Since our society can’t stop arguing about the cause, perhaps we should devote a few minutes to talk about how we are going to deal with the changes that ARE happening and the changes we will have to make to survive in a globally warming world. An example is Peru which is having to deal disappearing glaciers. Here is an article on the same subject from two years ago.

  1. Peter Czepiel says:

    Those that study climate change are well aware of the causes. The problem is that the solutions will have temporary economic impacts. One thing is certain in the U.S.; no one, especially not a politician, is willing to
    trade short term sacrifice for long term stability.

  2. What an interesting point of view — trying to decide how to deal with change instead of trying to apportion blame for the change!

    That asside, we know exactly how the problem will be dealt with: people will move, other people will die, still other people will hold a war. Maybe Bob Geldoff will hold a concert series.

  3. R Taylor says:

    Heck John people are going to deal with global climate change the way they always have, move out the way or die. At the present rate of scientific advancement the human race is still hundreds of years away from harnessing the levels of energy required to reverse planetary climate changes. It’s too late. It is possible that if those Antarctic ice sheets suddenly let go it will quickly curb human industrial output for a few centuries.

  4. Sounds the Alarm says:

    Now the big Duhbya said to me that global warming is just a theory. Since the religious right says he was chosen by Jesus to be President, it must be true!

  5. Smith says:

    What drives me crazy about any climate debate is the steadfast belief in a static world: as it was in my youth, is the way it should be, and any changes since then are man made.

    The entire ozone hole debate was based upon 30 years of observation. We established what was “normal” for our planet, for its entire 3 billion-year history, based upon 30 years of observation. Absurd!

    But the 1987 Montreal Protocol was no big deal. So what if it cost U.S. industry few hundred billion dollars over a decade — that’s not even a speed bump for our economy.

    But the 1997 Kyoto Protocol is a different animal altogether. It requires the U.S. to reduce its greenhouse gas emission by 7% below the 1990 level. Since our emissions today are actually 13% higher than at 1990, we would need to cut our emissions — or in other words, our power consumption — by 20% in order to comply.

    That isn’t a speed bump, that’s a brick wall! Sort of like the rolling blackouts they have in Iraq.

    Abundant Energy = Economic Growth

    The booming economy of the 90’s wasn’t caused by internet growth. It was caused by cheap energy, which freed up capital for internet investment. The dot-com bubble burst when energy growth couldn’t keep pace with the economic growth. If you doubt this, then just answer this question: Which came first, the rolling blackouts in California or the bubble burst? (Granted, the entire bubble was based upon shaky investments, but cheap energy generated the capital for stupid investments.) Also, look at the stagnant economy for the last 5 years and then look at what has been going on with energy costs.

    Of course, we could actually bring our country into compliance with the Kyoto Protocol if we doubled the number of nuclear power plants and phased out a third of our coal plants. But that wouldn’t involve any behavioral change and “sacrifice”, so it isn’t acceptable to the environmental religion.

  6. Max K says:

    Another effect of global warming, this one is more immediate:

  7. RT says:

    We’re screwed. We did it. It’s our fault. We are squeezing as much as our greedy little fingers can get from our planet… it’s like an addiction. We love to take all that we can and then complain about having it taken away from us. You’d think we would learn by now that we should shut up and develop some better practices. But somehow our society still loves our Hummers that are too pathetically monsterous to even have its MPG listed on its sticker – I guess if they did post the 8 mpg, they’d sell out too fast. Damn, I’m glad they changed the name to Global Climate Change… I’m feeling a lot better already.
    Here’s another example of our future…,12996,1546825,00.html

  8. AB CD says:

    The Antarctic ice sheet is actually getting thicker with increasing volume, even though the area is decreasing. Hurricanes were more frequent in the early 1900s than they are now.

  9. Teyecoon says:

    Yeah, that’s the American way…just ignore the damning data and evidence that tells you that your actions are causing problems. Heck, scientists could prove beyond any doubt that this was true and people like this still wouldn’t care or would just write it off as God’s will and continue on with their asnine destructive methods and habits.

    Who cares anyway, we can just switch to nuclear power and over time, I’m sure we’ll get used to the caustic burning effects of radiation and the large bulbous tumors that we develop from the environmental contamination of all the “disposed” depleted uranium.

    The only redemption for these ignorant people that live for the moment will be some sort of earth destroying calamity such as a meteor hitting this planet in the next 10-20 years. Oh well, I don’t have any kids and I’ll likely be dead before this planet becomes a complete inhabitable hell. BTW, it’s kind of ironic how most religious Republicans are so inclined by their ideas and beliefs to be self-fulfilling contributors to the “apocolyptic” prophecy which religion tends to reference. I guess that if they make it come true then it gives more creedence to the authenticity of the bible.

  10. Steve says:

    The problem is that global warming activists scientists can’t come up with a general climate model that, when fed historical data, simulates today’s conditions (much less medieval conditions). There’s this little thing called the scientific method that suggests that results must be reproducible. If you can’t build models that can predict the present, how can you base public policy decisions on them? Oh, you just conveniently ignore those holes and offer “suggestive” evidence that fits your hypothesis.
    But don’t take my word on it. Here are some obviously kooky scientists who don’t worship at the altar of global warming. And Jerry Pournelle – a sci-fi writer and a scientist – has an interesting thread devoted to the topic on his site


Bad Behavior has blocked 5310 access attempts in the last 7 days.