From this a.m.'s Charlotte Observer:...Water is rising three times faster on the N.C. coast than it did a century ago as warming oceans expand and land ice melts, recent research has found. It's the beginning of what a N.C. science panel expects will be a 1-meter increase by 2100.
Rising sea level is the clearest signal of climate change in North Carolina. Few places in the United States stand to be more transformed.
About 2,000 square miles of our low, flat coast, an area nearly four times the size of Mecklenburg County, is 1 meter (about 39 inches) or less above water.
At risk are more than 30,500 homes and other buildings, including some of the state's most expensive real estate. Economists say $6.9 billion in property, in just the four counties they studied, will be at risk from rising seas by late this century.
Naw, we got no problem whatsoever from global climate change.
Ok, J.W.,
ReplyDeleteI think I understand your complaint. The top one percent of income earners in NC are going to lose their beach homes about a century from now.
But try to look at the bright side... if the oceans rise enough, the Great Basin will fill up again, burying Con-Agra and Monsanto's military/industrial/agri-empire, AND you get to get rid of all those unenlightened mid-western red-staters who prevent the Democrats from ruling as omnipotent (but benevolent, of course) monarchs!
;)
Why do you people think you are smart enough to know what the optimum temperature of the Earth should be? The earth warms and cools cyclically all the time. It always has. It always will. We move back and forth from ice ages to very warm periods. This happens without any influence by man. We can't influence it if we try. The idea that man influences climate change is ridiculous. Here is a hint for you: look at the Sun, it's flares, and the orbit of the Earth. Then compare that to driving an electric car.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, when talking global climate change, 100 years is insignificant.
Mike - Where are you coming from? Don't you know how many millions of people live on the coastlines of all the continents? Don't you care how many cities will be drowned? Don't you know how many millions of people depend on glacial meltwater for irrigation? It's not the millionaires on the coast of NC who are going to suffer. It's the billions of the poorest people on the planet. But you'll probably be just fine. Why should you worry about all those other people?
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't matter what Mike D says. It doesn't matter what the fruitcakes that beleive in man made climate change say. Climate change will happen as it happens.It does so continuously by some small amount. Man has nothing to do with it.
ReplyDeleteMaybe prayer would help influence the change of climate, but that is your only hope.
Brushfire,
ReplyDeleteThat's exactly my point. Out of all those people whose lives would be changed, why would J.W. focus on the loss of multi-million dollar beach houses?
But, to the larger issue of your post, if significant man-made global warming is in fact occurring, is not the true problem overpopulation?
It seems to me that your solution is to cram as many people onto the planet as you possibly can, then control every aspect of their lives to allow the planet to continue to hold as many people as possible.
What's wrong with reducing the population and allowing people to keep some freedom?
What is the point of living if you would have 70 billion of us chewing on soy pellets and never being free to drive to the Pacific Coast Highway or the Grand Canyon?
Mike, you hinted at the solution. Two words - Soylent Green and, as you check out prior to processing, you can request the 3D image package of the Coast Highway and the Grand Canyon.
ReplyDeleteMike- I'm with you 100% on the overpopulation issue. You are right that overpopulation is at the heart of all our environmental (and probably political) problems. But do you really think the solution is to allow huge catastrophic events to starve, drown, and kill people? A much easier way to reduce birthrates is to make sure women are educated equally and have equal opportunities to achieve their potentials, and of course make sure women have the freedom and the right to decide how many children they bear.
ReplyDeleteEducation MUST be part of the solution. We STILL have too many teenage pregnancies. And ignorance of proper birth control is rampant among our youth. We need to keep trying to teach young people the truth.so they can protect themselves. And of course, I maintain this is the job of professional sex educators.
ReplyDeleteMike D: You'll be safe with Brushfire, shyster,JW, BikerBard and the rest at Watauga Watch... 6 feet under.
PS to "therer is no man made climate cha" Oh yes, therer is!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110119/ts_afp/climatewarmingfood_20110119163335
ReplyDeleteWhatever happened to the concept that the earth is God's creation and God's blessing to us, God's creatures? That our human responsibility is to use it wisely and humbly with gratitude and appreciation to God and as a trust to those will come after us? Anyone who has ever owned a farm or an "old home place" is likely to have felt that sentiment. Of course it's nice to enjoy driving to the Grand Canyon, or running snowmobiles through the woods, or whatever, just as previous generations enjoyed slaughtering buffaloes and passenger pigeons, but the trade-offs should warn us to be less destructive of our world. People have said, God will provide, man can't do anything. Well, what if the knowledge and warnings we have already received are signs from God that man needs to change his destructive ways and use his God-given brains to find a better way to live?
ReplyDeleteThe hits keep on coming- your link doesn't work.
ReplyDeleteWE,all of WE, are poisoning the earth and in a few generations are going to make our world, the earth, unlivable. Those who cannot see this are idiots. I believe the solution is to just party like crazy in all of our polluting ways because mankind is way over the tip and there's no way out. WE, mankind, aren't even a ghat on the ass of a dog in the eyes of our Creator. We're on our own because we've proven unworthy over and over and over and................
ReplyDelete"Hattip: BrotherDoc (again)" - J.W.
ReplyDeleteBrotherDoc,
Preach it! Speak the Global warming gospel! Are you not the source of the scientific thread on global warming?
Now you comment on your own scientific subject, invoking God's name not once, but seven times?
Please understand, when I called the global warming cause "religious", I meant it in a literary, metaphorical sense. It was a simile. The global warming movement is like a religion.
But please don't let me stand in your way, as you divert the discussion away from science.
Preach the global warming gospel, Brother Doc. Preach it!
P.S. It would be so much easier if I were a rich golfer who cruised around in my Hummer and didn't care about the Earth, wouldn't it? So sad that I am a simple worker bee with an organic garden, no car, and a penchant for helping those less fortunate than myself. But the truth is that you and J.W. and Brushfire would never tolerate the kind of lies you are here defending, even marketing, if they came from a source you despised, like Monsanto. If Al Gore lies, it's fine. It's not lying you don't like. It's the cause that determines whether dishonesty is permissible.
Am I right?
Oliver said - When the black death carried off 1/3 of Europe's population, many people responded as you suggest. Some of them went wild, some engaged in extreme self-mutilation, and some went on murderous rampages.
ReplyDeleteI am glad that we now have the tool of the scientific method and can address our problems in a more rational manner.
The link worked fine foe me.
ReplyDeleteWhat the Bard is wanting is indoctrinating the young with leftist religious beliefs instead of knowledge.
ReplyDeleteLike Mike D says, the left does not use facts, it uses faith in it's agenda.
"It's not lying you don't like. It's the cause that determines whether dishonesty is permissible." That is the gospel of the left.
OK Mike -
ReplyDeleteReligion is a set of beliefs based on assumption of supernatural interventions or causes.
Global climate change theory is based on the tested laws of physics that operate according to mechanistic principles, and the observations and data gathered from the material world.
How exactly is global climate change theory like a religion?
There is no...- We do know what the optimum temperature of the Earth is for human beings. It is the temperature that has prevailed over the past 10,000 years since the invention of agriculture and the consequent rise of civilization.
ReplyDeleteYes, the sun influences climate, as does water vapor and other greenhouse gases. We don't have control over the sun, but we are for sure, unequivocally changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere.
Yes the Earth has been warmer in the past BUT there were no humans and no human civilization around. It was the optimum temperature for dinosaurs and cycads.
100 years is plenty significant in terms of climate change and civilization. You may not care about what happens in 100 years, but some of us with children and grandchildren actually love them and want them to inherit a planet that is livable and clement to human life.
Biker Bard- You are so right that education is paramount in our survival as a culture and a species. I never understood why anyone wants to deny sex education to our kids. How are people supposed to learn about their bodies? In the good old fashioned gutter? From corporate advertising? If they don't get it in school, when will they have a chance?
ReplyDeleteShouldn't reproduction be a well thought-out and planned event rather than an unpleasant surprise?
Brushfire's definition of religion:
ReplyDelete"a set of beliefs based on assumption of supernatural interventions or causes"
Now, the real definitions for religion:
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6.
something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7.
religions, Archaic . religious rites.
8.
Archaic . strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.
Brushfire, the good news is that with your new "goodspeak", you will get to decide exactly what words mean, but sadly, for now, we are all stuck with the pre-bookburning English language.
Mike - You really hate Al Gore, don't you? Why?
ReplyDeleteWhat about the mini-ice ages and hot periods hat have occurred during this time frame? There is no optimum temperature.
ReplyDeleteMike- You are quibbling. I abstracted the first(preferred) definition. This is comments, not thesis section after all.
ReplyDeleteKey point: Religion (in the generally accepted definition ) involves "faith" ie belief that is not based on proof or evidence.
You don't have faith in gravity because you can pretty much prove it exists. Faith is for things that can't be proven. Science is not about faith. Science is about mechanistic explanations and supporting your assertions with evidence. It is possible to overturn accepted scientific dogma if you present sufficient evidence. In fact there is a lot of incentive to do so because that's how scientists get really famous.
It is not possible to overturn religious dogma with evidence. If you present really good evidence that contradicts religious dogma, you get burned at the stake. (metaphorically speaking in this country, literally in others).
Science is like religion in the same sense that horses are like gymnasiums. You could be like Glen Beck and draw a really tortured analogy, but what's the point?
So what was your point? That we shouldn't care about our destructive effect on global climate because there are too many people on Earth anyway? Or that freedom entails the right to destroy our common heritage and our children's future?
Get serious - The mini ice-ages and warm spells were caused by factors beyond our control. A lot of people died of starvation because of them. What does that have to do with our current situation? There is an optimum temperature range for humans. It is the range at which our staple foods grow best. There are 4 main foods that sustain civilization. Rice, wheat, corn, and soy. If it gets too hot and dry, or too wet, to grow those crops, civilization will fall.
ReplyDeleteAnother extremely important issue is the ocean acidification resulting from fossil fuel emissions. How many people will die when the fisheries collapse?