This is the Face of Global Warming

As severe storms and the resultant flooding continue to batter the Midwest with deadly results, the media is filled with scary stories of the destruction and misery being inflicted. We see headlines about 300,000 Chicagoans without power, state of emergency declarations across four other states, dozens killed by storms from Texas to Minnesota, flooded interstates, and thousands of flooded homes and businesses. It's now commonplace to see news footage of people being rescued off their rooftops, many saying goodbye to their homes for good.

But no news outlet has had the courage to state the obvious: This is the face of global warming. This is it. While no single weather event can be directly pinned to global warming, these are the predictions of the world's best scientist come to terrifying life. Scientists are certain that these deadly events will only become more common -- and more extreme -- as the earth continues to heat up. More intense rainfall, more extreme flooding, more crippled infrastructure and unsanitary conditions, more homes and businesses lost. More, more, more...

These glimpses from storm-ravaged Middle America ought to be a wake-up call. How many more American lives must be lost and property destroyed for this administration to take action?

What will the next pictures look like? Blackouts? Looting? Riots?

Will it have to reach the level of Southeast Asia, where the worst floods in recent memory have affected an estimated 28 million people? In Bangladesh at least 678 are dead and over 50,000 are suffering from flood-related diseases -- millions more now find themselves homeless.

What's it going to take for this White House to act? I hope not that.

Karl Rove should do one last thing before he heads back to Texas to spend more time with his family, bailing out his own flooded basement: he should have the courage to demand that the administration face this problem and DO SOMETHING.

Stopglobalwarming.org

Comments

[Lane]

"How many more American lives must be lost and property destroyed for this administration to take action?"
This administration do something???? hahahahaha
Thanks for todays chuckle!!!!!

[Donald Wolberg]

It is wonderful that peolple who are usually concerned about less substantive matters take to hear causes and undoubtedly feel deeply about them. However, it is equally important that they take some time and expend effort to go beyond the superficial or the "popular" and excercise critical review of those claims or beliefs especially those that are of the moment. The recent terrible storms in the Midwest and elsewhere have caused significant damage and horrible loss of life. The temptation may be to ascribe these storms to "popular wisdom" phenomena such as global warming. There is some confusion in the minds of people between "weather" and "climate" and a temptation to see these through the prism of distorted lenses of belief and not science.

Planet Earth has been here about 4.6 billion years--that is a very long time indeed. In that time, long term weather patterns, climates, have come and gone and ever changed much as the very distribution of land and sea, ice and no ice, warm and cold. There is no "correct" or "best" climate for this world and, indeed, for most of those 4.6 billion years, the world has been warm and ice free. For lengthy periods of time, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have been exceeding high (as compared to now), even 8-10 times the current levels. More disturbing, I suggest, is the extent to which oxygen levels have fluctuated during Earth history, from much more oxygen to much less, with the expected results seen in living organisms during those times. We can do perfectly well with 10 times as much carbon dioxide as now, but would be in a serious fix if oxyegen were halved.

I would suggest that Ms David (and others) would be much less worried and much calmer, if they took the time to read a good history of planet Earth over the last 4.6 billion years, or took an introductory course in Earth history at a local campus.

[veracitatus]

Donald,

Perhaps you should take your own advice. If you truly studied the geological and biological history of the earth you would realize that the rate of the current temperature rise is unprecedented.

Your points are sophomoric at best.

V.

[unfrozencaveman]

No.

If you read the report released by the national academy of sciences you would see that the temperature record confidence interval is VERY small. We have 150 years of direct temperature record. We have high confidence for about 500 years prior due to strong historical records. Beyond that we have decent proxies (tree rings, ice core samples) for another 500-1000 years max. Beyond that it gets very sketchy.

The earth has a 4.5 billion history. The samples that were taken from ice cores from 100's of thousands of years ago are weak proxies. What we're trying to say is the rate of temperature rise over the past 30 years is unprecidented. Unprecidented compared to what? If you mean the last few hundred years then yes. But that is a blink of an eye in the history of the earth's climate.

[yellowdogSC]

DW,

Two point, each made repeatedly in the prior comments,

Never in history have climate changes occurred so QUICKLY.

What book do I read to discover how the Earth handled over 6 BILLION greedy, destructive bastards in the past?

If you can point to any book that covers BOTH these issues, I WILL do my utmost to read it.

Thank you.

[cyberfarer]

I would think that thirty years from now, when asked how such a catastrophe could be allowed to happen, today's deniers, like the the Good Germans of last century, will claim "we didn't know!"

But we do know.

As a species, we are approaching a perfect ecological storm. Climate change, water scarcity, and energy depletion will all be converging upon us simultaneously. And that's just a start.

We are also to be confronted with depleted fisheries, dead and dying coral reefs, loss of habitat and species extinction, and planetary deforestation. The last item, ironically, is being accelerated in order to provide fuel crops to continue the destructive and unsustainable automobile culture.

My wife predicts people will give up their homes before their automobiles so deep and misplaced is the love affair.

It is possible the weather events in the article are related to climate change and it is equally possible there is no relation at all. We don't know. But it shouldn't matter.

Climate change is a disease of the planet that will be passed, as an evil inheritance, to the next generation. It is the children being born today who are being cast into a future that will be as violent and uncertain as at anytime in human history. Some say they will be the last generation.

As an observer, the most humorous of human discussions is that around the colonization of Mars or another planet. Think about the logic. We will kill the living planet that we are on and then hop over to a dead planet and try to bring it to life.

It's like taking your own life to lend your brain to Frankenstein. But not too far fetched for the human experience, no?

[shire]

echoesohio--

I've lived in Ohio for a lifetime, too, with some of it in Findlay, Ohio. This flood of the Blanchard River is worse than any other, including "the big one" back in the 1930s. Findlay is inundated, and currently reeks due to sewage backing up into the storm drain system, which overflowed, and now is everywhere.

Another area, Shelby, had water up to the goal posts on its high school football field from the Black Fork, and the entire downtown is flooded. Some of my family who live there report that it's indeed the worst ever.

I think it's important not to simply look around your own neighborhood, but check others and the historical records. Yes, there is always bad weather, typical of this area, but again, as many above have noted, it's not the fact that bad weather occurs, it's the rates and severity level that has changed. And will continue to.

I guess maybe people will figure it out once it happens to them personally. Kinda sad, that so many of us can't look beyond our own egocentric perspective and see the bigger picture, and then act.

[khristmaskathy]

I have a 22 year old daughter and I worry so much about the kind of world we are leaving for her and for her future children. It's a scarier scenario than any horror movie I've ever seen!

[HBeachbum]

Apparantly you have not seen any good horror movies.

[yellowdogSC]

OR...

someone has become inured by seeing too many......­.

[Blueseahorse]

The "president" doesn't do anything and rest of politicians only give lip service, is because they realize that no one cares. Every day I walk by car after car idling, and sometimes the driver is not even in the car. This morning in his own driveway, a man stood outside his car smoking a cigarette while his motor was idling. I see large trucks idling with no driver inside, buses idling. The wake up call = NO ONE CARES. All that it is for most is some entertainment on tv., and the idea that it's not really going to affect them while their alive, so who cares? Their kids? hey, let them deal with it. The March of the Penquins (who are in big trouble) was nothing but cute entertainment that changed nobody's mind about saving the Artic. I have given up any warnings or fires or droughts or floods being any "wake up call" . This earth and (since most only see humans as being alive, I won't mention other living beings)-- and life on this planet is doomed. Maybe another 500 years, but there it is.

[kevinabt]

I don't believe that the warming of the globe is caused by human action. Neither do I think that the globe warming up is unusual or necessarily detrimental. Here are a few reasons for me believing this.

- Carbon dioxide makes up about 0.037% of the earth's atmosphere. It is not the only heat absorbant gas which keeps heat in, and it is not the most potent. Plants take in this gas in order to grow, it is naturally pulled out of the air and stored in solid matter again. It is only a matter of time before plant matter absorbs human emitted CO2.
- CO2 increase does mirror the increase in global temperature, but it follows the temperature increase it doesn't precede it. This suggests that warming increases CO2 in the atmosphere, not CO2 increasing temperature.
- From 1940-1970 there was a sharp increase in CO2 levels but global temperature was going down.
- The globe naturally has temperature increases. In the late 1800's temperatures were even higher than they are now. In the 1000-1300 time frame temperatures were much higher than they are now, and they stayed that way continuously without disrupting society.
- Virtually all heating originates from the sun. If the sun becomes intrinsically brighter, the earth will get warmer. This is a major source of temperature change (both up and down). I haven't seen a very long history of data measuring sun strength, but that might be very revealing.

I think that given the extreme complexity of weather it is very difficult to support claims that an increase in temperature is causing all the extreme weather occurances. For one thing, these storms, droughts, and all the other things have been happening for all of known history. Considering that the current temperature is even cooler than it has been at other times even within the last 150 years, I don't think we should be alarmed.

These are just a few thoughts. Some good points are also brought up in this film:
The Great Global Warming Swindle
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3028847519933351566

[RepigsLuvOxycontin]

That movie "Swindle" has been debunked.

Here is the truth:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656640542976216573

This video shows where the "swindle" makers lied knowingly and repeatedly.

Nothing like lies for repigs. repigs LOVE lying and hate America.

[splashy]

In fact, at least one of the scientists was very unhappy with his research being used this way.

[yellowdogSC]

kev,

Your well written comment raises questions:
If the sort of temperature fluctuations you describe truly DID exist throughout history, how could the coral reefs dying off in MASS today have POSSIBLY lived until now?

How could the MASSIVE Great Barrier Reef have lived long enough to become possibly the LARGEST living colony on the planet, if only a few degrees variation can kill them (as we know IS now happening?)

"The globe naturally has temperature increases. In the late 1800's temperatures were even higher than they are now."
Your statement sounds very logical, admittedly, until you realize that the GBR obviously did NOT die at that time. Then it creates questions that beg research.
A new combination of variables, perhaps? Regardless of what it is, it is real and IT IS FATAL.

Isn't it? Don’t you agree? You invest your time here. I hope it’s in hopes (perhaps dreams) of a better future. Your very welcome courtesy indicates such to me.

Thank you for providing such detail. Could the specifics but linked, to enable us to do our own additional research? Despite what others may say, we're here for ONE REASON ONLY: to learn. And from that, to hopefully make improvements affecting the next generation.

You can help us do that, if you wish, just by providing links.

Many sincere thanks, friends. (I realize this forum grows old. Perhaps we can watch for future topics?)

Thank you, friend.

[may261989]

How do all the climate change skeptics explain their refusal to accept reality to their children ( if they have any ). Don't any of you give a damn? I honestly can't believe people are that gullible to fall hook line and sinker for the energy lobby propaganda spin. Then again I dont live in America , and judging from the state of your television maybe people are that gullible: we certainly have a few examples posting here.

[Pyrum]

How do you know you're not being gullible by believing in the "human caused climate change" theory?

[Idle Spectator]

Have you tried Google Scholar?

[yellowdogSC]

Pyr,

I HOPE we are....

[yellowdogSC]

Pyr,

I guess the closest thing to evidence of a problem is that when we changed our ways in the 70s, with Clean Air and Clean Water, it made a difference.

Like Lake Pontchartrain after Katrina. We pumped in billions of gallons of virtually ever pollutant known to man into it, but it cleaned itself. However, I don't think anyone believes it would if we continued indefinitely.

And that's what's being advocated: endless dumping WHILE depleting the natural resources the planet needs to survive and renew.

[maddogbitesback]

Follow the money.

[toadicux]

Why do you believe ANYTHING on TV anymore???­??????????­???????

[cylindar]

I am for global warming remedies but I have to say that big storms and great damage are not uncommon, neither is big time flooding in Bang. These things have been happpening on a regular schedule ever since I can remember. Lets get off the bandwagon here and do something about global warming but lets not blame every cyclical disaster on it. It just looks silly after a while. Give it a break. Yes, we have a global warming problem and we need to do something about it pronto but lets not lie ourselves into doing something, lets reason ourselves into it.

[BeerHolder]

How about, let's just do something! All we get from the president is lip service. What we're doing now is far too little too late. It would take a drastic effort on the part of all humans around the world to even slow this process down slightly. I don't think there's a snowballs chance in hell (no pun) of that happening. 6.5 billion people have to decide there's a problem first. OK, let's say 3.25 billion people have to decide there's a problem. At best you have a 50/50 chance of slowing it down and there's only a 25% chance of that happening.

Bottom line... We're screwed.

Like I said earlier, the earth doesn't give a damn whether you believe it or not. The facts are the facts.

[THP]

Try this evidence on for size you Climate change doubting luddites: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
The typical "evidence" that Rush and his ilk pull up turns out to be funded by oil companies and other extraction industries.

[DLB]

I've heard that the CIA has edited their entry on wikipedia. Enough said.

[yellowdogSC]

DLB,

And I'VE heard that the earth is flat....

[echoesohio]

I've lived in the Midwest my whole life and I am sure from your post that you haven't. We get flooding in the region every year. We get tornados every spring and fall. Sure, global warming is a legitimate concern, but you loose all credibility, especially in the Midwest, when you insist we're all going to die based on one fairly ordinary seasonal weather pattern.

[THP]

Advocate, you don't understand the argument. Your facts are only relevant to disprove this statement: We have not had disasterous weather like this in the past.
No one is saying that.
DLB. How can you charge that climate change is junk science when every single nations Academy of Sciences says the opposite, when the overwhelming majority of scientists say the opposite?
Pyrum, Pray tell how you know that lessening carbon output will not change the weather when all the worlds Science academies and the overwhelming majority say the opposite?
Who do you listen to that prevents you from believing the clear scientific evidence? Genuis college dropouts like Rush Limbaugh?

[yellowdogSC]

...and Karl Rove, of course.

To hear him tell it, he has been to 15 colleges and was less than 3 minutes from graduation from all of them.

[Pyrum]

The objectives "climate change" theory are being used to justify are suspect. World government, new taxes and eugenics programs are too close to the objectives the elitists running the planet would love to impose on us but know we would rebel against if we didn't have a good reason to comply. See my comment to yellowdogSC above.

[DLB]

"DLB. How can you charge that climate change is junk science when every single nations Academy of Sciences says the opposite, when the overwhelming majority of scientists say the opposite?"

First, not all nations agree with "manmade global warming". Second, why are those nations that want the U.S to cut emissions buying "carbon credits" from less industrious nations? Third, the majority of scientists you mention, from what I've observed, are socialist in nature. And fourth, I've studied enough about global warming to know that the present beliefs by those on the left are phoney. Do you honestly think conservatives don't live on the same planet and are not exposed by the same things and liberals?

[yellowdogSC]

China believes in manmade pollution, which is the real issue, and that's the MOST important one.

This is a MUST READ.
www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/world/asia/26china.html?ex=1345780800&en=c2fb14345e2905b1&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rssrss

Thank you.

[yellowdogSC]

DLB,

You ask "Do you honestly think conservatives don't live on the same planet and are not exposed by the same things and liberals? "

Good question!

Look at the following list, then ask again, please:
Disability
FMLA
Medicaid
Medicare
OSHA
Rural electrification
Rural telephone service
SOCIAL SECURITY
Unemployment insurance
Veterans benefits
Welfare
WIC
ALL created by DEMOCRATS
ALL fought by REPUBLICANS

The same planet?

Thank you.

[maddogbitesback]

DLB get a grip. The ozone problem was created by propellants in aerosols and by refrigerants. So now we don't have aerosol deodorants which destroy the ozone and we have new refrigerants. And new Scotch Guard. So the ozone hole will hopefully over the decades heal. However, doctors no longer want children to go out and play in the sun without sun screen and t shirsts and hats. Its a bummer. Costs and kids. And inconvenience. And all those wee children things are meant to wear sun glasses so they won't develop cataracts at a relatively early age. So - all that was done and it could have been avoided. Now two generations are stuck with the consequences of everybody wanting air conditioners and deodorant in an aerosol can. So now we are looking at a process which is causing the world to get warmer. The results will be incredibly expensive. New Orleans is nothing. The Dutch, who live below sea level, have restricted their use of carbon fuels for about fifteen years easily. Europe is putting up windmills like crazy. Solar is just starting. So think of the change that will mean nothing to anyone but new technologies. Lots of money for the country that endorses discovering them and using them. What can you lose by thinking - it might be true so I will use an energy efficient appliance or light bulb. What can you lose if you are wrong. I mean in this talk of catastrophes - read about the eruption of Krakatoa. One survivor and that is because eveacuation was delayed to hold an election. Who knows who won. Does it matter?

[Chopin]

Thanks for sounding the alarm. No one can seriously claim that there are not enough alarms being sounded by the increasing intensity and accelerating pace in the pattern of nature's furor, as well as from reputable international scientists and ex-politicians.

Americans of all backgrounds and convictions cannot and should not take the convenient but futile gesture of pinning blames on George W. Bush and his regime, though well-deserved. The HOT hard fact is that if and when nature's "climatic tipping points" have been exceeded due to collective human inaction, pinning the blame of course will not change the outcome.

Eminent climate scientists tell us the world has about a 10 years grace period to initiate drastic (draconian) corrective actions. Looking around at the current presidential candidates, it is becoming clear to more and more people that there is not a single candidate who has demonstrated the consuming passion, wisdom, knowledge, eloquence and commitment to mobilize America and the rest of the world to do what is necessary during this 10-year grace period. The next presidential regime (4-8 years) will decide the fate of humanity's global struggle to restore nature's climatic balance. When that last planetary chance is blown by the human species, all that the next few generations could do would be to witness nature's relentless process of becoming like planet Venus -- with globe-encircling hurricanes of hundreds of mph, uncontrollable continental floods, droughts, fires, famines, population dislocations, wars, diseases, ... etc.

I believe humanity has one last wakeup call to enlist the only world-class public figure who can lead America and humanity to focus on and tackle this global problem -- that is Al Gore!

How he would reach this conclusion by himself, or through divine intervention, is beyond my imagination. What do you all think?

[NedFlanders19]

Laurie,

The truth is that this administration doesn't care about its own citizens. What is important to them is robbing the country of all they can while in office.

They prey on people through the use of fear and false patriotism to push their agenda. They want to bring on "the end days" so that the crapture can come. Why would they want to actually live the teachings of their savior Jesus when they can just pay lip service to them and rape the country?

One simply needs to check out the energy behind what they say and do to see their true motives. They are examples of ego gone mad - greed, fear, fanatacism, etc., trying to hold onto the power they currently have. They like power over people, hence the creative ways of getting around what is true and just.

This society is crumbling and the shift will be massive - they want to make sure they get theirs. Look around and see how the infrastructure is failing, how materialism is more important than people. Politics have been placed above people and we're all headed for the grand wake up call. All the events of nature you speak of are wake up calls, but this administration just rolls over and hits the snooze button.

We have front row seats for what could very well be the end of humanity. Whatever happens, is due to losing our path as a whole, as we have all created this mess. Now we get to reap what we've sown. Wheeeee!!!!!

[yellowdogSC]

My premise is that the republicans ARE acting. And someday we’ll see it.
And actually, theirs is a VERY intelligent strategy.

We know that THEY are quickest to criticize two things: 1) someone's STRENGTHS, and 2) something embarrassing in their own actions that they wish to provide a cover for, quietly.

What might that be? "GREEN" INVESTMENTS! Why else criticize Al Gore for "making money" on the situation, unless this “strength” is also a valid concept? And if they really believe it, then I guarantee they have their fat little fists in that pot too. (Just as ANY American may, if they wish.)

To their constituents they seems like mavericks, well representing them, despite long odds. (Martyr syndrome. But actually they can’t lose, since “I was just responding to my base!”)

Since by now it’s quite obvious that those of us understanding the dangers of GW will CARRY THE BURDEN and do ALL the work, it eliminates GW denier need to lift so much as a finger to help save the planet.

My guess? They have HUGE investments in “green” companies, but don’t dare admit it.

They know they’ll make major bucks, and can at some point say, “But I WAS a believer! Look at my portfolio! I WAS saving the planet!”

We should start calling GW deniers “Foxes” as in “crazy like a…”

Thanks, all.

[Pyrum]

I'd be more interested in "saving the planet" if it didn't involve a step toward more globalism by requiring an international governing body to enforce carbon emissions limits on all industrialized nations.

"Climate change" is also being used to justify Al Gore's "carbon tax" which theoretically would replace income tax, but please, we all know if it were accepted it would just be another tax and wouldn't replace anything.

I've even read comments by people using "climate change" to justify eugenics programs!

All of these objectives are suspect. If "climate change" is real, the only SANE approach we can take to solving it is converting our energy sources from oil, gas and coal to those that don't emit carbon!

[yellowdogSC]

Pyr,

I'd be more willing to save the planet if it meant ANYTHING other than what it does.

But I'm not certain we have the time to wait until it does. So I’ll have to adjust my desires to reflect the reality.

As far as other methods, President Carter's HIGHEST priority was our energy independence. One of the VERY FIRST actions by the Reagan White House was the removal of Carter’s solar panels from it’s roof.

Seems to sum up the two groups, doesn't it?

I very much agree with your other options, but less as TIME becomes less.

Thank you.