of sunlight intensity. This can cause more evaporation from water on the ground. Gases in the air interact/react with UV light forming compounds that retain heat in the atmosphere--the "greenhouse effect." The reason "global warming" has given way to "climate change" is because it isn't just warming that takes place--scientists have figured out that excessive carbon outputs have thrown off equilibrium, and while warming effects have been observed, it seems frequency and intensity of weather events has been increasing as well. This makes sense when you think about it--the environment is a system, and a change in one part, like heat levels, has logical consequences like increased evaporation. What does this cause? It's unfolding like a domino effect, but we don't yet know with certainty what the end results of these chain reactions will be--but what has been observed over decades is that certain meteorological phenomena are increasing in frequency and intensity.

Check out how dramatic it's been; cliffside hasn't changed in 40 years:

<a href="http://www.historicaerials.com/?poi=9792"><img src="http://www.historicaerials.com/featuredPOIImage.aspx?poi=9792" /></a>

<a href="http://www.historicaerials.com/?poi=9793"><img src="http://www.historicaerials.com/featuredPOIImage.aspx?poi=9793" /></a>

<a href="http://www.historicaerials.com/?poi=9794"><img src="http://www.historicaerials.com/featuredPOIImage.aspx?poi=9794" /></a>

Go to Bing Maps aerial photography and see what it looked like in most of 2009.

Additionally, this video shows some birds-eye views from news coverage of how, in the last few months, the cliffs have eroded:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

*Dun DUn DUNNNN!!!!*

[balthazar]

I cannot get away from the fact that there are possibly trillions at stake here, more than enough to motivate great masses of people in all walks of professions & politics to subscribe to a theory and the likely ensuing legislation with little more than a 'how can you be so stupid; IT'S OBVIOUS!!'.

I'm willing to accept the premise with pure science demonstrating the evidence.

But I'm still waiting for a public presentation of that pure science, and meanwhile all sorts of monies are being allocated as hurriedly as possible, with little oversight and no consideration for potential outcomes, and in strict ignorance of public opinion.

-- -- -- -- --

>>"The reason "global warming" has given way to "climate change" is because it isn't just warming that takes place--scientists have figured out that excessive carbon outputs have thrown off equilibrium, and while warming effects have been observed, it seems frequency and intensity of weather events has been increasing as well."<<

So... if not just warming has taken place, and the climate IS changing, cooling must also have been observed. But as you mentioned, all we ever heard for a great while was "global warming"... until recently.

Logic states the science on this is far from done if this simple characterisation hasn't been nailed from the start.

-- -- -- -- --

>>"Technology got us to the point...

...pollution-cleansing concrete."<<

Many would say it was technology that is the root of pollution, and I would agree.

But no- there's no 'going back'.

As for the concrete- a private company invented a radiator that was said to cleanse the air as it drove, another coating + airflow = conversion to inerts, resulting in a car that left the air CLEANER after than if it had stayed parked. Announcment was at least 5 years ago.... where is it ??

Either other influences have prevented it, or the science wasn't pure on it.. because the demand was built in before the product was announced.

-- -- -- -- --

Put the entire money issue aside, get the science pure, consistant & demostratable, formulate a plan and get as much word-wide co-operation as you can, THEN address funding (beyond science).

Edited February 4, 2010 by balthazar

[Croc]

>>"The reason "global warming" has given way to "climate change" is because it isn't just warming that takes place--scientists have figured out that excessive carbon outputs have thrown off equilibrium, and while warming effects have been observed, it seems frequency and intensity of weather events has been increasing as well."<<

So... if not just warming has taken place, and the climate IS changing, cooling must also have been observed. But as you mentioned, all we ever heard for a great while was "global warming"... until recently.

Blame it on a preoccupation with the US by US policymakers. Blame it on studying the wrong things for a long time. Blame it on whatever you want, but the fact is that "climate change" refers to the entire changing climate--the warmer temperatures at the polar ice caps, the increase in intensity and frequency of Gulf hurricanes, the changing precipitation rates in certain parts of the world, the increasing humidity in Sun City, AZ...it just took a little bit for scientists to realize more than warming was taking place, and it took even longer for this to be recognized in the public consciousness.

Logic states the science on this is far from done if this simple characterisation hasn't been nailed from the start.

>>"Technology got us to the point...

...pollution-cleansing concrete."<<

Many would say it was technology that is the root of pollution, and I would agree.

But no- there's no 'going back'.

As for the concrete- a private company invented a radiator that was said to cleanse the air as it drove, another coating + airflow = conversion to inerts, resulting in a car that left the air CLEANER after than if it had stayed parked. Announcment was at least 5 years ago.... where is it ??

Either other influences have prevented it, or the science wasn't pure on it.. because the demand was built in before the product was announced.

...and? The green concrete has already been implemented in Italy and Japan, and is being implemented in the US in the Pac-NW. Like many things, it'll go through the demonstration project phases and then migrate from the coasts to the middle of the country over a period of decades.

Put the entire money issue aside, get the science pure, consistant & demostratable, formulate a plan and get as much word-wide co-operation as you can, THEN address funding (beyond science).

That's just not how the world works. Google "policy window" and see the above .gif on the scientific method.

[ocnblu]

omg a flowchart so fun at parties yes

[Drew Dowdell]

>>"Technology got us to the point...

...pollution-cleansing concrete."<<

Many would say it was technology that is the root of pollution, and I would agree.

But no- there's no 'going back'.

As for the concrete- a private company invented a radiator that was said to cleanse the air as it drove, another coating + airflow = conversion to inerts, resulting in a car that left the air CLEANER after than if it had stayed parked. Announcment was at least 5 years ago.... where is it ??

Either other influences have prevented it, or the science wasn't pure on it.. because the demand was built in before the product was announced.

That would have been Ford's subsidiary of Volvo. I had the impression it was implemented in some Volvos and on the U.S. Ford Focus, a PZEV vehicle.

But you do have a valid question.... Maybe I can ask Mulally next week.

[balthazar]

@ ocn

@ Croc- unfortunately for what has been publically demonstrated, we have skipped over the green, blue & purple geometrics, and have banned consideration of the red oval.

In fact, those that point to the banned red oval have been labeled, vilified and ridiculed, in strict ignorance of the scientific method. Instead, we've briefly flirted with the green oval and jumped right to the pink one. This, while brushing aside verified evidence of tampering (East Anglia documents), insufficient data bases and poor, politicized science.

Olds- I am totally behind a simple, demostratable effort like a 'air scrubber radiator'- prove it works in a true scientific manner and implement it industry-wide. HUGE accomplishment, controllable costs, instant results.

[Drew Dowdell]

Olds- I am totally behind a simple, demostratable effort like a 'air scrubber radiator'- prove it works in a true scientific manner and implement it industry-wide. HUGE accomplishment, controllable costs, instant results.

I was right, it was Volvo and it looks like the S60, S80, V70 and some PZEV Fords have it. It's called PremAir catalytic coating and was developed by BASF. In particularly bad smog conditions the the radiator coating, combined with the vehicle being a PZEV, would leave behind cleaner air than it encountered by turning all ozone it encountered into O_2.

Apparently the coating only costs about $50.

I have links, but they're all to Word Doc or PDFs. If you google, PremAir catalytic, you'll find it.

edit: Here is a good, but old and incomplete article on it.

[Z-06]

In particularly bad smog conditions the the radiator coating, combined with the vehicle being a PZEV, would leave behind cleaner air than it encountered by turning all ozone it encountered into O₂.

Olds, will that not eat into the ozone layer, if the particulate matter was light enough to escape and started reacting with ozone layer?

[Drew Dowdell]

Olds, will that not eat into the ozone layer, if the particulate matter was light enough to escape and started reacting with ozone layer?

Don't have that answer, but apparently the material is metalic base so it is unlikely to end up in the upper atmosphere.

[67impss]

Liking that solution and as was said this should be installed Globally. Imagine if this were used in Mex. City, Tokyo, Russia, China, India... let alone here.

[SAmadei]

Olds, will that not eat into the ozone layer, if the particulate matter was light enough to escape and started reacting with ozone layer?

It could be a problem in the future when we have flying Volvos!

[Blake Noble]

The way posts in this thread that suggest Global Warming is a THEORY (which it is; it is not a proven, indisputable scientific fact) are being repped down is absurd and immature.

Now go ahead and rep this post down to -50.

[Drew Dowdell]

Your post should be repped to -50 for failure to understand the definition of theory.

"As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena."

Other "theories"

Gravity

Relativity

Atomic

Plate tectonics

I'd love it if people who called Global Climate Change "only a theory" would run around Haiti shouting "Plate tectonics is only a theory!!!!!"

[FAPTurbo]

Isn't electricity a theory too?

[Blake Noble]

Your post should be repped to -50 for failure to understand the definition of theory.

"As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena."

Other "theories"

Gravity

Relativity

Atomic

Plate tectonics

I'd love it if people who called Global Climate Change "only a theory" would run around Haiti shouting "Plate tectonics is only a theory!!!!!"

That post should be repped down to -50 for treating an adult as if they were 5.

I mean seriously? There is indisputable proof for everything you linked to. To argue against the idea of a concept of things like gravity and plate tectonics would be like wearing an aluminum foil helmet and yelling the Earth is flat and the sun orbits around us. I don't see things like that as theories, but as facts.

I see Global Warming as a theory, one that doesn't hold much water. Facts pertinent to the subject have been horribly skewed. People who have relentlessly backed it have converted into skeptics and critics and unrelenting critics have converted into believers. It's not so much treated as an area for scientific study as it is a religion (which I find frightening). Environmentalists have used it as the cornerstone in which to back fairly radical agendas.

It's also a theory based in areas of science which have only begun to come into their own. Meteorology and climatology isn't 100 percent unquestionably accurate. We know where weather systems are probably going to be headed, but we never know exactly what it's going to do. For example, regarding meteorology, the last weather system that moved through my state was predicted to only drop 5 inches of snow in central KY. That prediction wound up being around almost 2 to 3 whole inches off.

No, I am not disputing the evidence of past changes in our climate. There is proof of that. But as far as guessing what our climate is going to in the future outside of the known warming and cooling trends is like throwing a dart at a bull's eye on the wall. Could humans be speeding up those natural trends with higher noxious gas emissions since the Industrial Revolution about some 150 years ago? Possibly, but I don't submit to the thinking that the impact in what is a pretty short period of time in the bigger picture could be bringing the Earth to some quick and widespread catastrophe in 20 years. That is, quite honestly, a stupid type of thinking to submit to. It's better left to Doomsday Theorists. It's very annoying. Any rational human being would know better than to step in that particular pile of bullshit.

I am not saying environmentalism is bad. I support taking care of our environment and being aware of what possible impact we might have on it outside of the litter you see thrown out on the side of a highway. But it's so hard to know when you have a group of people with an agenda to push and facts to skew. It's an area of self-evaluation.

Those are my opinions. Don't like them? Fine. But, please, do not treat me like I'm 5, wearing an aluminum foil pirate hat, and screaming the Earth is flat. Just rep my post down to -50.

Edited February 4, 2010 by whiteknight

[Justin Bimmer]

^

[Robert Hall]

Many climate change deniers are the same crowd that doesn't believe in science, believe in 'intelligent design' and believe the earth is 6000 yrs old. They are delusional.

[Drew Dowdell]

Here is the premise of climate change theory broken down to the simplest points.

Fact: Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas, this isn't in dispute. We know that carbon dioxide will trap heat in the atmosphere that would otherwise escape into space.

Fact: We are pumping millions of tons of carbon up from the ground where it has been trapped for millenia outside the natural CO₂/O₂ cycle.

Fact: We are converting that carbon into carbon dioxide and delivering it to the atmosphere at a tremendous rate. Again, millions and millions of tons a day.

Fact: We know that even mild temperature changes can have drastic effects on weather patterns. A 2 degree change in ocean surface temperature is the difference between a category 3 and category 5 hurricane.

I'll give you that we are not done fully developing the theory... but nearly everything so far points to the results being very very bad if we don't reverse course now. I've not seen it so far, but has there been any "good" to climate change that isn't also accompanied with a "bad"? Has there been a "good" at all?

Personally, I'd rather not see the "end" of this experiment.

If you deny the above facts and still claim that climate change is still "just a theory", then yes, you do in fact deserve that tinfoil hat.

[ShadowDog]

I would sum it all up by saying if what humans have contributed to climate change is cause for concern, it should be recognized that it is not entirely irreversible; however, why do people consider acting now for the sake of the future such a terrible thing when throughout history humanity always acts too late?

The benefits in the development of technology to combat climate change reach far beyond their intended purpose. Automobiles derive significantly more power with less fuel. The power of wind is being harnessed more than ever for highly efficient electricity. People are recognizing the major benefits of reduced waste and identifying hazardous products before casting them into landfills which are now better-utilizing methane gases formerly cast into the atmosphere.

Quite frankly, I've observed that most arguments against climate change tend to have motivation behind them based purely on the perceived inconvenience it causes. Since trash was brought up, when a community in a third-world nation that highly depends upon cattle for their survival ends up losing cattle due to choking on a plastic garbage bag dumped into the ocean by a neighboring well-to-do nation, and that nation chooses to ban plastic garbage bags altogether, which side is most inconvenienced depending upon whether that ban goes through or not?