Seven Scary Facts About How Global Warming Is Scorching the United States

  • submit to reddit
scorched_america
Your new America (observed temperature changes over the last 22 years). (Image: National Climate Assessment)

This post originally appeared at Mother Jones.

The new National Climate Assessment, launched on Tuesday by the Obama administration, is a landmark document.

It is a landmark because unlike the reports of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, it is written in plain language that ordinary mortals can understand. (“Evidence for climate change abounds, from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the oceans.” “Data show that natural factors like the sun and volcanoes cannot have caused the warming observed over the past 50 years.”)

It is a landmark because unlike past National Assessments, this report is not being buried or ignored. Rather, President Obama is using it to launch a very impressive communications campaign aimed directly at Americans via one of their most trusted scientific sources, TV meteorologists.

But most of all, it is a landmark because it shows, unequivocally, that we simply do not live in the same America any more, thanks to climate change. It is a different place, a different country. Here are some of the most striking examples of how:

1. America is much hotter than it was before. According to the assessment, the 2000s were the hottest decade on record for the United States, and 2012 was quite simply the hottest year ever (for the contiguous US).

2. That translates into extreme heat where you live. Of course, nobody feels temperature as a national average: We feel it in a particular place. And indeed, we’ve felt it. The National Climate Assessment makes clear that extreme heat waves are striking more than before, and climate change is involved. Take Texas’ extreme heat in the summer of 2011, the “hottest and driest summer on record” for the state, with temperatures that exceeded 100 degrees for 40 straight days! “The human contribution to climate change approximately doubled the probability that the heat was record-breaking,” notes the assessment.

Oh, and if we continue to mess around, it gets a lot, lot worse: By 2100, a “once-in-20-year extreme heat day” will occur “every two or three years over most of the nation.”

Projected decline in water stored in snow across the Southwest. (Image: National Climate Assessment)

Projected decline in water stored in snow across the Southwest. (Image: National Climate Assessment)

3. America is parched. According to the assessment, the Western drought of recent years “represents the driest conditions in 800 years.” Some of the worst consequences were in Texas and Oklahoma in 2011 and 2012, where the total cost to agriculture amounted to $10 billion. The rate of loss of water in these states was “double the long-term average,” reports the assessment. And of course, future trends augur more of the same, or worse, with the Southwest to be particularly hard hit. As seen in the image at right, projected “snow water equivalent,” or water held in snowpack, will decline dramatically across this area over the course of the century.

4. But when it rains, the floods can be devastating. At the same time, climate change is also exacerbating extreme rainfall, because on a warmer planet, the air can hold more water vapor. Sure enough, the United States has seen record rains and floods of late, including, most dramatically, a June 2008 Iowa flooding event that “exceeded the once-in-500-year flood level by more than 5 feet,” according to the assessment.

More generally, reports the document, the “amount of rain falling in very heavy precipitation events has been significantly above average” since 1991. Staggeringly, the Northeast has seen a 71 percent increase in the amount of precipitation that now falls in the heaviest precipitation events, rain or snow, since 1958.

Vulnerability to Sea Level Rise (Image: National Climate Assessment)

(Image: National Climate Assessment)

5. There is less of America. Thanks to global warming, the United States has shrunk. That’s right: Sea level around the world has risen by eight inches in the last century, swallowing up coastline everywhere, including here. Granted, “eight inches” in this case is just an average; the actual amount of sea level rise varies from place to place. But the risk is clear: When a storm like Sandy arrives, those living on the coasts have less protection. Quite simply, they’re closer to the danger.

Such is the condition for quite a lot of Americans: Almost 5 million currently live within four vertical feet of the ocean at high tide, according to the assessment. In the future, they’re going to live even closer than that, as sea level is projected to increase by one to four feet over the coming century.

Oh, and then there’s the infrastructure. “Thirteen of the nation’s 47 largest airports have at least one runway with an elevation within 12 feet of current sea levels,” notes the assessment.

6. Alaska is becoming unrecognizable. Nowhere is global warming more stark than in our only Arctic state. Temperatures there have increased much more than the national average: 3 degrees Fahrenheit since 1949, or “double the rest of the country.” The state has the United States’ biggest and most dramatic glaciers — and it is losing them rapidly. Meanwhile, storms batter coasts that used to be insulated by now-vanished sea ice.

And the ground is literally giving way in many places, as permafrost thaws, destabilizing roads, infrastructure, and the places where people live. Eighty percent of the entire state has permafrost beneath its surface. The state currently spends $10 million per year to repair the damage from thawing permafrost and is projected to spend $5.6-$7.6 billion repairing infrastructure by 2080.

7. America is ablaze. More drought, and more heat, means more wildfires. And sure enough, the United States has been setting numerous records on this front. In 2011, Arizona and New Mexico had “the largest wildfires in their recorded history, affecting more than 694,000 acres.” The same went for scorching Texas that year; it also saw unprecedented wildfires and 3.8 million acres consumed in the state. That’s “an area about the size of Connecticut,” notes the assessment.

And then there is Alaska, where “a single large fire in 2007 released as much carbon to the atmosphere as had been absorbed by the entire circumpolar Arctic tundra during the previous quarter century.” Because, on top of everything else, increasing wildfires actually make global warming itself worse, by releasing still more carbon from the ground.

In sum, you don’t live in America any more. To borrow a page (or, a title) from Bill McKibben’s book Eaarthperhaps we should say you live in Ameriica. It is a different place, a different country, and by now, everybody is noticing.

Chris Mooney is a science and political journalist, podcaster and the host of Climate Desk Live. He is the author of four books, including the New York Times bestselling The Republican War on Science.
  • submit to reddit

BillMoyers.com encourages conversation and debate around issues, events and ideas related to content on Moyers & Company and the BillMoyers.com website.

  • The editorial staff reserves the right to take down comments it deems inappropriate.
  • Profanity, personal attacks, hate speech, off-topic posts, advertisements and spam will not be tolerated.
  • Do not intentionally make false or misleading statements, impersonate someone else, break the law, or condone or encourage unlawful activity.

If your comments consistently or intentionally make this community a less civil and enjoyable place to be, you and your comments will be excluded from it.

We need your help with this. If you feel a post is not in line with the comment policy, please flag it so that we can take a look. Comments and questions about our policy are welcome. Please send an email to info@moyersmedia.com

Find out more about BillMoyers.com's privacy policy and terms of service.

  • Dano2

    Thanks Obama!

    Best,

    D

  • C. Howell

    It is past time to get serious about solutions. Being fossil fuel free in 100 years will take innovation and cooperation. The problem is instead of discussing solutions and exchanging ideals we digress into denialist arguments…as if we are addicts in denial (somewhat true).

    IMO, we need to breakdown the sectors and industries based on their contribution to warming then we can assess the feasibility of solutions to mitigate each sector. Transportation is one sector that we can make an immediate impact on. Switching to electric vehicles will not only quickly lower our co2 output but there are also many more viable options for clean electricity as opposed to petrol.

    Considering that within a century we went from first flight to landing on other planets, it’s very much within our capabilities to rid our dependence on fossil fuels within a century…we just need to move forward.

  • E-Man

    How is this his fault? Wouldn’t Bush & Regan have anything to do with this?

  • Common Sense

    If you read the National Climate Assessment it mentions very substantial uncertainties, then it concludes that it has high confidence in it’s dire predictions? Regarding climate change, the only change that I see is a ramping up of the rhetoric.

  • Common Sense

    Regarding item #3. Droughts come and go. Here is the snowfall record for Donner Pass in California: http://www.thestormking.com/Weather/Sierra_Snowfall/sierra_snowfall.html

    As you can see the weather has always been highly variable in California. Right now drought. Three years ago…tons of snow. A hundred years ago….the same story. A hundred years from now….most likely more of the same. That is why California has a system of man made lake’s to store water to get through the dry spells.

  • Common Sense

    It looks like Obama is going to push to close more coal fired power plants. This is a good thing and it will certainly lead to less particulate air pollution. They will in all probability be replaced with natural gas fired power plants. This will be a positive move towards cleaner energy sources and it will reduce CO2 emissions as well. It won’t however make a dent in global CO2 levels and I don’t think that scaring people with dire predictions of doom is the right way to go. The reality is that there will be technology that will replace our current sources of energy with cleaner sources in the next hundred years. This will happen whether politicians continue to scare us or not. In the meantime the Supreme Court has given the green light to the EPA to force a transition to natural gas. In twenty or thirty years we will likely make a move to something else like thorium reactors. And of course wind and solar will play an increasing role especially if new affordable energy storage devices are developed. There is in my opinion, no crisis and it is a shame to see good well meaning people scared for no reason. Over time these tactics just foster distrust that is counterproductive to reasonable environmental reforms.

  • yoteech

    There are always uncertainties when trying to make scientific predictions…for example the effects of climate change are happening more rapidly than predicted 30 years ago.

  • C. Howell

    There are always variables in scientific models and scientists are honest about that. Denialists and “think tanks” use these variables to suggest incompetence, which is far from the case. Considering predictive models have many variables there is much to attack. But, like anything, it is much easier to point fingers than offer your own science, solutions and/or support.

    Also, data shows that we are headed towards a much worse case scenario than most studies predicted just 10 years ago…that’s because most scientists err on the side of caution by concluding the more conservative model estimates.

  • Joan Harris

    I for one want to know the particulars of climate change that exist right now. It would take a world wide effort to alter the effects and I am not sure the world will ever address the problem fully before it is too late. Pollution doesn’t just play a role in climate change, it plays a role in our health and that is where we have some control. Regionally, our water and air quality can be safeguarded or improved. No one need be afraid of the facts if we hope for the best and prepare for the worst.

  • Common Sense

    You should reconsider the use of the term denialists. This is just name calling. The correct term is skeptic. Judith Curry, John Christy, Richard Lindzen, and the late Michael Crichton are all well respected skeptics. You should youtube them. The statement that scientists have been erring on the side of caution regarding global warming is laughable to anyone that has been closely following this issue. If that were the case then why have there been countless dire predictions since 1988 that have failed to come true? I know that you mean well and that you sincerely believe that CO2 is the primary driver of climate. I just respectfully disagree with you.

  • Common Sense

    I agree that we should focus on pollution and its direct effect on our health. Air quality in the US has improved by 68% since 1970. This is a good start and a focus on removing chemicals from our food, water, and air should be made. CO2 is not a pollutant and focusing on it is not the most effective way to clean up our environment.

  • C. Howell

    You don’t believe there’s a crisis because future innovations will solve the problem?

    So, what about the groups, individuals, politicians and organizations that are hampering those innovations with misinformation, money and political clout? Organizations like ALEC that own 1/3 of all legislators in America? Are you speaking out against them or just against the science that clearly shows we are heading down a path with dire consequences?

  • Common Sense

    I don’t believe there is a crisis because climate sensitivity is much lower then we thought. It turns out that CO2′s effect on temperature is logarithmic and the positive feedbacks of water vapor that the models use seem to be incorrect since the observed data since 1988 do not support it. I am not for big oil or any other group that tries to suppress innovation. Science does not in fact clearly show that we are heading down a path with dire consequences. Youtube Judith Curry Senate testimony.
    It is only a five minute video. It is impressive how much new information on the state of the Science today that she fits into that five minutes.

  • C. Howell

    I already know them and their “arguments” about uncertainty. Here’s a little on their misinformation campaign. You notice how Denialists like Lindzen change their tune over the years? He now accepts man caused warming but his new theory “solves” it!lol. I won’t even discuss Chrichton (he’s an author). It seems, logically, that the evolving arguments of the Denialists, as each of their “theories” and “science” are proven wrong, that many would jump ship. It’s hard for me to fathom how one would still be in their camp despite the misinformation.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/John_Christy_blog.htm

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Judith_Curry.htm

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm

  • Rick

    “Denialist” sounds fair since a skeptic is a person actually willing to accept a proposition once the proper evidence is produced. “Denialists” consistently refuse to do that. Climate scientists are skeptics. They don’t accept any of their theories without well-thought out theories, models, and evidence. Denialists, when faced with evidence, simply move the bar, and look for some new intellectual ground to make an attack.

  • Rick

    Ah yes, the “we cannot do anything because Asia” argument. Meanwhile the polluters in Asia use the “We cannot do anything because America” argument. It’s a bit too convenient for both parties.

  • Rick

    I’m curious – do you work for a fossil fuel lobby? If not, I’m just floored at your embrace of ridiculous priorities.

  • Common Sense

    Name calling says more about you then the people that you are trying to smear.

  • Common Sense

    The fact is that global CO2 levels are rising and that the US has already reduced its CO2 levels to 1992 levels. We will continue to reduce our CO2 levels as Obama closes coal fired plants. Additionally we have new building standards, standards on heat and air units, major applainces, miles per gallon standards for cars, etc. All of these will contribute to lowering CO2 levels. So the truth is that we are doing a lot to reduce CO2 levels. The reality is that as the rest of the world develops the amount of CO2 in the air will likely grow.

  • C. Howell

    Judith Curry’s misinformation:

    “I suspect that the higher level of belief among ocean sciences and particularly geophysics represents second order belief (i.e. support for a perceived consensus) rather than personal research on AGW detection/attribution or a careful survey of the literature. How to square this with the oft reported 97% consensus? Well, ‘climate scientists’ in these surveys typically includes economists, ecologists etc., nearly all probably representing second order belief.”

    Answer: 97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.

    “the narrative of the ‘spiral of death’ for the sea ice has been broken … It remains unclear as to what extent the decline in sea ice over the past decades is caused by natural variability versus greenhouse warming. Whether the increase in 2013 is a one year blip in a longer declining trend, or whether it portends a break in this trend remains to be seen.”

    Answer: A one-year increase in Arctic sea ice extent is short-term noise caused by weather, and is not indivative of a long-term recovery from the rapid human-caused decline.

    “The definition of climate change consensus is now so fuzzy that leading climate change skeptics are categorizing themselves within the 97%.”

    Answer: The scientist author self-ratings survey included in Cook et al. (2013) found a 96% consensus that humans are responsible for most of the current global warming – a position which most climate contrarians would not agree with.

    “This is “hide the decline” stuff. Our data show the pause, just as the other sets of data do. Muller is hiding the decline”

    Global temperature is still rising and 2010 was the hottest recorded.

    “I just finished listening to Murry Salby’s podcast on Climate Change and Carbon. Wow. [...] If Salby’s analysis holds up, this could revolutionize AGW science.”

    Multiple lines of evidence make it very clear that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is due to human emissions.

    “There is no question that the diagrams and accompanying text in the IPCC TAR, AR4 and WMO 1999 are misleading. I was misled. Upon considering the material presented in these reports, it did not occur to me that recent paleo data was not consistent with the historical record….It is obvious that there has been deletion of adverse data in figures shown IPCC AR3 and AR4, and the 1999 WMO document. Not only is this misleading, but it is dishonest”

    The ‘decline’ refers to a decline in northern tree-rings, not global temperature, and is openly discussed in papers and the IPCC reports.

    That Judith Curry?

  • Common Sense

    No I don’t and I am floored at how naive you are about this issue. I would think that if you were truly concerned you would take the time to look into it. I find it amusing that someone that has such a simplistic view of the issues at hand would try to talk down to me.

  • Common Sense

    If you want to believe that there is a crisis and you want to twist her words around. Good for you. It’s a free country. If you want to live in a constant state of fear then go ahead. My posts are in response to your posts but that doesn’t mean that I hope to change your mind. I am just offering the other side of the argument for others to read.

  • Common Sense

    Have you met Rick? I think you guys should exchange emails.

  • C. Howell

    Christy and Curry have been proven to misinform (see my comment below)…Lindzen as well but he’s even changed his tune to accepting man caused climate change but has a “new” theory that counteracts it!LOL Chrichtons an author with no authority on the subject.

    I guess I just don’t understand why you grasp on to these few individuals as authorities even when they are PROVEN wrong. Obviously there are 3% of climatologists that you can find to counter the vast majority in “opinion”…but facts are another matter.

  • C. Howell

    Constant state of fear? What are you talking about? What are you hoping to do here???? Offering what side of the argument? Why? Because you think we are doing too much to mitigate co2 release?

    This digression into PROVEN false denialist arguments is overbearing.

  • Common Sense

    I listen to them because their arguments are compelling and they better explain observations then the models which at this point have been shown to overstate the effect of CO2 on temperature. As Richard Feynman says if the observations don’t match the theory then the theory is wrong.

  • Dano2

    Pointing out someone has a psychological condition and then acts on that knowingly – the -ist – is not smear nor name-calling. Despite your wish to distract away from your denialism.

    Best,

    D

  • Common Sense

    No because this article is full of distortions and Obama’s report is full of distortions. The fact is climate sensitivity to CO2 is low. And CO2′s effect on atmospheric temperature is logarithmic. In light of this I feel that focusing solely on CO2 levels is a mistake. There are other things in the world that rank way higher and that need immediate attention.

  • Common Sense

    So in your world anyone that disagrees with the prevailing view of runaway warming due to rising CO2 levels is mentally ill? Okay.

  • C. Howell

    But they haven’t overstated CO2 effect on temps. The reason for the leveling of surface temps since 2000 is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation phases that can last several decades. Once again taking the variability of science and using it to make false claims. Scientists don’t know how long this will stay leveled but the heat is still within our deep oceans.

    Yawn. Anything else?

  • Common Sense

    Regarding Lindzen’s theory. Proposing and publishing new theories and then testing them is how Science is advanced. Making the argument that he isn’t a good scientist because one of his theories didn’t pan out doesn’t make much sense. Why all the personal attacks against skeptics. They are a crucial and normally accepted part of the process.

  • Common Sense

    That is one possible explanation for the leveling off of temperature. So what caused the little ice age? How about the Medieval Warm Period?

  • C. Howell

    One or more of several factors cause global temperature change. Orbital cycles, solar activity, ocean conveyor, volcanic activity, meteors, human activity, etc. The beauty of knowing most of what causes global temp changes is that we can test them. Orbital cycles, volcanoes, meteors and solar activity are known to NOT be in play currently for warming.

  • C. Howell

    Energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelengths of energy captured by CO2. This means CO2 is the culprit. Empirical.

  • Common Sense

    When will the warming resume? How many years of cooling or no increase would be necessary before you would consider that the current theory doesn’t match reality? It has been nearly thirty years after all since this scare began and so far very little has happened. We were told in 1988 that if we didn’t take drastic action the effects would be catastrophic within 10 years. Hell Al Gore told us very dramatically in 2007 that the Arctic ice would be gone by 2013. They said that they knew everything back then. I don’t remember them mentioning that the ocean would gobble up the heat and stop global warming for 17 years. Is it possible that they don’t know everything today? Wouldn’t a rational person look at all possible explanations for the recent pause in warming and not just the ones that fit what they want to be true?

  • Common Sense

    So CO2′s effect on temperature isn’t logarithmic?

    Crickets…

  • Common Sense

    Aren’t the orbital cycles, volcanoes, and solar activity always in play? Do you find it odd that they are claiming to be 90% certain that most of the warming is from CO2? That is an odd statement. It means that the number could be as low as 51%. Yet it is routinely stated (as you just did) as meaning that all of the current warming is from CO2.

  • C. Howell

    They are observable and are not adding to current warming trend. As a matter of fact we should be cooling according to non human factors.

    With that I leave you to play some golf. You can deny all you want but why stand in the way of progress that you yourself agree is necessary in the long run?

    Have a nice day.

  • Common Sense

    Because the progress would happen anyway and the ends don’t justify the means.

  • Dano2

    No need to be dishonest about what I wrote, as it is in black and white just above. Unless that is the best you can do.

    Best,

    D

  • Common Sense

    “As a matter of fact we should be cooling according to non human factors.”

    Exactly. And guess what? We are currently cooling! Which means……wait for it…..wait for it……CO2 is not the primary driver of temperature.

    And have a nice day as well. Don’t feel guilty about the huge carbon footprint that golf has. :)

  • Common Sense

    I have skimmed over your posts and it is clear that you like to get online and hurl names at strangers. What does that say about you?

  • Common Sense

    So skepticalscience is your main source. This has to be one of the most biased websites on either side of this argument.

  • Paul

    So, you’re a skeptic. To what end? What’s the point of your skepticism if not to deny that there is any problem at all? Are you really so convinced that continued deforestation, mining, drilling, fracking and burning earths natural resources is the best way to meet our future energy needs?

  • Common Sense

    Actually the exact opposite is true.

  • Dano2

    No need to dissemble and mischaracterize what I wrote to try and hide the fact that it is plainly clear you are a denialist, spreading denialist trope.

    Best,

    D

  • Dano2

    Actually, you cannot show your “exact opposite” is true. Actually.

    Best,

    D

  • Common Sense

    No I am a skeptic.

  • Common Sense

    I already have. Just click on my name and look through my posts.

  • Common Sense

    When did I say that? My whole point is that other more important issues (some of which you just mentioned) are being ignored because there is an obsession with CO2 levels. Natural gas is definitely a much better choice then coal and right now nothing is ready to take coal’s place except old school nuclear which no one wants. Also I never said that there was no problem. I said climate sensitivity to CO2 is much lower then previously thought. This is good news. You should be happy to hear it.

  • moderator

    To The Community,

    I understand this is an issue that brings out passion from both sides. However, if you cannot avoid personal attacks, spamming, or trolling you will be unable to continue participating. Please read our comment policy before commenting.

    Thanks
    Sean @ Moyers

  • Common Sense

    I just don’t think that it is okay to exaggerate things in an attempt to scare people. This may work in the short term. In the long run it does more harm than good.

  • Common Sense

    I’m curious. Where do you stand on the use of the term “denier?”

  • Paul

    Well, then you must have some pretty impressive credentials and access to information not available to climate scientists, most of whom would disagree with you.

  • Paul

    Sometimes the truth is scary. I would rather be informed of the reality and urgency or our circumstances than to be lulled into a false sense of security.

  • Common Sense

    What if the reality is that it isn’t a problem. Would you still prefer to be scared?

  • Common Sense

    Have you heard of Richard Lindzen, Judith Curry, Michael Crichton, or John Christy? I am just repeating what they are saying. So you will have to prove them wrong.

  • Common Sense

    I just looked over your past posts and it seems that most of them are political in nature. Which is fine. Political debates are fine. My arguments regarding global warming are based in Science. I have noticed that most of people that I run into that aren’t open to the idea that this crisis is being overstated seem to have strong political views. This issue has had a highly polarizing effect politically. Which is part of my point. Real environmentalism should be bipartisan. In my opinion the global warming crisis has high jacked the Science and taken all of us for a ride. When the dust settles trust in Science and worthy environmental causes will suffer.

  • Dano2

    OK, let’s try it this way:

    Evidence please.

    Best,

    D

  • Dano2

    I said climate sensitivity to CO2 is much lower then previously thought

    Evidence please

    Best,

    D

  • Common Sense

    If you say so.

  • Common Sense

    Sorry I don’t do favors for people that personally attack me.

  • Dano2

    You have no evidence for the assertion. Thanks!

    Best,

    D

  • Common Sense

    Or maybe if you are really rude to someone they won’t continue to converse with you.

  • Dano2

    Or maybe when someone makes false assertions and can’t provide evidence, they find an excuse. Because, ya see, false statements like My arguments regarding global warming are based in Science are false no matter who looks at it.

    Best,

    D

  • Common Sense

    There is an easy way to find out which is true. Just apologize for your rude behavior, and ask me nicely.

  • Dano2

    Which behavior are you characterizing as rude? Be specific so we know you are not mischaracterizing.

    Best,

    D

  • Common Sense

    Implying that people that disagree with you are mentally ill etc.

  • Dano2

    You are mischaracterizing what I wrote. I pointed out you are mischaracterizing what I wrote. That is not intellectual honesty. You are running away from statements you cannot back with scientific evidence, despite your assertion that My arguments regarding global warming are based in Science.

    This is typical behavior for folks called out on statements not based in fact and is the very first tactic listed on the denialist talking point game website:

    [Tactic
    A]: Make a false statement. When falsehood is examined, accuse examiner
    of X. When asked for evidence, dissemble and flap hands to distract
    from having to provide evidence.

    Best,

    D

  • Common Sense

    Back to the insults and now a touch of bullying. I’m done. I will not respond to your posts. In the real world no one would continue a conversation with someone as rude as you. So why should it be any different online? Anyone looking for a answer to your question (including you) can just look at my past posts.

  • Dano2

    Thank you for making something up to deflect and dissemble away from the fact you cannot provide evidence for your patently false statements.

    Best,

    D

  • Dano2

    And guess what? We are currently cooling!

    Another patently false statement. 2010 was the warmest year in the instrumental record.

    Best,

    D

  • Dano2

    Hell Al Gore told us very dramatically in 2007 that the Arctic ice would be gone by 2013.

    Another patently false statement

    Best,

    D

  • David Wilson

    You understand that science is not based on anecdotes and eyeballing a couple handpicked, isolated facts, it’s based on statistical averages of ALL the (yes, highly variable) individual facts?

    This article is about a scientific conclusion. Analysis of a highly variable, complex, inherently changing system cannot be refuted by just picking 2-3 facts that deviate from the average. It’s weather, of COURSE it changes day to day, year to year. Weather is the classic example of this kind of system! The point is the TREND.

  • David Wilson

    It’s WEATHER

    That bears repeating: It’s WEATHER.

    Of COURSE there will be variations, and inconsistencies in predictions. Are you going to say, because a meteorologist cannot predict the exact temperatures tomorrow, in every location at every time, that his/her forcast is 100% worthless. that’s what you keep doing in this post: use the fact that we can’t predict the future as a 100% certainty (in ANY field, not just weather), to 100% reject any prognostication at all. That’s just .. lame.

  • Common Sense

    This article is about cherry picking and distorting facts. A snowfall record that goes back to the 1870′s is not weather it is climate. You are right the point is the trend. There is no trend in snowfall at Donner Pass. That is my point.

  • Dano2

    Are you arguing that this place is representative of the globe? What is your evidence that this is representative? Remember, you claim My arguments regarding global warming are based in Science. Where is the science behind the focus on this one place as being representative of increased future drought?

    Best,

    D

  • moderator

    If you have a problem with language or content, please read our comment policy, or flag offending comments for further review.

    Sean @ Moyers

  • Common Sense

    No it is representative of California’s climate. In California most of the precipitation comes from large storms that sweep into the Pacific. Six to eight storms make or break the season. Which is why the snowfall in the Sierra’s is so variable. What the record for Donner Pass shows is that the current drought is not unusual and that there is no trend since the 1870′s.

  • Common Sense

    I am just wondering if you would deem the use of the term “denier” to be name calling. Or how about someone constantly saying that I am mentally ill? Is that allowed?

  • moderator

    Once again, I have made the process clear. Please flag comments you find offensive and they will be reviewed.

    Sean @ Moyers

  • Dano2

    No one has called you mentally ill. When this was explained to you, you deflected. Your pattern of purposeful mischaracterization and deflection is clear and easily apprehended.

    Best,

    D

  • Dano2

    Remember, you claim My arguments regarding global warming are based in Science.

    Are you claiming scientists are claiming the current drought is not unusual? Where is your evidence for this (not your eyeballing of a graph, the science-based arguments of scientists)?

    Best,

    D

  • Common Sense

    Actually Obama and the media have tried to claim that the current drought in California is due to climate change. It isn’t. This article tries to claim that there is a trend towards less rainfall in California and there isn’t.

  • moderator

    Common Sense and Dano,

    You will have to agree to disagree. Please move on without further comment.

    Sean @ Moyers

  • moderator

    Dano and Common Sense,

    You will have to agree to disagree. Please move on without further comment.

    Sean @ Moyers

  • Common Sense

    I think that you are missing the point. The conclusions are not supported by details in the paper. When the paper says we have “very substantial uncertainties” and the conclusion states that they have “high confidence” then that is a huge red flag.

  • Dano2

    Remember, you claim My arguments regarding global warming are based in Science.

    You claim The conclusions are not supported by details in the paper. Be specific. Which conclusions. What are they lacking.

    Best,

    D

  • moderator

    While I suggested you flag offensive comments please do not abuse the system. I have asked that you move on, please honor that request.

    Sean @ Moyers

  • moderator

    Dano2,

    I think you will have to agree to disagree with Common Sense. It’s time to move on.

    Thanks
    Sean @ Moyers

  • Rusty Jewell

    I’m still working on the logic of how man can have such of an effect on earth when water consumes 75% of its surface and man inhabits roughly 12-20% of land. And that’s just at the earth’s surface. Go 2 miles above earth and the area is much larger. Then 5 miles, 25 miles and even 100 miles. The true deniers are those that fail to recognize that nature is much bigger than man not to mention the history of the earth and all of its various cycles it has been through.

  • Dano2

    Humans cannot change the earth [10 points]

    https://www.facebook.com/ClimateDenialistTalkingPointGame

    Best,

    D

  • David Wilson

    You flagged my comment?

    Seriously?

    OK, excuse me for trying to engage you in debate. I know better now. Agreed, moderator, best to be moving on. I made the mistake of trying to engage in a discussion with this person.

  • moderator

    Actually it was a general warning, and had nothing to do with any of your personal comments. Sorry to have included it in this thread.

    Sean @ Moyers

  • David Wilson

    This same logic — “focus on the air quality” — would have led us to ignore PCBs, DDT, and so on the last 4-5 decades. “Because we should focus on the thing that has the most direct & immediate impact on our health ,” that in your mind is reasonable justification to ignore all the things that will bring about disease and death in midlife?!?

    Are we really, as a civilization & species, not capable of walking and chewing gum at same time? Are your personal capabilities to handle challenges so limited that you must handle them in a serial fashion, and not start to even address one challenge until the other is completely resolved? What do you do when the challenge is, by nature not 100% solvable. Do you let the rest of your life to to h#77 in a hand-basket? Seriously, this is your strategy to deal with problems?

  • Pam Nielsen

    If we can see and feel these things with our own eyes, then it doesn’t matter what you call it. It needs to be stopped/fixed and fast.

  • Paul

    Second guessing my motives won’t mitigate suspicions about yours.

    You’re correct on one point, however; it wasn’t political until well funded organizations, with strong ties to the energy industry, made it so.

  • Anne Dimopoulos

    As a newcomer to this discussion, I’m puzzled (or appalled) that so many comments come from those who don’t accept climate change (or climate disruption) as an actual event, or who at least claim that the current changes are not created by human activity. Since the research is so well documented, I can only assume that the purpose here is to distract us from the actual issues: what steps can be taken short term and mid term and how can we as individuals help initiate action? There’s nothing really to debate so I find that to be a useless endeavor.

  • Common Sense

    Nothing would help the paranoid suspicions of my motives. The fact is that I have made my position perfectly clear.

  • Max Dragonard

    Maybe it’s because we fail to grasp how large the areas are that we DO effect. You can see the deforesting from low earth orbit. The by-products from making the things that are consumed by 7,000,000,000 human beings is enormous, including the tons of co2 and other gases we pump into the atmosphere.

    I don’t know if these things have effected our climate or not but I’m willing to accept that they may have.

    Data seems to indicate that the earth is going through a warming trend. Even if the current warming trend is only a cycle, we’re still going to need to come up with some intelligent plan to deal with it.

  • Paul

    Then why persist so incessantly? Unless you’re a paid disseminator of misinformation and doubt, why argue in vain?

  • Common Sense

    Oh I don’t think that it is in vain. I keep posting because people keep asking me questions about my point of view.

  • Anonymous

    Do tell us of any step or any number of steps being proposed by the President, that if taken by the US would make a difference. And please tell us the resulting benefit so Americans can evaluate it.

    Lets say the US bans ALL coal power plants tomorrow. That has a clear and measurable impact on our economy and our lives. Higher energy costs to all, millions of lost jobs etc. All while China, India and Russia will continue to build their coal plants.

    But lets say we did that.

    Tell us please, even with that huge step, would the sea level in Florida, instead of rising the predated 4 feet, rise to what level?

    You can’t. Can you.

    All that the climate change alarmists propose is giving up energy use now. But they never tell us what the benefit is. Answer is, there is no benefit, because China, India, Russia will never handcuff their economies and will laugh at the self imposed castration of our economy. And climate change will continue.

  • Duane Anderson

    Well it’s a hoax. A tree hugging dirt worshiping pinko-commie hoax!
    This is ment to under mine true American Values and corrupt the young of the land of the free and the home of the brave. Why don’t you just move to China or North Korea and talk like that, then see wha happens.

  • Anonymous

    Since you guys have so much faith in the IPCC scientific consensus, let me quote for you what the IPCC Chairman (Pachauri) said at the of the release of the 2007 report, Said

    “If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.”

    So, according the IPCC Chaiman, our future is determined already, and as of 2012 it is too late to take any action.

    So relax and enjoy life. The Chairman himself tells us it is too late to do anything.

    But I am sure that somewhere in the 2014 report there is something to the effect “If we don’t take action in the ned x years it will be too late”.

    And I’m sure that the 2012 reports will also say “If we don’t take action in the next Y years, it will be too late”.

    The IPCC has already LOST all credibility with that 2007 statement.

  • Anonymous

    There is no science or logic in this argument. Thanks for visiting.

  • Anonymous

    Come on!!!!! You are being disingenuous. You know full well that what he said was a political statement to spur action. You know full well that there is absolutely no scientific evidence that 2012 was a make or break deadline.

    That is why environmental and climate change alarmists get no credibility with the public. You are so transparent. You have been proven wrong every time. From population bomb to peak oil to 2012 being the cut off date for action.

    All these statements were dressed as “scientific” with reams of data, but were all part of an agenda to scare the public into doing something against their self interest, be it reproduce or drive SUVs.

  • Anonymous

    You argue by misdirection. Example: ‘Let’s do something stupid like cut our possible energy production by 70% (or whatever coal provides) tomorrow.’ (my words, not yours – Yours were, ‘Let’s say the U.S. bans all coal power plants tomorrow.’ Same difference.)

    The proposal IS to move, as fast as we can, to minimize the damage we know we’re causing. We CAN move faster and avoid the problems you mentioned; BUT we NEED to be resolute about MOVING, and moving faster. Too many want us to just forget about it. I’m sorry, but they should be seen for what they are – impediments to survival.

    Answering Your Points

    1, The argument is NOT to ‘give up energy use now,’ as you cleverly misdirect. It is to start transitioning immediately and rapidly to cleaner, renewable sources of energy. Thus, your argument of ‘Lost jobs, higher costs’ is specious (that’s polite for BS). New jobs in clean energy will replace jobs in fossil fuels (your industry, perhaps, baron95?).

    2. ‘Higher energy costs’ is also specious, because you’re measuring the cost of turning on the lights. Did you remember to add the cost of the droughts you cause? (check the news) The storms? (How much did Hurricanes Sandy and Katrina cost?) Your plan is getting a whole lot more expensive as we look at it. (Remember, scientists agree that humans are causing global warming – I mean, ‘climate change.’)

    3. One part of your argument is, if everyone doesn’t do it, it won’t work. Since you’re espousing a global-warming-denying viewpoint, I doubt you’ll appreciate what a ‘tipping point’ is; but it basically means, if there’s enough weight on one side of a teeter-totter, things can change big-time. And no, I’m sorry, with the climate I can’t tell you exactly how much weight, or how much time it will take…or how big a change we’re facing, exactly. But the U.S. throws a lot of weight. And time…is…getting…short.

    4. Asking for the specific results is a pointless question in this case – as pointless as asking in the 1960′s, ‘Why should we go to the moon? It costs a lot. Let’s just do other things.’ Nobody in the 60′s could predict that we would have the good things we have today in 2014. Nobody could know how much the space program would REALLY benefit us. Nobody could quantify it (as you’d like). But, some knew that it would really really help. And, fortunately for all of us, they prevailed, and we did it. And now we enjoy the benefits.

    For your case, we can say, without doubt, that it will be really, really bad if we don’t act. ‘How bad’, you’d like to know? ‘Exactly when’, you ask? Sorry, that information is unavailable. But, what part of ‘Really, really bad’ was not clear?

  • Melty

    Disingenuous? No, I am not. RP called for action because the evidence pointed to dangerous interference with the climate system (already, not imminent — see the National Academies report). Sorry — but to have credibility means more than shouting the same thing over and over; and putting scare quotes around words like “scientific” does not remove their meaning. Ask yourself: why would scientists want to scare the public into doing something against their self interest (be it reproduce or drive SUVs)? There are many, many problems that scientists can (and do) occupy themselves with addressing: why would only climatologists be evil, selfish, conniving bastards with a political agenda? No, sorry, that’s just too much of a stretch. You too should strive to be more skeptical.

  • Anonymous

    Who is claiming that scientists are evil? Certainly not me. I’m simply saying that the chairman of the IPCC scientific group, cited by all here as the authority, made a DIRECT, unqualified statement in 2007 that is, on its face, false, politically motivated, alarmist.

    You either believe that after 2012 it is too late to act, or you believe that his statement was false and alarmist. You can’t believe both. It is illogical.

    As to the motivation of the IPCC “scientists”. All of them, and I do mean all of them, have their research grants and/or professional status staked on climate change being human caused and demanding drastic, live style altering changes.

    Tell me, do you believe that the IPCC scientists deliberately played down in their report the potential benefits of global warming, like better food growing potential in Canada, the US and Russia, or the ability to navigate the arctic year round? Do you think they deliberately omitted the science of adaptation – i.e. what technologies should be developed to enable humans to adapt and mitigate the effects of climate change?

    Why? Does that seem balanced to you?

    A balanced report would start with reality. “It is unlikely that fast developing countries like China, India, Russia, Vietnam, would limit their use of cheap/dense fossil energy. Therefore CO2 concentrations, despite best efforts in the West, will continue to increase. In order to prepare, mitigate and adapt to the climate implications, governments and industry should start funding research and make investments in the following areas:

    1 – High altitude chemical reflection of sun light.
    2 – Coastal barriers and or inland relocation.
    3 – Genetic testing of crop variants that can withstand dryer and wetter scenarios.
    4 – etc, etc, etc.

    The second I read at least a small section like this in the IPCC report, I’ll start regarding it as science.

    As of now it is a special interest crusade.

  • Anonymous

    My Uncle James recently got a new black
    Mazda MAZDASPEED3 Hatchback by working at home online. you can try here C­a­s­h­D­u­t­i­e­s­.­ℂ­o­m

  • Anthony Endres

    Calling one-self “Common Sense”, while having NO sense at all but nonsense, “awesome form of ultraconservative American intelligence”?

    I think, you are no mere mentally ill ignorant idiots, you conservative American idiots in full denials.

  • Melty

    Pure deflection and misdirection. RP/IPCC only report what the peer-reviewed published science says. You don’t like that? Take it up with the authors (but you’ll have to argue in the literature, not out here in the blogosphere). I do not know the context of the RP quotation you gave: it is entirely possible that he was providing his personal opinion in response to a journalist’s question. He is allowed to do that, as are you and I — and he is also allowed to be wrong without that fact undermining centuries of scientific research.

    As for credibility: you would have more if you had provided citations from the literature on “the potential benefits of global warming, like better food growing potential in Canada, the US and Russia,” So far, I only see papers that anticipate reduced crop yields from moisture stress and drought. If the benefits did truly outweigh or even balance the negatives over the long term, we would see that stated in the literature — but we do not.

    I look forward to seeing your list of citations.

  • Melty

    Baron, you wrote:

    “Who is claiming that scientists are evil? Certainly not me.”

    Er, why yes, yes you are: a paragraph below that you wrote:

    “As to the motivation of the IPCC “scientists”. All of them, and I do mean all of them, have their research grants and/or professional status staked on climate change being human caused and demanding drastic, live style altering changes.”

    If you cannot see the problem with this, please seek professional help right away.

  • Common Sense

    More insults. Why so much anger?

  • Melty

    Why do you write about “scientists” (with scare quotes)? Just asking. Are you a “person”?

  • Common Sense

    The IPCC is in fact an advocacy group.

  • Melty

    “The IPCC is in fact an advocacy group.”

    Because you say so?

  • Common Sense

    Have you ever taken the time to look at the issues with how the IPCC is set up? Anyone taking an honest look would have to conclude that are trying to drive policy decisions. They aren’t the neutral body that they pretend they are.

  • Anonymous

    OK – so pointing out that human beings have certain motivations is the same thing as calling them evil?

    OK – I’ll seek professional help. Thanks for the “progressive” tip.

  • Dano2

    The IPCC is in fact an advocacy group.

    The Internet Performance Art is strong in this one.

    Best,

    D

  • Melty

    You’re very welcome.

  • Dano2

    They aren’t the neutral body that they pretend they are.

    I heard that if you repeat things a thousand times on The Internets, they become true. How’s it goin’ so far, lad?

    Best,

    D

  • Common Sense

    In real life do you constantly walk up to people that are talking and make rude comments? You are being a troll.

  • Anonymous

    the republican goal is to burn all life off the planet.

  • Anonymous

    for the first time in history 50% of american cars get better than 23 miles to the gallon. this is huge. and much due to Obama raising café standards. nothing like this happened under Bush, seen kissing oil sheiks, during 8 years of gas-guzzling hummers roaming the streets

  • Anonymous

    we are burning 100,000,000 barrels of oil every day, day after day after day. and then on top of that we are burning thousands of tons of coal every day, while removing trees that filter co2 while burning forests and gassing methane with millions of cattle. all this in a closed system. it’s like farting in an elevator. it doesn’t go away

  • Anonymous

    maybe climate change deniers don’t want to take responsibility for their actions. or maybe they dismiss things they don’t understand.

  • macdon166

    Whatever all the chatter, the climate is changing and I watch it happen in my own food gardens. I have been growing food for almost 60 years and I am experiencing change firsthand. With the strange and wild fluctuations in temperature and rainfall, food crops are getting harder and harder to grow successfully. Nothing is dependable, the bad bugs are off the hook and water is scarce. The onions and lettuce bolted in April and the potatoes are looking poorly. And it’s getting worse every year. And oh yes….the weeds are the worst ever.

  • Anonymous

    I have been gardening for 20 years and I’m noticing the same thing. the extreme swings in temperature and precipitation make an already difficult job even harder.

  • Anonymous

    I wonder why the eastern south is not heating up as fast as the rest of the country.

  • Diana Reichardt

    Regardless of our situation we owe it to future generations to a least TRY to do something to curtail the inevitable. If you want to sit on your duff and do nothing so be it. Obviously you don’t really concern yourself with the issue.

  • Anonymous

    I want to do something. I want to make sure the US is the richest, most capable and technologically advanced society it can be, so we are as ready as possible to deal with what you call the “inevitable”. Be it global warming or a comet passing close to earth, a massive volcano eruptions – being rich, and capable, and technologically advanced, with lots of cheap energy is the best insurance.

  • Anonymous

    Buy ADM genetically engineered seeds, use cheap energy to greenhouse your greenhouse your garden and provide constant irrigation, use the best pest control products, and let us know next year the results.

    I.e. things change, you adapt. don’t sit there expecting to use 60 year-old techniques.

    Good luck.

  • Anonymous

    Yes genius, and for the first time in history, the average age of the American car on the road hit a record high of 11.4 years.

    So, your figures are for new cars sold, but because the fuher forced cars to cost so much more with the mandates, Americans are forced to keep older, less safe, less clean cars on the road. Result? The total fleet is more polluting than it would be if cars were less expensive.

  • Jerry

    You will not see any as he is merely a troll

  • Jerry

    Baron is a troll, nothing more. He has no facts, just glib stupidity.

  • Jerry

    Let me see…several hundred million years of CO2 sequestration undone in a couple hundred years…that’s how.

  • David Everett Hinz

    What is the forcast for sustainable forestry? I would imagine it would put an end to forestry as we know it? Where will Americans get their materials?

  • Dorothy Kaltz

    So now that you’ve taken care of the 1% in this country, what happens to the remaining 317,297,900 or 99 percent too poor to access or benefit from technology or buy cheap fuel? To quote Clint Eastwood, “do you feel lucky punk?”. With odds like that, your solution to get rich on gobbling it up does very few people any good.

  • Karen Glammeyer Medcoff

    hemp is sustainable, and takes carbon out of the atmosphere. it’s also quick growing, can be used for everything trees can be used for, and is much better for the environment than cutting down miles of trees that take 20 years t grow back.

  • S. Phillips

    Translation: “Poison your own food and you won’t have to worry about global warming because you’ll already be dead of cancer.”

  • Anonymous

    “baron” says it all – his/her concern is as you point out the one per centers, that do not care about the rest of humanity as long as they have their gold to buy what ever fresh water, air and usable land is left.
    Actually if you read his statement he fits right with that “Ugly American” we’ve all read about – well maybe not all of us.

  • Dan Wood

    Well, the 105 degree days we had here in Columbia last year would beg to differ.

  • Dan Wood

    Way to stay on point there, Wally!

  • Anonymous

    I think that was a dig at the author.

  • Anonymous

    So you deny there’s a greenhouse effect? Wtf?

  • Anonymous

    Unfortunately no, they have to prove the scientific consensus wrong, which they have not done.

  • Anonymous

    Why do you keep lying? At least post the source for your claims.

  • Anonymous

    Your constant deflections away from posting evidence or links to any source that will back up your claims does not help your cause.

  • Washougal Commuter

    lol if you think we’ll become rich enough to buy our way out of future problems. There’s a certain hubris contained in that that is both breath-taking and functionally absurd. It’s not man with nature it is man vs nature and given such a dichotomy it’s likely that nature wins.
    If living conditions are so harsh what’s the point of vast wealth? Your statement is filled with contradictions.

  • Washougal Commuter

    For one who thinks that our solutions rest within the arms of technology it is quite odd that you seem to pick and chose your science. There are studies, scientific studies, that explore the adaptation of species and must species have not /do not tolerate massive climate change in a short time frame. There are two examples off the top of my head the monarch butterfly, and the pine beetle (warming climates the beetle does not die during winter resulting in greater #s of them which is decimating our forest a a rapid rapid pace).
    What would be your fear in accepting global warming were fact and then advocating to do something about it?

  • Washougal Commuter

    Not surprisingly a response is not forth-coming.

  • Washougal Commuter

    I read this thread in dismay. It seems teaching courses in scientific method and rational thought have either suffered or there is a desire for subjective belief to trump objective reality. Facts our facts and sound statistical methodology cannot simply be dismissed because someone does not like the data. Those ignorant of such methodology will retort ‘numbers can be made to support anything’ (a meme, in part, popularized by Mark Twain) but that’s really an untruth that maintains meme like credibility precisely because of a lack of understanding of the scientific method…a self-fulfilling prophecy.
    I would think we’d at least be in a place where we’re debating how best to address global warming and I’m even open to hearing sound scientific data, that has been replicated, that might argue we need to do nothing – yet, to-date, that data does not exist in light of the weight of the evidence before us. But, at least that would be a debate not predicated upon belief systems or faith or manifest by some weird desire to impune science merely because one does not understand it.
    It’s simply bizarre and I have to contemplate how some of our great scientific minds through history would view these dark ages. It doesn’t bode well for us that climate is not the only area subject to this nonsense with greater frequency. We now see this in economic models and advocacy, an inability to address short-comings of capitalism, man-made constructs as Suzuki said, and a belief in so called ‘free markets’ to a degree that simply is not supported by the evidence (just one example being trickle-down economics). That the level of discourse, for climate change, is trying to be maintained at the level of ‘belief’ is disconcerting.

  • Anonymous

    “Do something about it?”

    I’m sorry, but I’m not in the habit of just “doing something about it”. For me to do something about it, that something must be a) effective and b) have a net positive benefit.

    Tell me, of all the things that Obama and Moyers want to do unilaterally, what is the percentage decrease in the pine beetle?

    If you can’t tie the something to a positive result, don’t waste my time. It is just kumbaya feel good accomplish nothing.

    You don’t seem to get it. China, Russia, India, Vietnam, Nigeria, etc WILL use all the cheap carbon energy they can access.

    If you believe in global warning and the IPCC reports that it is too late to reverse, you have to think about the “something” that makes a difference. Not the useless feel good kumbaya.

    I’m very willing to go along with a well formulated, results based approach.

    If Obama or US scientist panel can convincingly say, if the US does X, the economic impact is Y, but the benefit is greater than Y, I’m willing to go for it.

    But I’m not doing X with an unknown economic impact and proven to be zero benefit.

  • Anonymous

    Yep. 1. Global warming doesn’t exist. 2, If it does, man didn’t cause it 3. If man did cause it, it’s too late to do anything about it. 4. It doesn’t matter because the Apocalyptic is upon us anyway.

    Denial denial denial.

  • Anonymous

    Loews.

  • Karen Glammeyer Medcoff

    it does if it’s made into hempcrete. just like papercrete that is heavily used in my town. awesome stuff.

  • Vally Sharpe

    I think you will find that the impact of “global warming,” which is better described as extra-ordinary “climate change,” is in the mirror of this map — the changes in that period known as “winter” in the eastern South. Too many generalizations can be made (or denied) based on a broad general average. No, it hasn’t been substantially warmer, but it has been increasingly cool, in many ways due to the cloud cover and increased rainfall. Think, too, about the parking lot of Atlanta due to a seasonally late snow and ice storm. The reason everyone was so caught off guard was its unpredictability. Meanwhile, though as the gentleman said, Columbia saw 105 degrees, the recent much-later-than-usual freezes in the South took out 30% of the peach crop in South Carolina this year, representing an estimated loss of $27 million to rural farmers. The cold coming off melting glaciers has to go somewhere, along with the encroachment of rising sea levels. Also in S.C., a 26-year-old ban on seawalls may be about to be lifted because homeowners in certain sections of the coastal area are watching as their beach front “yards” are disappearing and protections in place aren’t enough.

  • Anonymous

    So you believe all of the scientists who agree that climate change is real and affected by human activity are wrong? Can I ask what your qualifications are to make that kind of pronouncement?

  • Anonymous

    So if your house is on fire, do you wait until you can study the comparative effects of hose vs. fire extinguisher or do you do whatever you can to put the fire out?

  • Anonymous

    Sorry pal. My house has internet connected fire/smoke detectors, and a central sprinkler system. We have portable escape ladders at both ends on the second floor. And of course we have insurance, off-site backup of all electronic data and fire safes for important papers.

    The research and best technologies to deal with house fires is well known and deployed at our property. We sleep very well at night – thank you.

  • Dano2

    None of your assertions are true. How sad.

    Best,

    D

  • Dano2

    We can’t wait ’til you graduate high school so you can get some facts in college.

    Best,

    D

  • Mary Whisler Maxwell

    Reading all these argumentative comments is just mind-boggling. No wonder the world is in such a state. People argue about every bit of minutia, while the world is falling down all around us. It’s simply impossible to get a quorum in any group of people. We all criticize Congress for that problem, but really… look at this group of people right here. Bicker, bicker, bicker. Are we rallying around? No. Look back in our country’s history at how our parents’ generation worked their way out of the Great Depression, then all pulled together to win a World War. I seriously doubt if that would be possible in these times, because people just can’t quit arguing. P a t h e t i c.

  • Bil Wood

    He read some documents and a book that says it is not real… So there… naaaa naaaa naaaaa boo boo….
    (note he did not tell you what documents or what book or where he got them at) lol lol

  • Dano2

    You need to be more discreet in what you read. For instance, go to the library and read scientific papers.

    Best,

    D

  • Washougal Commuter

    Quote “Tell me, of all the things that Obama and Moyers want to do unilaterally, what is the percentage decrease in the pine beetle?” I outlined the direct impact climate change as relates to the pine beetle. So if warming global temps. were successfully addressed that would have an impact upon the pine beetle. How do you not understand that? You will never do anything if your criteria for action is inaction until all contingencies are known. That is what you said.

  • Washougal Commuter

    Did you intentionally act obtuse regarding his analogy?

  • Roger Priddle

    Wait until an “unusual” storm event takes out your power and internet. Now what are you going to do for your house? Of course, the (non-existant) climate change means that the (non-existant) unusual storm events (that we’re currently seeing) won’t happen, and besides – you have insurance.

    If it were me, I’d have a hose ready. and maybe a fire extinguisher too.

  • mark-o

    What about the things we can control? Piles and piles of evidence prove that we can reduce our contribution to greenhouse gasses. But that would require people to, for one time in human history, make a choice that money is not the most precious thing we have. steak101 seems like one of those who will have a big old stash of cash to sit on while we all watch the whole thing go down the toilet.

  • mark-o

    Sorry, but no, that is just blatantly false. The vast, vast majority of scientists say humans are both the cause and the solution to planetary destruction. Turn off Faux news and get some real research.

  • steak 101

    read the last line in this yahoo document – http://news.yahoo.com/catastrophic-collapse-west-antarctic-ice-sheet-begins-200640377.html We can do some things to lessen whatever the sun and nature will do but it will only slow down the process. BTW the US is lessening its green house output. Too bad the 3rd world countries are not helping! For your information I am 74, retired, living in a 3rd world country that is hot, hot, hot. You need to lighten up and smell the roses. AND I don’t have a pile of cash!

  • Dan Wild

    How many? Eliminating the use of wood in typical construction and paper alone would probably put us pretty close to sustainable, no?

  • JJ042804

    Nature can handle a act of Nature, but do you think it’s a act of nature cutting down all the Forest throughout the World. The Forests are our primary Oxygen producer. Cutting down our Forests without rebuilding them is like strangling yourself. Then our Fossil Fuel industry is blowing Tons and Tons of CO2 into our Atmosphere and not enough Tree’s there to process all of that. You can’t live on a Planet that has a high volume of CO2, or you could live on Mars without a Space Suit. If you don’t believe me, you can sit in a large Room and I blow a large amount of CO2 in the Room. Then you can find out for yourself, but I doubt you will be alive to talk about that experience.

  • JJ042804

    We need to get Forests back!

  • JJ042804

    Recycled Paper!

  • Anonymous

    So show me that 1700 year old baseline.

  • Rusty Jewell

    How do you know what is “in equilibrium” for the earth? Perhaps the earth has been OUT of equilibrium which enabled humans to inhabit earth and it is going back to what is truly its natural state. Think about it. Who has been here longer? Earth or humans?