In Florida, officials ban term 'climate change'

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

I assert Climate Change is real. I am still on the fence as to whether humans are contributing in a significant way, but I do not deny that it is happening at all.

You just did it again. "Climate Change" turns to "flooding". I tired to keep you focused but you disassociate at the flip of a switch.

This is 'flooding'…
Yah, a Tsumani is a flood.

On the other hand, "sea level rise" is steady at 20 centimeters since 1880.

graph

Florida isn't sinking into the ocean ergo, they banned that ridiculous term from local government. Big damn deal.

a reply to: intrptr

With all due respect, I know quite personally what a flood is. I live in Japan, and was here during quake/tsunami.

The problem is, nobody banned the word "flooding" from local government. They banned the term "Climate Change". It seem you're the one making the hyperbole now, asserting the word Climate Change is synonymous with flooding. Or maybe it's Florida that's making that assumption? Maybe you/they took a page from my book? I admit my previous error in interpreting your post. You're right, Climate Change != immediate flooding, but that doesn't mean it's not happening. I take issue with them banning the word "Climate Change". If they wanted to ban people saying "Coastal flooding due to climate change", I could see their case.

If all they ban is the boogeyman terms who cares...

In a worst case situation of rising sea levels what exactly can they do...

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
There are Billions of dollars tied into beach front real estate investments. Who stands to lose if it becomes fully accepted that these properties will erode away over time? It would be awesome if someone knew how to follow THAT money back to climate deniers.

Is there evidence of this that anyone knows of??

a reply to: SlapMonkey

That is exactly what is going to happen if half of the land ice on Greenland melts... it's fact, not fear mongering. What he didn't say was the number of years this was expected to happen in, because there isn't a way to know for sure. All we can do currently is watch the ice for tell tale signs that it's time to hit the panic button.

But even now, various coastlines throughout the world are eating more shoreline than before.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

All good. I was pointing out that the coming 'flood' isn't disastrous, its a slow rise, has been going on and nothing to jump around about. IMO,The jumping around is misdirection to steer away from the real disaster occurring in the environment and peoples health due to the rise in toxic pollutants. Thats now, not in a hundred years or whatever.

Carry on.

a reply to: Kali74

Unfortunately, by the time the coastlines are so affected that the deniers start to come around, it will be too late to do anything about it. That's what they don't understand.

The frog is swimming around in a pan of cool water with the fire lit beneath it. The deniers are saying, "Look at the frog! He's fine! He's not boiling! He's happy!"...

Climate change, and resultant sea level rise, are becoming impossible to ignore in South Florida, one of the world’s most vulnerable urban areas. This documentary by South Florida Public Media depicts very matter of factly the hard facts of sea level rise, from the point of view of those whose job it is to keep up with the changes, and clean up the ever messier effects.

Climate Denial Crock of the Week (full video available at link)



13 Islands in Maryland - Gone

a reply to: intrptr

You're right, of course. Aside from our (slowly) changing climate, the rise in health problems as a result of pollution I think are more reason than any to get CO2 emissions under control, among other things. I think Nuclear power should be phased out, along with coal. (Fun fact: Coal power produces by and large more airborne radiation than a nuclear power plant) We should be moving away from fossil fuels altogether. We should be finding ways to harvest and USE the methane produces by livestock (one of the largest contributors to global warming) before it harms our planet. There are a myriad of things that could be done to move toward a more "green" planet, but we're too busy quagmired in regional conflicts, political posturing, and corporate profiteering than we are concerned about our future generations.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

As Grim and Kali already pointed out, the only problem with this clip seems to be your interpretation of it, as there is nothing particularly inaccurate about anything Al Gore says in there.

But here’s some more food for thought: in that clip the data goes up to 2005. Al Gore uses the following graphic to demonstrate how much Greenland’s summer ice melt is increasing:




But what’s happened since 2005? Well this is what it looked like in 2012:



So everyone putting words in the scientists mouths, and then chuckling to themselves because their own hyperbole isn't coming true – here’s the actual reality:

Many of the scientists predictions are indeed not coming true – but that’s because they've severely underestimated the problem.

Skeptics like to laugh themselves silly at the “alarmist” predictions of the IPCC. Meanwhile here’s what other scientists in the field are saying about those predictions:

According to a number of scientific critics, the scientific consensus represented by the IPCC is a very conservative consensus. IPCC's reports, they say, often underestimate the severity of global warming, in a way that may actually confuse policymakers (or worse). The IPCC, one scientific group charged last year, has a tendency to "err on the side of least drama." And now, in a new study just out in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, another group of researchers echoes that point.

The world’s climate change watchdog may be underestimating global warming

This is the word coming from their own scientific peers publishing actual research, not some idiot blogger or shill skeptic taking cheques from Exxon to tell you everything’s going to be ok.

Experts say the IPCC underestimated future sea level rise

Climate Science Predictions Prove Too Conservative


You need to get the story straight. Maybe then you'll come to understand what's really going on here.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

a reply to: Grimpachi

Watch the clip again. I don't need lessons on comprehension. And I'm not "pissed" about anything that Al Gore does, because he is of no consequence to me--I was simply pointing out that he said crap like this:

If Greenland broke up and melted--or if half of Greenland, and half of west Antarctica broke up and melted, this is what would happend to the sea level in Florida...

And then showed this in the video:



a reply to: Kali74

No, see, this is a form of fear mongering and toying with people's emotions. There is zero--ZERO--proof that what he is using as an example will happen...he's playing in hypotheticals and presenting them in a factual manner. Actually, Antarctica is gaining land ice and sea ice. And while Greenland is losing ice, Northeastern Canada has been seeing dramatic increases in ice accumulation, offsetting the loss of Greenland.

But to be completely honest, we're still apparently on the rebound from the Little Ice Age, so maybe those who built their resorts and homes and businesses next to the ocean (and still continue to do so) should have researched a little better about sea-level fluctuations and natural warming/cooling cycles of the globe.

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
There are Billions of dollars tied into beach front real estate investments. Who stands to lose if it becomes fully accepted that these properties will erode away over time? It would be awesome if someone knew how to follow THAT money back to climate deniers.

Is there evidence of this that anyone knows of??

That's an interesting question. I don't know if you could find an explicit money trail right back to some real estate developer, because the people funding climate denial are shrewd enough to cover their tracks through anonymous proxies like Donors Trust.

But they all tend to be part of the same boys club - rich suits with a fetish for oligarchy. That's why the vast majority of the climate denial phenomenon can be traced back to Conservative "Free-Market Think Tanks" like the Heartland Institute. And of course you can't get away from this conversation without finding a Koch brother hiding somewhere in the bushes:

How's it possible that climate deniers have a stronghold in a swing state with well-protected Everglades and money-making beaches?

It has something to do with the Tea Party’s influence. Both Scott and Rubio rode the Tea Party wave to office in 2010. Billionaires Charles and David Koch have helped to fuel conservative activism in Florida, by spending millions over the years to establish elaborate political operations in the state. As a result, Florida has become something of a testing ground for anti-government campaigning from the Kochs’ primary group, Americans for Prosperity.

Why Does Florida Have So Many Climate Change Deniers?

...
Another avenue to consider - are you familiar with the concept of Disaster Capitalism?

Some of these cretins want climate catastrophes to happen, because it opens up new "investment opportunities" for them.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
No, see, this is a form of fear mongering and toying with people's emotions. There is zero--ZERO--proof that what he is using as an example will happen...he's playing in hypotheticals and presenting them in a factual manner. Actually, Antarctica is gaining land ice and sea ice. And while Greenland is losing ice, Northeastern Canada has been seeing dramatic increases in ice accumulation, offsetting the loss of Greenland.

Are you friggin serious? You assert there is zero evidence and then make a bunch of outlandish claims, while (what else is new) providing zero evidence yourself to back them up.


Antarctica is losing land ice. That's the stuff that goes into the water and helps sea levels rise. Here's what an actual source of information looks like:



NASA


Now go ahead and show us a credible link where Canada is apparently gaining all this ice that's apparently offsetting Greenland.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun



Yes thats actual smog....

SO before people start getting all high and mighty about how the US and politicians dont care about the environment despite our stringent oversight on everything we produce (which is not much anymore)

If you are really concerned then start dealing with the countries that are actually CAUSING A DAMN PROBLEM....

Otherwise its just more feigned out rage and political BS not dealing with the actual issue.......

.....end rant

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

So since China is the main problem the US shouldn't fo anything about it?

We can't control China, we have made attempts but that is about all we can do.

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: jrod

Are they promoting putting your head in the sand instead .

no, they are just trying to keep their property values up, until they can sell.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

^Oh look - another strawman in this thread.

The Chinese scientific revolution aims to tackle climate change

Forbes: China Leads In Renewable Investment -- Again!

China Gigantic New Commitment To Renewable Energy, Explained


Not saying they don't still have a lot of work to do themselves, but pretending they have their head in the sand like Florida's politicians is quite a stretch, and a very weak attempt at deflecting this thread. China is definitely starting to wake up at least - their own version of An Inconvenient Truth has been going very viral lately:

a reply to: Sremmos80

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

So since China is the main problem the US shouldn't fo anything about it?

We can't control China, we have made attempts but that is about all we can do.

IF there is genuine concern then go after the countries actually causing the issue.......

There is all sorts of things that can be done, sanctions, actions by the UN etc etc etc ad nauseum....

It seems the US has no issue interfering when other problems arise......at least thats what all the liberals claim....

So why cant they step in on this one?

Put the money where the mouth is.....

If this is such a huge deal to all you global warmers then why the hell arent you trying to actually do something about it with the people who are THE REAL PROBLEM.......

Trust me its not the US thats dumping all this crap into the air....

SO address the real issue and take it to the people doing all the poluting

Or get off your damn high horses.....

This is another reason why I feel like the whole global warming fiasco is just a bunch of BS used by the left to try and claim some moral high ground and APPEAR to be superior or knowledgeable or to even care.....

When really, you dont care, at least not enough to effect any action other then trying to stir the pot in the US

Because to GENUINELY care, youd be pressuring governments all over the world to make other countries fall in line with standards to reduce their rancid pollution.......

So really I dont want to hear another damn excuse and more soap box ranting

a reply to: SlapMonkey

There's no proof the ice caps are melting? No proof that sea levels are rising and none that if land ice melts into the oceans that it won't raise sea levels?

Seriously?

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Just like every other phony skeptic in this thread trying to talk down to "the global warmers" you have absolutely no facts to back up anything you're saying - just a bunch of handwaving nonsense.

The U.S. is right up there with China in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, and is almost 3 times worse when you consider per capita:

Facts