Comments on: Global warming could make faucets run dry, expert says

If global warming persists, don't expect to take many long showers, Nobel Prize winner says.

[gggg sssss]

Kyoto ROTFLMAO

wherein the Chinese build hundreds of coal fired generators so they can manufacture compact flouresent lights. We ( you know who you are in California) buy the bulbs from them to save energy. We pay then carbon credits so we dont feel guilty. We stop all manufacturing activity here so that we no longer have the capability to make our own light bulbs. All I see is boatloads of cash going to China. China pumping out emmissions like there is no tomorrow ( pun ) Our own workers unemployed because we have built these costs into anything we do here. When we run out of cash, we get HSBC foreclosing on over our mortgages. And Al Gore thinks this is a good idea how? And you people ( you know who you are ) believe in this and endorse it? ROTFLMAO

[Speiler9]

and your answer is..?

Obviously you are so clever as to know the answers to it all?

I would suggest that globally we spend a bit less on killing
people with hi-tech weaponry and a bit more on housekeeping
before there's nothing left to fight for.

If you don't want to buy flourescent bulbs from China, buy
them from the USA and pay the extra labour costs. I buy mine
from Holland.

You do come across as a bit of a light-headed individual, if
you'll excuse the pun.

[Ray Boggs]

Who needs light bulbs?

Who cares about light bulbs if there's no drinking water?

[Ray Boggs]

Climate Change Deniers Unite !

Let gather all of the climate change deniers with little or no education and show the world just how much smarter we are than the top climatologists in the world. Lets spread propaganda that accuses all of the most aclaimed scientists in the world of spreading lies for the sake of grant money. Lets even take it a step futher and accuse all the the U.S.'s top government scientific agencies including NOAA, NASA, the EPA and even our own President of being in on this conspiracy. Lets bring up again and again how a couple of scientists way back in the 70's predicted global cooling so that we can disprove the claims of thousands of modern scientists using super computers today. Lets bring up the claims of obscure rogue scientists (many of which are retired with no expertise in climate science) that are on the oil company payrolls to disprove climate change. Oh yea, we're REAL smart people and we're going to prove ourselves right even if we run out of water trying.

[Sparky672]

Bravo!

Thank-you for such a thoughtful and well researched reply! We
already know that smart people are never ever wrong but
sometimes we just need to be reminded. Throughout human
history we've never heard such dire predictions of the
apocalypse so now is the real time to listen.

What I like the best is that one doesn't even need to know how
to read a scientific journal to believe in global warming. You can
just get simple and easy answers from the following people who
carefully reviewed all the latest scientific research.

- retired politicians
- active politicians
- judges & lawyers
- talking heads & commentators
- famous musicians
- comedians
- movie stars

Look at that list!! I mean that's like 99.99% of the population!
They're the most intelligent members of our society, they always
speak the truth, and there is absolutely no propaganda in what
they say... why not listen?

Excuse me, I have to go organize a meeting with my "Save the
Rainforest" coalition. Britney Spears is coming to discuss
practical ways of feeding the struggling plants with CO2 to
accelerate reforestation.

[karlengblom]

Responsibility

There is a huge piece missing in the global warming debate, and it?s about responsibility. Usually when environmentalists talk about ?responsibility? they mean responsibility for reducing emissions. But there is also the question about the responsibility for the actual emissions: do we, when we release greenhouse gases, fully aware of the possible effects, have a moral duty to compensate those who might eventually suffer from them?

I think so. I would like to see a ?Climate Change Responsibility Act?, where the US and other developed countries clearly state that they are going to compensate victims, both within and outside their own countries.

For example, if 80 million people become displaced by rising sea levels, the US should provide sanctuary for 20 million of them, since it has caused 25% of all greenhouse gas emissions, and Europe should take something like 16 million.

Some cause-and-effect relationships will be hard to determine, but it?s just a matter of creating rules for acceptable variation. A single hurricane is a chance event, but if a certain region experiences 50 hurricanes over a 10 year period, when 10 hurricanes per decade was the 20th-century average, the polluters should pay for the damage caused by the other 40. There are pretty good statistics over the average frequency of storms, floods, droughts, the sea levels, etc from the time before global warming.

Of course, some people will, until the very end, blame ?natural variations?. But hopefully, most people are decent enough to take responsibility for something even if there is no more than 90% probability that they caused it.

Once the responsibility is assumed at the national level, the next question is how it should be shared among individuals. First, high-income people who pay a lot of taxes but cause little emissions (many New Yorkers, for example) will not be happy about their share of the burden. Second, young people will resent having to pay the consequences of the emissions of older people. Then the case for a gasoline tax becomes more evident, although for political reasons it should not be called a tax, when it is really liability insurance.

Genuine, established liability is necessary to make governments and individuals take steps to reduce emissions in the first place. Personal morals are not enough.

Global warming is not a man-vs-environment issue of morals. It is also a human-to-human issue of justice and decency.

The best part of this proposal is that you don?t have to believe in global warming to agree with it. Obviously, global warming sceptics shouldn?t have any problem accepting responsibility for something that they don?t think will happen, right? The message is: pollute as much as you want, as long as you take the responsibility.

[Mark Greene]

I'm in

Ultimately it's the potential harm we're creating for our kids and
their offspring that sould be steering our actions.

If there's is even a possibility for preventable tragedy, I'd like to
think we won't look the other way is it unfolds.

[gggg sssss]

Speiler9

has 38 out of 194 posts on this topic. Tht's about 20 percent. What is his agenda here? Part of a viral marketing program? On Al Gore's payroll? Inquiring minds are looking for clues

[Speiler9]

Agenda

Well, as you hadn't worked it out, apart from asking some
questions about the environment which you have chosen not to
answer, my agenda is to force you into showing your true colours
as an unreasonable hot-head with an inability to answer straight
questions.
Which, as we can all now read in your posts, has worked
comprehensively well. Thanks for proving my point.

[RandyLado]

Gore and Chu should get their lies straight

The Fear-Mongering crowd such as this Berkeley clown and the
private-jet lover Al Gore should get their lies straight.

The Berkeley clown says our faucets won't have water, but the
private-jet lover Gore says that our major cities will be buried
under water. So how can we have too much water and not
enough water at the same time?

Gore should spend less time eating and flying around in his
private jet and try to get his lies to coincide with the lies of Chu
a bit better.

One thing that Gore and Chu agree on is that they want to make
money off their fear and lies; Gore is making movies and cashing
in and this story says that Chu "is trying to get more research
funding".

[Ray Boggs]

So how can we have too much water?

So how can we have too much water and not
enough water at the same time? DUH! because humans don't drink saltwater!

[stv57]

Destroying our lifestyles?

That's the part I don't get.

Were our lifestyles destroyed when fuel economy was doubled during the 70's and 80's with the CAFE fuel efficiency standards?

Not that I noticed anyway.

I'd say many more American lifestyles are being destroyed by the Big Three's short-sightedness in pushing SUV's and trucks which are excluded from current efficiency regulations. A little spike in gas prices, and look what happens; multi-billion dollar annual losses, Ford looking to lay off a third of their salaried employees, GM soon to be over-taken by Toyota as the largest car company in the world.

Whatever your stance on the science of global-warming, the remedies by and large lead to good things for our economy and lifestyles: high-tech jobs in alternative energy fields, lower trade deficits, greater global competitiveness, lower health care costs, better environment, improved national security.

[Ray Boggs]

Keep on believing that it's a hoax...Please!

Remember your words, In ten or rwenty years you'll realize just how wrong you were. You'll realize then that you should have done something sooner to protect yourself or your family from global warming, but it will be too late.

Oh yea a global hoax. A global hoax that was coordinated by thousands of scientists producing thousands of peer reviewed studies from hundreds of countries.

Oh yea a hoax that was perpetrated by NOAA, NASA, the EPA our President and dozens of other U.S. government agencies.

Keep on believing that it's all a hoax for as long as possible because the more of you that wake up to the truth when it's too late, the more of us will have bought up land located in cooler parts of the planet. We'll see how you feel after the Summer of 2007 ?????

[ledlight10]

Your future is in Australia folks

you don't need to believe any of this. I can imagine it is hard to stomach.

But in Australia, which is the driest piece of continent on the planet, we already have permanent water restrictions. It quickly went from level 1 to level 3. In some rural parts of the country it is level 4 already.

Many of our water storages are lower than 30% and we would need several years of normal rain-fall for them to recover.

http://changeclimateback.blogspot.com/

[gggg sssss]

retired

Speiler9 seems to have run out of arguments and "inconvenient truths" to spout. Pity.