Global Warming???

User Forum Topic
Submitted by LostCat on February 16, 2007 - 10:15am

I heard on Rock 105.3 in the afternoon yesterday that they were making light of the whole global warming issue. Joking about how the national meeting on it got canceled because an ice storm in the area where they were going to have it. The two dumbshits on the radio Clint and BC laughed about it and explained that the whole global warming thing is a farce...

Maybe if they took a minute to get off their lawn chair in front of their house in Santucky (Santee), they’d understand one thing. The melting point of water (or ICE) at 1 atmosphere of pressure is very close [1] to 0 °C (32 °F, 273.15 K), this is also known as the ice point.

Now think of the polar caps. All they have to do is change temperature by 1 degree and they start melting. So yeah, Kentucky, Indiana, Colorado, etc can have a very cold day or a week, but at the end of the year, if the artic and Antarctic polar caps have heated up by one degree, then we’ll have that much more melt to deal with in our oceans. Once the polar caps start to slide from land and into the water, the sea will rise substantially.(Polar Caps can be up to 4-miles deep in some areas) So if those two dumbasses think for one second they have the luxury to ignore 1,000s of scientist and joke about it on a regional radio station that influences many of people that are completely as un educated as them, they should wake up and get a real job. Joke all they want, but they're the joke.

Submitted by North County Native on February 16, 2007 - 10:36am.

I'm sorry but I don't agree with you.

This is also a site about real estate and this post really shouldn't be here, but I figured that the other side needs to be told.

Who are these thousand's of scientists? The scientists that my husband and I know do not subscribe to the global warming THEORY. It is still just a theory - not a fact! The media presents it in a way that absolutely panics people. There are thousands of scientists who don't agree with global warming. I'll ask one of my scientist friends to give me some more information.

Its also important to know that our world has natural climate cycles. Did you know that volcanic activity can make a difference in that? Many times a great eruption has evened out the climate again and got the temperatures back on track.

Humans until only very recently have had the ability to measure the atmospheric temps, emissions, gasses and oceanic info. We really are just learning about it.

I agree that we need to be more enviornmentally aware and do something about our pollution so maybe we should be going after the auto manufacturers who have the technology for us to get better mpg. We also need to do more with nuclear energy. (Oh no! Did I just open another can of worms!) Nuclear energy is very safe and we need more nuclear power plants. Oh wait - that's almost impossible with the bureaucrats in Washington!

Submitted by LostCat on February 16, 2007 - 11:19am.

Yes I know all that and all I am saying is can we as a population afford to ignore it.

Yeah, Krakatoa change global temperatures over night and force the world into a three year ice age.. Yeah, things can change quickly..

Well, if you think that you can take the risk of ignoring what is going on, then do it. Like the housing market, I won't say I told you so. We also have over 600,000 years of temperature and c02 data locked away inside our polar caps that have been studied. Anyhow, you are right about this being about the housing market. I just pissed off when those two dipshits start making comments on things they know nothing about. We could depate this for hours. I studied climate in college, so it's your gamble on who you want to believe.

Submitted by juice (not verified) on February 16, 2007 - 11:30am.

Even if there is a 90% chance we are causing global warming, as the UN group of over 2500 leading scientists believe, I am not certain that it should be the most pressing issue we need to concern ourselves with. Instead, why don't we concern ourselves with the poisons that are entering our bodies via polluted rivers, polluted air, and the use of thousands and thousands of household and industrial chemicals that are approved for use without any long term studies as to their impact on human health. My brother in law has a PHd in chemistry and I am amazed at the examples he has cited for me of common household sprays and insect repellants that have chemicals, that once in the body, never leave and actually cause internal damage to the organs of small mammals. National Geographic just did a piece on this very same issue.

BTW, this site is about housing, but there is the off topic area where things like this are posted all the time so don't feel like you can't bring this stuff up!

Submitted by FormerSanDiegan on February 16, 2007 - 11:42am.

LostCat - I agree with you that on average the global temperature is rising, and glaciers (particularly in temperate regions) have receded dramatically over the last 50-100 years, and that man has had a hand in this. But some of your facts are a little sloppy and may take away from your message. Since you studied this in college you probably know the following, but they could be misconstrued from your post.

Once the polar caps start to slide from land and into the water, the sea will rise substantially.(Polar Caps can be up to 4-miles deep in some areas)
When you say polar ice caps you are really only talking about the Antarctic and Greenland Glaciers. The ice on the other pole in the Arctic (north) is actually Sea Ice and is typically a few meters thick at most. This ice is constantly moving around on top of the Arctic Ocean The north polar ice cap is not 4-miles deep, contrary to the Santa Claus myth.

Now think of the polar caps. All they have to do is change temperature by 1 degree and they start melting.
This is not the same as the air temperature changing by 1 degree and is misleading. If the air temperature is -20, a one-degree increase in air temperature will not cause melting. Since the air temperature in both the Arctic Antarctic, and Greenland is well below zero most of the time it matters more how much incoming solar radiation there is, so temperature is only one component. Length of the warm season and decay of the freezing season, (changes to which have been observed and documented from satellite time series) amounts of snow fall, and amount of incoming solar radiation may be more important than the average air temperature.

I like your message and enthusiasm, just don't give detractors any ammo to shoot it down. Also, this was posted in the Off-Topic forum where virtually anything goes.

Submitted by sdnativeson on February 16, 2007 - 12:44pm.

LOL, go away for a little time and the chickenlittles proliferate.
It never ceases to surprise me how intelligent people can be so under-informed. My time in country is brief, so I'll provide a single link for those here whose sources appear to be either those promting hype ("hollywood" science) or others with an political agenda. Therefore, they might be able to appreciate it (the link) as it's "easy listening".

That is, if they are not blinded by prejudice.

For some it will be hard, but don't bother insulting my (and indirectly your own) intelligence by spewing out "Denialist" labels. I am not, and have not ever said that pollution of our environment is not a serious concern, I disagree it's a cause of a natural climate phenonemon that people are trying to associate it with.

So heres goes, a different "mtv generation" source;

http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speeches/...

To those who try to exercise an open mind consider this:

"Thus, the task is, not so much to see what no one has yet seen; but to think what nobody has yet thought, about that which everybody sees."

Submitted by gold_dredger_phd on February 16, 2007 - 12:47pm.

The climate has always been changing. The last 10000 years have been anomolously static in terms of temperature and weather. Strange that this period would coincide with the rise of agriculture.

I don't think this post belongs on a housing blog unless you were going to comment on how if you bought beachfront property, your grandkids would be flooded out of their house in the year 2100.

The sea level has risen in the last hundred years, by about a foot, and the overall temperature has warmed by 0.7 degrees Celsius. I don't see any disasters or mass starvation caused by this.

This whole global warming drum beating by the liberals and their fellow travelers in the media is just an attempt to foist one-world government on the prosperous countries and introduce socialism again.

Funny how after the Soviet Union collapsed that environmentalism has been making a huge comeback. I'm sure peasants in China who make less than $1 per day are going to be worried what the weather's like in the year 2100.

The wealthy and trustafarians have nothing to worry about or no purpose in their lives so they manufacture disaster scenarios and travel the world bleating about the end of the world unless we all stop sinning (using fossil fuels).

Environmentalism is a religion. God is no longer fashionable among the left, so they have to have something to believe in. The collapse of the Soviet Union left a big ideological vacuum and it had to be filled.

Scientists measure things and try to extrapolate from current data and theories. Scientists who are interested in political careers spout off to the New York Times and anyone else who will listen about what will happen to humanity unless their predictions are taken seriously.

As far as the weather goes, I'd be much more worried about an Ice Age than warming temperatures.

Submitted by ranger rob on February 16, 2007 - 12:47pm.

Woa there hombre. Let me see if I understand what you are saying....You are saying that you want me to believe a science FICTION writer over peer reviewed science by our most accomplished scientists... OK, yes I must be the dumb one with the aggenda...LOL

Here is an idea Einstein.... if you screw up this planet's environment with your politics... where are you going to live?

Submitted by sdnativeson on February 16, 2007 - 1:01pm.

Al Gore - it works both ways RB and, my "politics" aren't involved. Regardless, his credentials are likely more impeccable than your own or Al's. Still, my intent was for those who aren't lost in their opinions to look into the sources he uses, which are a good introduction. As I said it's easy listening, therefore meant for the superficially influenced.

gold_dredger, well said.

Submitted by North County Jim on February 16, 2007 - 12:57pm.

Lost Cat, it could very well be a farce for all we know. The sad truth is that the science is not there to support any conclusions about human activity and planetary warming.

I have a graduate degree in atmospheric sciences so I know a little bit about the nature of the research. However, I am not claiming to be a climate expert.

All of the evidence for human-induced warming comes from numerical models. The output from these models is wholly dependent on how the modeler sets up his/her model.

In my view, there are two very important flaws in climate models.

1. The physical processes determining climate are poorly understood. How much heat is absorbed by the oceans? What other heat sinks are there and to what degree do they affect climate? It's an extremely non-linear process.

2. The output of these models cannot be verified because of the time scales involved. Short-term modeling results can always be verified. Long-term modeling with a time scale of centuries cannot be verified. To act on their results is nothing but a leap of faith.

I personally don't believe retooling our economy (a multi, multibillion dollar effort) based on some model output is the way to go.

It appears I'm not alone in that assessment. Here's alink to the Byrd-Hagel resolution. Please read and discuss. It will tell you why Kyoto never made it to the Senate for ratification.

Submitted by PerryChase on February 16, 2007 - 1:06pm.

Global warming or not, it's a good idea to be environmentally conscious, if only so we have a more pleasant, beautiful and enjoyable environment to live in.

If the threat of global warming spurs us to do things cleanly, then all the better.

The treat of terrorism is causing us to watch out backs. Global warming can likewise cause us to be clean and tidy with our "waste."

I agree with juice that we need to watch how we pollute our bodies with all kinds of chemicals.

Submitted by sdnativeson on February 16, 2007 - 1:11pm.

Sorry, can't edit my post,

ranger bob, "peer reviewed science by our most accomplished scientists... OK, yes I must be the dumb one with the aggenda"

I would be careful about a statement like that, at least you did qualify it.

Submitted by LostCat on February 16, 2007 - 1:18pm.

Thanks, everyone. The only relationship global warming has to the housing market is the simple fact that the tech being developed to combate global warming will me the new economy here for America. We need to develop it so we can have a new item to sell to the world to keep our economy going. In the meantime, it will help make the blue skys bluer and our lungs feel a little better. So what is the harm in believing in global warming vs not? None.. It's a good think all around.

Submitted by juice (not verified) on February 16, 2007 - 1:22pm.

Exactly Perry -

There are things we can do do clean up environment, improve our own health and reduce death and disease caused by pollution. EG: I was in the Rockies last year, driving down on I70 to Denver from the mountains, and the skyline in Denver was thick with a dark layer of smog. I'm sure that getting rid of that pollution would reduce asthma cases, respiratory problems, deaths and in the event the majority of scientists out there are actually right, it might actually have a small impact on preventing global warming.

Submitted by JJGittes on February 16, 2007 - 1:27pm.

Its settled. Has been for decades. End of discussion.

http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

Submitted by La Jolla Renter on February 16, 2007 - 1:54pm.

If half the worlds PHDs, Al Gore and his Dems are right...

Clint and BC might be sitting in their beach chairs in Santee tossing back a few Buds enjoying there multi million dollar ocean front estates.

Submitted by juice (not verified) on February 16, 2007 - 2:02pm.

And so the debate finally connects back to the housing market after all:)

Submitted by no_such_reality on February 16, 2007 - 2:12pm.

Woa there hombre. Let me see if I understand what you are saying....You are saying that you want me to believe a science FICTION writer over peer reviewed science

Crichton does an excellent job of footnoting his references, all of which are valid scientific resources.

Glaciers are melting, yes, how much detailed information do we have? little actually. California has several hundreds glaciers. How many do we have a decent ice flow data on? Virtually none.

Submitted by ranger rob on February 16, 2007 - 2:24pm.

Woa, there again. Any Tom Dick or Gary with or without a PHD can write a scientific paper. Three words "Peer Reviewed Science".

By the way... have you passed the GED yet... don't worry... you'll get it the next time.. LOL

Submitted by sdnativeson on February 16, 2007 - 3:36pm.

I'm still not following your logic RB. Are you saying that once I pass the GED I'll be your intellectual peer?

Submitted by ranger rob on February 16, 2007 - 3:41pm.

sdn

Make no mistake. You will NEVER be my intellectual peer.

Submitted by sdnativeson on February 16, 2007 - 3:48pm.

LOL, a fact that I am fully cognizant of.

Submitted by Easy Town on February 16, 2007 - 3:54pm.

There is probably never going to be a 100% air tight case for either side of this issue. That's why it is called a "theory of global warming." You have a theory that has relevant evidence supporting it - just like the theory of evolution. There is a lot of not insignificant evidence that points to our actions contributing to an obvious warming trend this century and the rise of the industrial age. Maybe we are not the complete cause of whatever is happening, but there is no reason to doubt we are capable of making it worse - given the evidence that exists.

If a single volcanic eruption can change the global climate noticeably, then why can't the negligent yearly creation of billions of tons of emissions by us cause noticeable changes as well?

It would be great if critics of this theory would come up with evidence to at least credibly refute the evidence linking our emissions to its affect on the climate. It seems that mostly I hear critics saying:

- we are not capable of doing that
- I am a scientist, and it just is not true
- it cannot be modelled perfectly, so you cannot say it exists
- my friends who are scientists think it bunk
- it's a conspiracy
- blah, blah, blah
- XYZ's article disproves it

These are meaningless statements that do not offer us any good alternative viewpoint. Why don't the critics provide us with information showing that atmospheric carbon dioxide has had rates of growth during previous climate cycles anywhere equivalent to the past 100 years. Why don't they provide us with information showing that carbon dioxide does not have a tendency to trap heat. Why don't they show that we are not really pumping billions of tons of pollutants into the air each year.

I would rather error on the side of caution and give some merit to the theory that we are affecting the climate cycle. The cost of making significant changes are not that great that it will cause us any hardship. Besides, there are numerous advantages to taking action that have nothing to do with global warming. Less pollution in our cities, fewer health problems, and renewable energy. Most importantly, cutting our energy dependence on other countries would be in the best interest of all of us.

It's just like a trial. Everyone can pull an expert out of their ass to prove their point. We do not have a picture showing the actual crime and who did it, but we sure do have a lot of items pointing to who at least one of the accomplices were - us.

Submitted by FutureSDguy on February 16, 2007 - 4:29pm.

Its refreshing to see some saner minds jump into this debate. With NBC News continually hammering "Global Warming and what we can do about it" into our minds every week, its no wonder that people are all too willing to throw science out the window and take anthrogenic (man-made) global warming as a given.

The IPCC, International Panel for Climate Change, part of UN, came up with a report that was largely written by 20 scientists. The other thousands are basically of hand-picked scientists, chosen apriori for their beliefs about Global Warming. Dissenters were not allowed to join. So much for healthy skepticism, critical thinking, and weighing multiple theories.

The IPCC was behind the deliberate manipulation of data to acheive what they wanted to show, an exponential rise in temperature in the last century (popularly known as the "hockey stick.") Tree ring records that favored global warming were factored in the data, but magnified 370 times, while data that included the medieval warming period--which contradicted the agenda--was censored out. A later review found that with the tree ring data along with completely made-up (random) data still resulted in the hockey stick, hence proving nothing. So this graph was used to get nations on board to sign the Kyoto Treaty, a trillion dollar proposal to solve a non-existant problem. Scary stuff.

The UN tries to pull a snowjob to get the masses to believe that man-made CO2 is causing global warming, despite ice-core readings showing that CO2 rise happens after temperature rise (sometimes as much as 800 years), and despite there is no physical proof that CO2 reflects infrared back to the surface.

Climate scientists tend to be poor physicists. I could not find any material that shows laboratory demonstrations of CO2 reflection. In fact, electromagnetic radiation of all kinds reflect through colorless materials when there is a phase transition, i.e. gas-to-solid. That's why clouds (water vapor) act as a green house gas.

95% of green house gases is water vapor. CO2 is second, and only a tiny fraction of it is man-made. In fact, .28% of all green house gases is man-made.

Greenland. It's called that because it once *was* green. In the 1400's, the Vikings colonized the area and became farmers. But global cooling set in and farmland became frozen over with permafrost. This cooling is called the Maunder Minimum.

We are coming out of a mini-ice age. The rate of temperature rise over the last century is relatively dramatic (0.8 degrees C), but this sort of temperature rise has been seen in geological records.

The medieval warming period brought temperatures that were even warmer than we see at the present. Either the horses upon which the Knights rode emitted lots of CO2, or the temperature change was natural.

As a previous poster said, we are just beginning to understand climate and we only recently really paid attention to temperature.

Someone once noticed that when sunspots become numerous the price of wheat fell (due to surplus). While that was a casual observation, it later suggests a link between sunspots and temperature. Scientists, the honest ones who aren't paid by politicians, are still in the process of understanding it, and thankfully using the scientific method to validate their hypotheses.

Personally, I have always believed in the Occam's Razor: the simplest explanation tends to be the correct one. Applying that here, the simplest explanation for global warming is that the sun is getting warmer. After doing some research, I found that the increase in solar radiance hasn't increased that much to account for temperature change, but what is striking is the sunspot record. Using Beryllium-10 measurements, they have determined that sunspots actually completely disappeared for a long stretch of time, right smack during the Maunder Minimum! (Enjoy a video on this: http://capnbob.us/blog/?p=610). The actual link isn't clear (to me at least), but there is evidence that the increase in cosmic rays resulting from sunspots give rise to low-level clouds on earth, which does warm the surface.

This kind of real science is coming out of the woodworks, folks. Some scientists even predict a return to colder temperatures by 2025. I don't know exactly will happen and I'm not trying to put my weight against any particular theory (I'm only a curious person in search of truths). But what I do know is that the current antrogenic global warming is based on junk science and the amount of counter-evidence against it is quite abundant.

LostCat, who seems lost in more ways than one, said that as a population we can't [typo correction mine] afford to ignore it.

Whether we ignore it, can afford to ignore it, or can't afford to ignore it, it doesn't matter when global warming is natural.

Submitted by kewp on February 16, 2007 - 4:32pm.

Well, I think this is somewhat on-topic for this board. After all, take a look at New Orleans/Florida and see what environmental catastrophe can to do to real estate!

Heck, look here. Remember the fires of years past? Global warming means longer, drier summers and a higher overall risk of this.

Our coastal development is entirely dependent on the status quo, even a small rise in ocean levels is going to seriously damage many communities.

Something that doesn't get brought up enough in this debate is our water sources. SD is relies on the Colorado river, which in turn is fed by winter ice pack. Which is declining, year after year.

Submitted by FutureSDguy on February 16, 2007 - 4:47pm.

Easy Town: "Why don't the critics provide us with information showing that atmospheric carbon dioxide has had rates of growth during previous climate cycles anywhere equivalent to the past 100 years."

Why don't you just look at the data. Here's a start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-t...

(Notice that temperature rise precedes CO2 rise, which is opposite of what environmentalists would like to have in order to support their agenda.)

"Why don't they provide us with information showing that carbon dioxide does not have a tendency to trap heat."

Why don't the scientists in support of AGW show that CO2 *does* have a tendanacy to trap heat? This is a theory that came out of seeing correlations between CO2 and temperature, but correlation does not mean causation.

But if you want a refutation, here is one: http://freenet-homepage.de/klima/indexe.htm. Too bad that energy of scientists have to be spent on refuting junk science instead of devoting time discovering truths.

"Why don't they show that we are not really pumping billions of tons of pollutants into the air each year."

Nobody disputes that. Reducing emissions will result in cleaner air--that's easy to show. But will it result in cooling the Earth? (BTW, smog cools the Earth, so perhaps we should be polluting more, not less!)

Most of people only hear the anthrogenic global warming stuff, and assume its skeptics are ignorant. This is lazy. There is plenty of material out there that refutes AGW if you turn off your TV, take time away from your hippie friends, and go look for it.

You're not a hippie? So sorry. We all make grand assumptions don't we?

Submitted by sdnativeson on February 16, 2007 - 4:50pm.

The critics have ET. If you haven't seen their data then you are looking in the wrong places. At least you started out acknowleding it as a theory (mostly) until your last sentence.

I disagree with your statement of "the cost of making significant changes are not that great that it will cause us any hardship" If we just started with now what is the "minimum" effort which is signing Kyoto which will cost conservately tens of billions of dollars in the very least and offers miniscule benefits that you will not see in your lifetime.

In the meantime the ramifications of implementing these "protocols" and intiatives reaches far beyond us in So.Cal discussing when the housing market drops enough that we can buy a nice house for only(!) 250,000.00. The majority of the world couldn't comprehend our "reality". My point? If someone is subsisting on a couple of dollars a day and is starving, do you think they are concerned about global warming?

Environmentalism is big business, the same as oil and if you look both carefully and objectively you can see their message is flawed - by the premise that they can manage or preserve nature (life) itself. Question their message and claims! Go travel in a third world country, get off the manicured beach or the trendy little tourist enclaves and see how much good the environmental lobby did by blackmailing governments to stop using ddt.

So much to say and write about this but space and time will not allow it. All I can say is do your homework and look at both sides, and when you're done look at it from a perspective other than environmental and repeat the process. I hope some here will do that, it's sad to see intelligent people behave like sheep.

Submitted by kewp on February 16, 2007 - 4:49pm.

Wow, futureSDguy, I am actually impressed.

I've never seen more mis-information in one post in my lifetime. You should consider a career with the Bush administration.

"Climate scientists tend to be poor physicists. I could not find any material that shows laboratory demonstrations of CO2 reflection. In fact, electromagnetic radiation of all kinds reflect through colorless materials when there is a phase transition, i.e. gas-to-solid. That's why clouds (water vapor) act as a green house gas."

Wow. Just wow.

You have completely contradicted the entire field of quantum chromodynamics. I expect your nobel prize in physics is forthcoming? This is sarcasm, btw.

Submitted by sdnativeson on February 16, 2007 - 5:16pm.
Submitted by hebetude on February 16, 2007 - 6:14pm.

THEORY VS. FACT

Hi all, I've been reading your posts on housing for the last few weeks and have really enjoyed the information. This is my first post and I find it strange that it is not about housing, but I digress....

Theory vs Fact:

Apologists usually will point out that something is Theory and not Fact when they want to confuse the general public about certain issues. When they lack their own data to argue a point, they like to bring doubt to the other side's argument by saying that it is "just a theory".

In science the term Theory means a working idea of how an observed phenomena or fact is happening. One well understood example of this concept is gravity.

Fact: The apple falls from the tree to the ground

Theory #1: Newton says it is because of a force called Gravity between two bodies, hence the apple falls.

Theory #2: Einstein says, what force? The Gravity of the Earth warps space-time and the apple is merely traveling through the curved space-time.

Both theories are correct and explain the observed phenomena in a measured repeatable way. You can see how two "theories" are describing how a particular observation or fact may be explained.

In Evolution Theory, we observe species change over time through the fossil record and in real time through viruses and bacteria. The Darwinian Theory of Natural Selection is then an attempt to explain why we observe the above phenomena.

Hence in Global Warming we observe that the ice caps are melting at a faster rate than previously known, the global temp is rising etc... etc... One theory is of course it's all natural cycles, which really is really like saying it's just suppose to be this way, but we don't really know that either. The other is that we humans are the major cause.

What lends the latter theory some real credibility is that NOW we humans are a real force of nature ourselves, because of our huge population and ever growing fossil fuel usage. It certainly can be a coincidence that the rise in CO2 and Temperature rise just happens to coincide with our Industrial Revolution over the last 100 years. But considering that we impact the planet in a measurable way and the timing of it all is so convenient to our fossil fuel usage, the human caused global warming theory has a lot of merit.

Just FYI, thanks all.

Submitted by 1jrp1 on February 16, 2007 - 6:20pm.

To all the climate change doubters:

I find it disheartening that otherwise intelligent people would buy into the "climate change is just a hoax" idea.

Fact: Most of the rise in CO2 during the last century has been tied to fossil fuel burning.

Fact: Extra CO2 in the atmosphere will warm the planet

Fact: Extra CO2 in the atmosphere will change the chemistry of the ocean.

Fact: The vast majority of climate scientists are telling you we have a major problem with human-induced climate change. I personally know several climate scientists and know them to be meticulous, honest people.

Facts that will affect housing:

Fact: Global warming will raise sea-levels.

Fact: Global warming will change precipitation patterns. Many experts think the water situation for California and the Southwest is likely to be severe.

Fact: Global warming is very likely to increase the frequency and severity of major hurricaines hitting the US.

Fact: My parents' home insurance in Long Island was recently not renewed by their insurance company "because they live within 2 miles of the ocean."

Now, you can ignore what the climate scientists are telling you. You can ignore what the insurance companies are telling you. You can ignore the potential staggering enviromental and economic costs that will wrack this country. But climate change doesn't care what you think. It will happen anyway.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.