After Super Storm Sandy hit, both Governor Cuomo and Mayor Bloomberg came out to talk about the new reality. Climate Change is real and they would have to work to protect their state from these large storms that were coming more frequently.
Tonight Chuck Todd who isn't always the brightest bulb in the socket brought it up, too:
"Second year in a row the New York Metro area hit by this stuff," Todd said during MSNBC's "The Daily Rundown." "Let's not bury our heads in the sand when it comes to -- something has changed in the Atlantic. The climate has changed. It's called climate change, folks.”
http://www.huffingto..._n_2053405.html
Do you think that this might be the start of American's acceptance that Climate Change is real and it's doing crazy things to our weather?
(I had brain fade and forgot that Shortpoet already started this topic. Please ignore this one. Sorry about that!)
| Create a Free Account or Sign In to connect and share in green living and alternative energy forum discussions. |
5
Will we accept Climate Change now?
Started by FamilyTreeClimber, Oct 31 2012 11:04 PM
24 replies to this topic
#2
Posted 01 November 2012 - 03:48 AM
That's quite alright.
The more it's brought up, the more head scratching we might get from the deniers. If they're considering it ,
they're not denying it.
I know Al Gore wants to say "I told you so" but he's a class act and won't.
The cost of this is staggering-that is what might finally turn people around. IF we can figure out a way to
make burning coal clean (without pumping it into some underground cavern somewhere and further decimate
the bat population), then we can start to reduce GHG emissions.
But even if we get it down to the recommended levels of 350-we're in for it for decades to come.
It's not going to be an easy fix and there's the rub.
Voters expected Obama to turn our country and the economy around in 4 years and economists have
said that doing it in 4 years is impossible and that "no one could do it."
And that of course, speaks to our hurry up-"I can't wait" society we've become. If the levels are brought
down, and we still have events for decades, and they'll say-
"Why did we cut back on beef?
Why did we spend all that money on making coal "clean"?
Tar sands oil and it's pipeline would have brought jobs to this area.
We're still having hurricanes, wildfires, floods and droughts."
Or liken it to dieter. If they don't lose 40 pounds in 2 weeks they give up and go back to donuts.
The republicans are the biggest foot draggers (or knuckle draggers if I wanted to be nasty
) in denying
the science.
Our climate conferences have to be on target and quickly. And the United States is always last to the table,
or we don't engage in the discussions at all; Kyoto for example.
The more it's brought up, the more head scratching we might get from the deniers. If they're considering it ,
they're not denying it.
I know Al Gore wants to say "I told you so" but he's a class act and won't.
The cost of this is staggering-that is what might finally turn people around. IF we can figure out a way to
make burning coal clean (without pumping it into some underground cavern somewhere and further decimate
the bat population), then we can start to reduce GHG emissions.
But even if we get it down to the recommended levels of 350-we're in for it for decades to come.
It's not going to be an easy fix and there's the rub.
Voters expected Obama to turn our country and the economy around in 4 years and economists have
said that doing it in 4 years is impossible and that "no one could do it."
And that of course, speaks to our hurry up-"I can't wait" society we've become. If the levels are brought
down, and we still have events for decades, and they'll say-
"Why did we cut back on beef?
Why did we spend all that money on making coal "clean"?
Tar sands oil and it's pipeline would have brought jobs to this area.
We're still having hurricanes, wildfires, floods and droughts."
Or liken it to dieter. If they don't lose 40 pounds in 2 weeks they give up and go back to donuts.
The republicans are the biggest foot draggers (or knuckle draggers if I wanted to be nasty
) in denyingthe science.
Our climate conferences have to be on target and quickly. And the United States is always last to the table,
or we don't engage in the discussions at all; Kyoto for example.
#3
Posted 01 November 2012 - 07:34 AM
Shortpoet-GTD, on 01 November 2012 - 03:48 AM, said:
The republicans are the biggest foot draggers (or knuckle draggers if I wanted to be nasty ) in denying
the science.
) in denyingthe science.
And of course their fundamentalist voting bloc is not put off by hostility to science.
The Koch brothers and others with a similar philosophy are the power behind the Republicans, and they very definitely use a great deal of science to rape the planet. They themselves are not the least bit hostile to science, just to certain inconvenient truths that science keeps discovering.
They play the anti-science, anti-intellectual cards to lock in the ignoramus vote. I think it is their strongest suit.
#4
Posted 01 November 2012 - 12:58 PM
I keep thinking back to the climate study that Clinton ordered and came due in 2001. It was a bipartisan report. In that study, climate scientists predicted we had 10 years to make changes voluntarily. After that, it would be mandatory. Bush decide "more research needed to be done". He extended the study until 2006, at which time he ignored it completely. It's 2012 and how many big natural events have we had? Many. The scientists were right.
Steve, I worry about the fundamentalists. I can't get the nagging feeling out of my head that some do believe in climate change but they welcome it as part of the book of revelations. They see it as fulfilling prophecy and so they don't want anyone to do anything. Then, Jesus will return to Earth, they'll all be taken to heaven, and the Earth can explode for all they care. Some of these people are in positions of power and have the ability to thwart any action.
Of course, there are those like the Koch brothers who only see dollars. What ever makes an instant profit is much more important than the country planning for it's future. Individual greed over the common good. Well, the Koch brothers can be flooded out just like the rest of us. But, of course, their money is secure. Mom and Pop who run the little restaurant on the corner have nothing left.
Steve, I worry about the fundamentalists. I can't get the nagging feeling out of my head that some do believe in climate change but they welcome it as part of the book of revelations. They see it as fulfilling prophecy and so they don't want anyone to do anything. Then, Jesus will return to Earth, they'll all be taken to heaven, and the Earth can explode for all they care. Some of these people are in positions of power and have the ability to thwart any action.
Of course, there are those like the Koch brothers who only see dollars. What ever makes an instant profit is much more important than the country planning for it's future. Individual greed over the common good. Well, the Koch brothers can be flooded out just like the rest of us. But, of course, their money is secure. Mom and Pop who run the little restaurant on the corner have nothing left.
#6
Posted 01 November 2012 - 02:17 PM
FamilyTreeClimber, on 01 November 2012 - 12:58 PM, said:
Steve, I worry about the fundamentalists. I can't get the nagging feeling out of my head that some do believe in climate change but they welcome it as part of the book of revelations. They see it as fulfilling prophecy and so they don't want anyone to do anything.
Your nagging feeling is consistent with reality. I bet in two minutes with a search engine anyone here can find ample proof some people feel that way. With a fool I tend to ignore what they say and watch what they do.
FamilyTreeClimber, on 01 November 2012 - 12:58 PM, said:
Then, Jesus will return to Earth, they'll all be taken to heaven, and the Earth can explode for all they care. Some of these people are in positions of power and have the ability to thwart any action.
In a very high percentage of emergency admissions to psychiatric wards the incoming patient expresses religious sentiments involved with her or his behavior. Is there a reason that crazy often manifests in the form of religion? I could guess.
Shortpoet-GTD, on 01 November 2012 - 01:16 PM, said:
I don't believe it.
With all the silliness that can become trending topics on Twitter #climate is number 2 today!
I believe Twitter tends to draw a younger crowd. I have observed that very many young people have a clear understanding of the issues we have dumped on them unintentionally.
You have to identify a problem first, then you can go about fixing it. Denying reality is very seldom the best course.
#7
Posted 01 November 2012 - 05:39 PM
It’s been a crazy week for Lois and I. Nothing like everyone in the North East has been going through, but very busy. Anyway my insomnia was acting up last night so I was reading through the threads and decided to think about this one before I responded.
The United States is still in denial about Climate Change. The subject has become so politicized and raked over the coals by Fox News and the political right that unfortunately we will probably have to go through a few more super storms like Sandy before average people start getting angry enough to demand a change.
Ed’s quote from Winston Churchill always comes to mind when I think about the US and climate change. It goes “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing. . . after they've tried everything else.
Now does that mean we should give up or get discouraged because some people take longer to come around? No we should not. Like many other important issues we have faced in Americas past it will take a long term commitment people presenting lots of clear, easy to understand facts that add more and more empirical, undeniable evidence about climate change.
So we will keep talking about droughts, hurricanes, massive snow storms and so on. In the mean time lots of cities are going to have to deal with rising sea levels and probably more floods. I am guilty myself, living in South Florida 7 miles from the Atlantic ocean. I know we will have to move in the next 10 to 15 years because by the time we want to retire, everyone will be worried about property close to the coasts.
Today however I will just keep sounding the alarm and hoping people wake up sooner rather than later. Might help explain my insomnia, I woke up all ready and can’t get any sleep—too woried.
The United States is still in denial about Climate Change. The subject has become so politicized and raked over the coals by Fox News and the political right that unfortunately we will probably have to go through a few more super storms like Sandy before average people start getting angry enough to demand a change.
Ed’s quote from Winston Churchill always comes to mind when I think about the US and climate change. It goes “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing. . . after they've tried everything else.
Now does that mean we should give up or get discouraged because some people take longer to come around? No we should not. Like many other important issues we have faced in Americas past it will take a long term commitment people presenting lots of clear, easy to understand facts that add more and more empirical, undeniable evidence about climate change.
So we will keep talking about droughts, hurricanes, massive snow storms and so on. In the mean time lots of cities are going to have to deal with rising sea levels and probably more floods. I am guilty myself, living in South Florida 7 miles from the Atlantic ocean. I know we will have to move in the next 10 to 15 years because by the time we want to retire, everyone will be worried about property close to the coasts.
Today however I will just keep sounding the alarm and hoping people wake up sooner rather than later. Might help explain my insomnia, I woke up all ready and can’t get any sleep—too woried.
#8
Posted 02 November 2012 - 02:40 AM
They're saying that building sea walls will be too costly-$5-10 billion but low ball estimates on Sandy run it to around $60
billion (and counting) so why not build preventive structures while we lower emissions?
The Dutch, for instance have been ahead of the curve for years.
http://news.national..._wiredutch.html
Seeing the aftermath footage of Sandy is heartbreaking.
billion (and counting) so why not build preventive structures while we lower emissions?
The Dutch, for instance have been ahead of the curve for years.
http://news.national..._wiredutch.html
Seeing the aftermath footage of Sandy is heartbreaking.
#9
Posted 02 November 2012 - 07:45 PM
E3 I agree that we cannot give up. Americans change slowly. I've always likened them to people who don't pay attention at all. Then, one day they get good and mad and want change immediately. We see this in elections where they seem to be oblivious for years about how an elected official is misusing his/her position, then all of a sudden the people catch on. The problem is Americans are very impatient with change. They want to see things change, but they want it yesterday. So after a lot of foot dragging, then they complain things are moving too slowly.
Rachel Maddow made a statement last night that sums up how I see our current political environment on climate change and other things. I will paraphrase. 20-30 years ago, we used to agree on what the problems were, but we fought over the solutions. Now we fight over the facts--we can't even agree what the problems are and the Republicans do a good job of denying facts outright.
Shortpoet, I agree about the footage. I watched a little on HLN. I don't normally watch them, but they were the only ones showing coverage of the storm. I am always shocked at the randomness of damage in these disasters. One house is standing, but all the rest on the block are gone. The ferris wheel in New Jersey is still standing, but the rest of the amusement park has crumbled. It gives such an eerie feeling.
Recovery is going to be slow. It is difficult enough to reconstruction one town. You are talking about multiple cities with large populations that need the basics right now. I hope they do it right. I don't know what they can do to protect areas from a large storm like Sandy, but I hope they think it through before they rush in.
Rachel Maddow made a statement last night that sums up how I see our current political environment on climate change and other things. I will paraphrase. 20-30 years ago, we used to agree on what the problems were, but we fought over the solutions. Now we fight over the facts--we can't even agree what the problems are and the Republicans do a good job of denying facts outright.
Shortpoet, I agree about the footage. I watched a little on HLN. I don't normally watch them, but they were the only ones showing coverage of the storm. I am always shocked at the randomness of damage in these disasters. One house is standing, but all the rest on the block are gone. The ferris wheel in New Jersey is still standing, but the rest of the amusement park has crumbled. It gives such an eerie feeling.
Recovery is going to be slow. It is difficult enough to reconstruction one town. You are talking about multiple cities with large populations that need the basics right now. I hope they do it right. I don't know what they can do to protect areas from a large storm like Sandy, but I hope they think it through before they rush in.
#10
Posted 03 November 2012 - 03:08 AM
I was thinking about it again (it's impossible not to) after watching that thrown together benefit last night on tv.
And I don't mean thrown together in a bad way; it showed how quickly these great performers rushed in to help;
no big "event" with massive sound systems and thousands in attendance. They just did it.
Most, if not all, were from that area; New Jersey and New York.
And it stuck me how bad 2012 has been. We thought 2011 was bad, and it was; with the record heat.
But this year, we've had the west burning for months from lack of rain and pine beetle destruction,
the mid-west in drought for months, numerous heat and flood records broken, other destructive storms and now this.
And of course the deniers say that we've always had floods, drought and hurricanes but when they
come so often, repeatedly-over and over again; it's hard to deny the science.
Katrina was a major wake-up call but too many of us were focused on bush's ineptness, the suffering
of the people on the ground and the levee's that didn't hold rather than the big picture of climate change.
If we actually had decent world coverage on the news, we would see, on a daily basis that other countries
across the globe are experiencing problems with climate change too; but even with 24/7 news coverage,
it's usually all about us.
And I don't mean thrown together in a bad way; it showed how quickly these great performers rushed in to help;
no big "event" with massive sound systems and thousands in attendance. They just did it.
Most, if not all, were from that area; New Jersey and New York.
And it stuck me how bad 2012 has been. We thought 2011 was bad, and it was; with the record heat.
But this year, we've had the west burning for months from lack of rain and pine beetle destruction,
the mid-west in drought for months, numerous heat and flood records broken, other destructive storms and now this.
And of course the deniers say that we've always had floods, drought and hurricanes but when they
come so often, repeatedly-over and over again; it's hard to deny the science.
Katrina was a major wake-up call but too many of us were focused on bush's ineptness, the suffering
of the people on the ground and the levee's that didn't hold rather than the big picture of climate change.
If we actually had decent world coverage on the news, we would see, on a daily basis that other countries
across the globe are experiencing problems with climate change too; but even with 24/7 news coverage,
it's usually all about us.
#11
Posted 03 November 2012 - 02:47 PM
Whether or not they say they accept the idea of human caused climate change, at least some people don't understand how much things will change in some locales.
As an instance, from a news story, quoting somebody who used to live in the Sandy-wrecked New Jersey shore area: "And while she believes New Jersey will rebuild the boardwalks and piers "bigger and better than ever," there...."
Rebuilding in the same area will be foolish. While it might be quite a few years before another "Sandy" hits the same place, sealevel will keep rising because of climate change. Even lesser storms will flood things as sea-level rises. Be foolish to rebuild in some spots, be foolish to write mortgages for homes rebuilt in some spots, be foolish to write insurance for some rebuilt homes.
Build seawalls to protect things? Expensive. Maybe economically feasable in the case of Manhattan, but probably not for Staten Island and most of new Jersey.
Time to cut back on CO2, at least keep the needed seawall height reasonable. Past time.
As an instance, from a news story, quoting somebody who used to live in the Sandy-wrecked New Jersey shore area: "And while she believes New Jersey will rebuild the boardwalks and piers "bigger and better than ever," there...."
Rebuilding in the same area will be foolish. While it might be quite a few years before another "Sandy" hits the same place, sealevel will keep rising because of climate change. Even lesser storms will flood things as sea-level rises. Be foolish to rebuild in some spots, be foolish to write mortgages for homes rebuilt in some spots, be foolish to write insurance for some rebuilt homes.
Build seawalls to protect things? Expensive. Maybe economically feasable in the case of Manhattan, but probably not for Staten Island and most of new Jersey.
Time to cut back on CO2, at least keep the needed seawall height reasonable. Past time.
#12
Posted 03 November 2012 - 06:59 PM
I think in those affected states we may see an attitude change. But, I'm not sure elsewhere. I've already had a couple conservative friends brush this off as no big deal because we have big storms all the time. In their minds it doesn't have to do with anything. And, oddly, they seem to think that because we've had big storms before they don't need to show compassion for the people affected this time. I hope I never understand their thinking.
Still learning, That is one of the biggest problems. If you know that every 2 to 3 years, a major storm will hit those coastal cities, does it make sense to build there? I can't think of what they could do that would prevent the waves from swamping those places again.
We see this problem repeated across the nation. When the Loma Prieta earthquake hit CA in 1989, there was one part of San Francisco that got a lot of damage. This was one of the districts that got the worst of it in 1906 as well. It's an area built on landfill. In 1906, it wasn't nearly as populated. In 1906, they didn't have our science. But, in 1989 they knew better. Yet, they rebuilt in the same place on the same landfill.
New Orleans has a similar issue. New Orleans has spread out into parts of the coast line where once their were no houses before. They've taken away some of the natural barrier between their communities and the waves. I don't know what they have done since Katrina. I'll make a bet that they have rebuilt in the same places.
I am relieved to find that California is taken the issue of rising ocean waters seriously. Many communities are already making plans on how best to cope, which roads to move, which communities to move back. It will happen. There is no avoiding it. It would be stupid to pretend that it isn't.
Are other nations dealing with this better than we are?
Still learning, That is one of the biggest problems. If you know that every 2 to 3 years, a major storm will hit those coastal cities, does it make sense to build there? I can't think of what they could do that would prevent the waves from swamping those places again.
We see this problem repeated across the nation. When the Loma Prieta earthquake hit CA in 1989, there was one part of San Francisco that got a lot of damage. This was one of the districts that got the worst of it in 1906 as well. It's an area built on landfill. In 1906, it wasn't nearly as populated. In 1906, they didn't have our science. But, in 1989 they knew better. Yet, they rebuilt in the same place on the same landfill.
New Orleans has a similar issue. New Orleans has spread out into parts of the coast line where once their were no houses before. They've taken away some of the natural barrier between their communities and the waves. I don't know what they have done since Katrina. I'll make a bet that they have rebuilt in the same places.
I am relieved to find that California is taken the issue of rising ocean waters seriously. Many communities are already making plans on how best to cope, which roads to move, which communities to move back. It will happen. There is no avoiding it. It would be stupid to pretend that it isn't.
Are other nations dealing with this better than we are?
#14
Posted 04 November 2012 - 02:27 AM
E3 wise, on 03 November 2012 - 07:02 PM, said:
I don't know how it happened but I did not give the negative point to Shortpoet, I agree with her response ,just wanted to be clear
#15
Posted 04 November 2012 - 02:32 AM
FamilyTreeClimber, on 03 November 2012 - 06:59 PM, said:
Are other nations dealing with this better than we are?
and have since, in the following years, beefed up the protections.
http://news.national..._wiredutch.html
#16
Posted 04 November 2012 - 07:01 AM
After the election if the President wins, I really think Climate change will come back onto the agenda, for some reason the issue along with alternative energy have been avoided, along with a lot of other issues. But once the dust settles that will change. the United States
Is always talking about projecting American values all over the world, but this time I think the opposite will happen.
Right now Europe, Japan, South America and Asia are all calling for the United States to act, and I think that pressure to make a real change on emissions will win out. iIn January there will be three new reports coming out from the UN and United States showing that climate change is accelerating and that methane being released from the Arctic is also growing, with the economy picking up, people may finally start thinking seriously about climate change.
All I know is that with two hurricanes hitting the North East in The last 14 months, the terrible drought this year and record heat all over the country, it is really hard to keep from thinking something is happening, so maybe we will get progress.
As I said earlier, we can not give up, and I look for this forum to be a good tool to get the message out on climate change, alternative energy and emission reduction, I think we all will have a lot of work in the next year, and since we are now one of the last factual forums on these issues, I think Alt Energy Shift will be growing in a big way.
Is always talking about projecting American values all over the world, but this time I think the opposite will happen.
Right now Europe, Japan, South America and Asia are all calling for the United States to act, and I think that pressure to make a real change on emissions will win out. iIn January there will be three new reports coming out from the UN and United States showing that climate change is accelerating and that methane being released from the Arctic is also growing, with the economy picking up, people may finally start thinking seriously about climate change.
All I know is that with two hurricanes hitting the North East in The last 14 months, the terrible drought this year and record heat all over the country, it is really hard to keep from thinking something is happening, so maybe we will get progress.
As I said earlier, we can not give up, and I look for this forum to be a good tool to get the message out on climate change, alternative energy and emission reduction, I think we all will have a lot of work in the next year, and since we are now one of the last factual forums on these issues, I think Alt Energy Shift will be growing in a big way.
#17
Posted 04 November 2012 - 10:07 AM
E3 wise, on 04 November 2012 - 07:01 AM, said:
As I said earlier, we can not give up, and I look for this forum to be a good tool to get the message out on climate change, alternative energy and emission reduction, I think we all will have a lot of work in the next year, and since we are now one of the last factual forums on these issues, I think Alt Energy Shift will be growing in a big way.
Huffington Post has a green section that I read almost daily, but the comment section is bombarded with denier speak.
And I wouldn't mind their skepticism so much but their comments are always so nasty.
Tigerlily and I saw a lot of that at the old treehugger site, and (thankfully) only a few times here but
I can't figure out why their comments are always so hateful.
Disagree, fine; but be civil.
And that's another reason why I love this site. No nasties here.
#18
Posted 05 November 2012 - 12:44 AM
You know, I believe we have passed the point of finger pointing and blame. Did humans cause this, did they not. I think most of us agree that humans played a vital role in climate change. The point I'm making is blame doesn't matter. What matters now is what actions do we take next.
I have seen many of those comments on forums, too. I am struck by the fact that many of these people don't like the fact that humans are being blamed (much like many don't like the "accusation" that we have evolved from the same lines as monkeys). They always counter that there was an ice age once and in the 70s scientist believed the earth was cooling. How could their be warming if there was cooling? So, if we could get over this step and move on to how do we fix things, it would be best. I think most people can agree that the storms and the drought are not normal.
I have seen many of those comments on forums, too. I am struck by the fact that many of these people don't like the fact that humans are being blamed (much like many don't like the "accusation" that we have evolved from the same lines as monkeys). They always counter that there was an ice age once and in the 70s scientist believed the earth was cooling. How could their be warming if there was cooling? So, if we could get over this step and move on to how do we fix things, it would be best. I think most people can agree that the storms and the drought are not normal.
#19
Posted 05 November 2012 - 04:42 PM
FamilyTreeClimber, on 05 November 2012 - 12:44 AM, said:
You know, I believe we have passed the point of finger pointing and blame. Did humans cause this, did they not. I think most of us agree that humans played a vital role in climate change. The point I'm making is blame doesn't matter. What matters now is what actions do we take next.
I have seen many of those comments on forums, too. I am struck by the fact that many of these people don't like the fact that humans are being blamed (much like many don't like the "accusation" that we have evolved from the same lines as monkeys). They always counter that there was an ice age once and in the 70s scientist believed the earth was cooling. How could their be warming if there was cooling? So, if we could get over this step and move on to how do we fix things, it would be best. I think most people can agree that the storms and the drought are not normal.
I have seen many of those comments on forums, too. I am struck by the fact that many of these people don't like the fact that humans are being blamed (much like many don't like the "accusation" that we have evolved from the same lines as monkeys). They always counter that there was an ice age once and in the 70s scientist believed the earth was cooling. How could their be warming if there was cooling? So, if we could get over this step and move on to how do we fix things, it would be best. I think most people can agree that the storms and the drought are not normal.
Moron with a capital M.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users