90.9 WBUR - Boston's NPR news station
Top Stories:
PLEDGE NOW
Can The Southwest Survive Climate Change?

The American Southwest is overbuilt and out of water. We’ll look at how and whether the Southwest, as we’ve built it, can survive.

Firefighters make a stand along highway 260 as the Wallow Fire approaches outside of Eagar, Ariz., Wednesday, June 8, 2011. It was the largest wildfire in the state's history, buring more than 469,000 acres. (AP)

Firefighters make a stand along highway 260 as the Wallow Fire approaches outside of Eagar, Ariz., Wednesday, June 8, 2011. It was the largest wildfire in the state's history, buring more than 469,000 acres. (AP)

2011 was the driest year ever recorded in New Mexico.  The hottest summer ever in New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma.  The hottest August ever in Arizona, Colorado.  It saw the all-time worst fire year ever in Texas.  The biggest wildfire ever in New Mexico.  The biggest ever in Arizona – more than half a million acres on fire.

The great American Southwest has been a destination and developers’ dream for generations.  Now, climate change is coming down like a hammer.

This hour, On Point:  Heat, fire, dust and thirst.  We’ll look at how and whether the Southwest as we’ve built it can survive.

-Tom Ashbrook

 

Guests

William deBuys, environmentalist and author of the new book A Great Aridness: Climate Change and the Future of the American Southwest.

Andrew Ross, professor of social and cultural analysis at New York University and author of Bird on Fire: Lessons from the World’s Least Sustainable City.

Grady Gammage, Jr., a lawyer who represents numerous real estate and business clients. He is also a senior fellow at Arizona State University, where he focuses on urban growth and development, quality of life, and local economic issues. Here is a recent report from Arizona State University co-authored by Gammage  on the state of water resources in the the greater Phoenix area.

From Tom’s Reading List

Huffington Post “If you live in the Southwest or just about anywhere in the American West, you or your children and grandchildren could soon enough be facing the Age of Thirst, which may also prove to be the greatest water crisis in the history of civilization. No kidding.”

New York Times “If policy makers end up focusing only on those who can afford the low-carbon technologies associated with the new environmental conscientiousness, the movement for sustainability may end up exacerbating climate change rather than ameliorating it.”

USA Today “For those of us who live in and love Phoenix, the drumbeat seems relentless. At base, the assumption seems to be that it just cannot make sense for so many people to live in a hot, dry place where it doesn’t rain much. But why take water and hold it to a standard not applied to any other resource necessary to support a city? Should a city have to mine all its iron or copper within its boundaries? Or grow all its own food? Or manufacture everyone’s clothing?”

More

Here’s a map of the recent nationwide drought conditions from the National Drought Mitigation Center at the University of Nebraska.

 

The latest map from the National Drought Mitigation Center. (National Drought Mitigation Center)

The latest map from the National Drought Mitigation Center. (National Drought Mitigation Center)

 

Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on this site.
  • Pingback: Can The Southwest Survive Climate Change? - Australian Business Search Directory

  • JP

    There’s nothing to worry about… ask any Republican.

    • JP

      Oh, and there’s nothing to worry about regarding earthquakes/pollution and fracking, either… again, just ask any Republican.

    • Yar

      In the Republican theocracy, climate change study will be against the law along with all other science.  Why is it in America we have to prove beyond all doubt that something is bad before we attempt stop doing it?  Even then, we won’t change if it is bad for existing businesses. 

      Fossil fuels have value to future generations for use other than energy. The song lyric “you don’t know what you got until it is gone” shows just how blind we are.  I am old enough to remember Joni Mitchell’s Big Yellow Taxi  from the 70′s.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Yellow_Taxi

      I went back and listened to the song, we have replaced the screen door with a storm door,  just goes to show that we don’t know what we have lost even when it is gone.  What can you get for a buck fifty today?
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgMEPk6fvpg

      • Gregg

        Allocating resources and living within our eco-system’s limitations is one thing. We all want that. We went through the same thing here in NC a little while back. The city of Kannappolis wanted to divert water from the Catawba River basin to the Yadkin River. It was a huge deal but in the end it was worked out.

        But this drumbeat of do something or we’ll destroy the earth is an emotional plea to gullible do-gooders. The money flows. Big time worldwide UN money. That’s not science. For one thing the science says CO2 levels rise after temperature rises. There is no science that says CO2 causes temperatures to rise. There is only a correlation and it is backwards. There are many admitidly committed to exaggerating the danger because there is so much at stake. In their minds it’s justified. That’s not science.

        Let’s all start hanging our clothes on a line, riding bicycles to work and wearing sweaters inside in the winter. The water problem in Arizona will still be the same. The conflation is sleazy.

        Notice my comment does not take a stand on AGW just the honesty of the debate. I’m sure that nuance will be lost on most so go ahead and say I want dirty air and water.

        • Solar D
          • Gregg

            The first link draws (as many do) from the discredited 2007 IPCC report. It’s 14 pages and I did not read it all. I’m happy to respond if you will point me to the data that says temperature rose after CO2.

            The second link is perfect! I believe the graph it shows is the infamous Algore graph. The report does not say CO2 causes temperature to rise. In fact it says it higher temperatures hold more CO2 and it doesn’t matter which comes first. But if the claim is high CO2 levels cause higher temperatures then it does matter. When you zoom in on the graph the data shows temperatures always rose first, sometimes by hundreds of years. That’s my point. The science agrees.

          • Solar D

            See page 17 of the pdf.

            Graph demonstrates CO2 levels rise before long term trending of temperature rise.

            Please demonstrate evidence from scientific sources of the IPCC report being discredited. I’d be happy to review it. Please no vitriolic blogs sources but actual, real science.

            Climate change is complex. CO2 is not the only factor. Methane, particulate matter, quantity of flora, etc play roles.

          • Modavations

            Please.Canada just withdrew from Kyoto.Climate change is not man made and they’ve realized it

          • Corythatcher

            That’s not it.  Money is just more important than climatic considerations.  This is what happens when greed is the engine upon which you power your civilization.

          • nj

            The denialists come crawling out of the woodwork.

          • Gregg

            Forgive me, but the data does not show CO2 rose first.  I can’t find it. I read it twice.

            The fraud at East Anglica was real and admitted. That data formed much of the fourth quarter assessment report. This stuff happened:

            http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=28054

            I’m don’t know how to dismiss it. Here is a good sumary from before the fraud was exposed. It’s all good but skip to 3:25 for the scientist and the graph.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOvCCTEfypk

            I agree completely with your last paragraph.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            Humans burning huge quantities of carbon fuels have triggered the current rapid changes in the climate.  The science is clear on this.  Other things can and have caused climate change in the past, and we can learn from the past.  But just because there have been changes before humans came along doesn’t mean that we have not caused it this time.

            Neil

        • Anonymous

          So lets do nothing. Is this what you are saying. If the South West turns into a dust bowl, which part of it has by the way, then what? Are you aware that the drought in Texas and Oklahoma is the worst since the 30′s.

          I already hang my clothes up all year round and wear sweaters in doors in the winter. I do this to cut down on my utility bills which are going up, up, up despite my efforts to conserve. Mind you if I still used the dryer my electric bill would be about $30 more a month. 

          • Gregg

            Yea, that’s what I’m saying. Let’s make a dust bowl. It doesn’t matter what I say, that’s what you will believe. Good luck with that.

            If you are interested in the other side of the coin then consider many view high energy cost as a way to force the masses to roll back their standard of living. It’s happening. That’s why Obama wanted cap and trade. That’s why he supports high gas prices. Some (like you) think that’s noble and other clothes hangers (like me) think it’s an needless, unamerican abomination. Of course my views don’t matter, I should have government decide what’s in my best interest… for my own good.

          • Anonymous

            I’m not sure what your saying other than you don’t’ believe in climate change. Your first comment about buying water in stores was absurd. Now you get all hot under the collar, no pun, and you’re getting defensive.
            In my view government has a huge stake in this.
            If you think you can do what ever you want and everyone else be damned, that’s irresponsible in my view.

            If my city has a drought warning on water use I’m going to obey it as I feel it’s my civic duty to follow the law.
            If I take your track, I would be the guy on the block with green lawn and some angry neighbors and fines.  

          • Modavations

            Man made!!!

          • Gregg

            Please Jeffe, I follow all laws and care for my fellow man. I have eleven 275 gallon tanks collecting rain water from our arena. I’m all about conservation. Who said I think I can do whatever I want?

            BTW, I don’t have a lawn, I have acreage.

          • Terry Tree Tree

            Thank you for that. 
               It makes some of your other stances harder to understand, though.

        • Terry Tree Tree

          To you, then, CO2 rise is okay, as long as it FOLLOWS the rise in temperature? 

          • Gregg

            To me, if temperatures rise first it means CO2 does not cause it.

        • JUST CORY PLEASE!

          I suspect money flows on BOTH sides.

        • nj

          Greggg plays climate scientist. And fails.

          The fact that, historically over geologic time, temperature increases preceded CO2 increases in the atmosphere doesn’t mean that releasing trillions of pounds of previously sequestered carbon into the atmosphere cannot increase the air/water temperature. 

          Temperature shifts over the past 400,000 years or so have been initiated by astronomic changes—tilt of the Earth’s axis, orbital perturbations, etc. and not by CO2

          In those cases, subsequent CO2 increases were triggered by warming oceans which can hold less gas in solution. This CO2 release amplifies the warming.

          Greggg’s statement, “There is no science that says CO2 causes temperatures to rise.” is laughably bogus.

      • Gregg

        “What happens when water costs more than oil?”

        Go to any convenience store and buy eight 16oz bottles of water (1 gallon) at over a $ a pop then look at the price of gas.

        • Yar

          That is not a valid comparison, bottled water is not the price of water, it is the market price of convenience. As for living within our eco-system’s limitations, we don’t want to share with the other 7+ billion humans on earth much less consider other species.  We are no smarter than yeast when it comes to spoiling our environment.  We say we want sustainability, but only if it doesn’t cost us anything and we don’t have to make changes.  
          “Let’s all start hanging our clothes on a line, riding bicycles to work and wearing sweaters inside in the winter. The water problem in Arizona will still be the same. The conflation is sleazy.”
          But the exercise will make us healthier, isn’t that enough reason to do it?  To say we can’t make a difference is not valid.  

          • Gregg

            You’re right, it’s not really a valid comparison but it is an interesting truth.

            I agree with your sentiments on sustainability. And I even agree about the healthy choices but how do you legislate freedom? Or is that what you propose?

            I disagree about the validity of making a difference. Exercises in futility are not my bag. It’s just me.

          • Yar

            My first step would be to quit subsidizing consumption.  Add a tax on oil to cover the wars defend it.  Have realistic virgin material surcharges.  Index the minimum wage to the price of energy so our workforce can continue to be productive as we inflate our way out of debt.  
            Ten percent of the population is doing the work for everyone else, they are the least paid and have the worst living conditions.  The farmer, the miner, and the guy on the factory floor is where wealth is created,  everyone else is enjoying the fruit their labor.  
            Finance is largely a fiction, the idea that money can add value without work is ridiculous.  What the finance industry makes its money on, is exploitation.  I don’t support the right to exploit.  That makes me a liberal, a radical, and largely ignored.  Life isn’t fair, we probably wouldn’t like it if it was. 

          • Terry Tree Tree

            Many ‘Exercises in Futility’, have succeeded before!

          • Gregg

            BTW, love Joni. Thanks.

        • Anonymous

          You are not being truthful here.
          The reality is water is going to become a huge problem, larger than energy in the near future. One of the reasons that Keystone XL is problematic is it is going to go over the Ogallala Aquifer which provides water for about 8 states some of which are in the South West. Such as part of Northern Texas.

          Your answer speaks volumes on how you are letting your ideology get in the way of what is a serious problem for us as a nation.
          You can’t grow food with bottled water.

          • Gregg

            When you accuse someone of not being truthful you should at the very least cite what is untrue.

            I have no idea where you get the idea I am not concerned about water. It’s greatly affects us all and I have posted two comments relating how the issue has come to my front door personally. 

          • Anonymous

            You make this absurd statement about going to a store and buying water. It’s just absurd. You then give me crap because I’m calling you out on your inanity.
            You do this all the time. You think you’re being clever or something, that you are engaging in a debate. You’re not.
            The issue of water in your neck of the woods is evidence that something very serious is going on here with our water and how it’s used and that it is not something we should take for granted as we now do.

            This means fracking needs to be looked at as it has a direct effect on water tables. I’m not against doing it, I’m against letting the energy companies being in charge of regulating themselves. We humans can survive without oil, we did it for tens of thousands of years, we can not however survive without water. I’m not saying we should go without oil, it’s what drives the entire world economy, but no water, no life.

          • Modavations

            When he runs out of ammo he throws his gun at you,then starts with the  name calling.He’s a frightened man,not used to opposing world views,in my opinion

          • Anonymous

            I’m not scared of you. I pity you.
            I’m opposed to your world view because it’s selfish.

          • Anonymous

            ….

          • Modavations

            Then cut out the name calling

          • Modavations

             we have 8 zillion miles of pipe in the US.There is already a pipeline going over the same route as the proposed Keystone project.Keystone  was given  the go ahead by the EPA ,any number of times.This is political.The Salt dome,nuclear storage facility at Yucca(we spent 8 billion on this) in Nevada would have lasted 800 million years.Again,denial was political.

          • margbi

            800 million years? Who says that people then, assuming there are any, could read/understand/accept whatever directions we use to warn of danger, radioactivity, etc.?

          • Modavations

            Drill down 20 miles and you hit the nuclear reactor we live on

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            Get your facts straight!

            The sun is a fusion reactor, but the earth is not a nuclear reactor.

            The heat in the earth’s core comes from gravitational pressure.

            Neil

          • nj

            Moda-troll’s posting output would decline to zero if he had to rely on fact-based material.

          • Terry Tree Tree

            Are you advocating drilling into a nuclear reactor?  Fukushima and Chernobyl indicates we shouldn’t do that! 
               Too many zillions of lead and mercury?

          • Terry Tree Tree

            Millions, Billions Trillions, Quadrillions, Quintillions, Sixtillions, Septillions, Octillions,… , how many is Zillions?
               If it is much past Octillions, I question the validity of your statement! 

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            The ground water studies on the Yucca nuclear waste storage *were faked*.  We cannot store nuclear waste safely, at all, ever.

            We will run out of uranium, in about 100 years anyway.

            Neil

          • TFRX

            You get a gold star for the first mention of Ogallala. (If I were the kind to award drinks, you’d get one.) I’m surprised its shrinking borders map wasn’t up with the drought map at the top of the page.

          • nj

            It’s just fun to say “Ogallala.”

        • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

          Gregg,

          How much water is used to make the plastic bottle that it is sold in?  Look it up — it is far more water than it contains.  If your “answer” to a water problem is to just buy more bottles of water — then you have failed.

          Neil

      • Anonymous

        “Why is it in America we have to prove beyond all doubt that something is bad before we attempt to stop doing it?”

        Because we were told how good trans fats were for us, how bad salt is for us, how bad alcohol is etc and all those positions were either wrong or amended.   

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1816544 Dan Trindade

    Can the southwest survive climate change after rerouting and damming major rivers, creating cities and vast farm lands out of desserts, and years upon years of over farming, over grazing, and over development? Probably not.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1804122 Dane LaBonte

      I agree. Looking a bit further in the future, do you think the federal government will “bail them out”?

      To make an analogy to the above comment: New Orleans disrupted a natural water system, created a city below water level, and the federal government spent money.

      Obviously, the probable decline of the Southwest will be much slower than New Orleans. But I wouldn’t be surprised if money comes out of my pocket to support a bad idea.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1816544 Dan Trindade

        Very good point. I wound’t be surprised either.

        Some 35 million or so people live in the Southwestern United States. The federal government will not allow these people to suffer for very long without attempting to “bail them out” especially as Federal and State development policy (or the lack there of) created this problem. 

        The question that comes to mind now is not whether or not they will “bail them out” but how much it will cost us to do so.

        • TFRX

          Cost (the rest of) us, what? Money or water?

          At some point, will we have private “militias” or state-level militias in the midwest, with gunboats patrolling up and down the Mississippi and lower Missouri, to keep Farwesterners from putting pipes into it?

          (This sounds like the premise of a novel. Maybe a Christopher Buckley could make it less dire sounding than it seems.)

  • PI Resident

    As I recall the Colorado river seldom reaches the sea because of the overuse of its water by “us.”.  This phenomena has resulted in the loss of a wetlands ecosystem -  and “we” did not care.

    “We” are not willing to make sacrifices on behalf of the environment.  “We” will not give up our standard of living.  Even Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth, ignored the inconvenience and need for a lessened standard of living in the US.

    Too many people making too large a demand on resources.  Too many people . . . .

  • Yar

    Did anyone ever ask an engineer if it was smart to build cities in the desert or below sea level?  No, we ask engineers to build structures that support those cities.  All man made structures will eventually fail.  Look at how dependent we are on our aging infrastructure.  The industrial revolution will be a flash in the pan unless we start to look at problems from a long term prospective.  Anytime we think more than a few years ahead we lock up,  take yucca mountain for example.  It was a better idea than leaving waste in temporary storage at nuclear plants.  All coal slurry ponds will eventually fail.  We have plenty of people doing useless work, while necessary tasks are left undone. 

    • margbi

      Thanks for your good sense, Yar. It seems nearly impossible for humans to see beyond maybe the next quarter. C. Perrow wrote in 1984 in  “Normal Accidents” that every manmade system eventually fails.  Think of 3 Mile Island, Katrina, and on and on. Will we ever learn? I know, ask a Republican; just make the system bigger and everything will work out.

  • Anonymous

    Although I lived in Texas for a while, I was amazed at the extent of development around Phoenix. Take away the buildings and roads and you’re left with a desert where volcanic rocks the size of washing machines once rained from the sky.  There is beauty there for sure, but with drought, once flourishing Indian civilizations vanished. We’ve been warned of dropping aquifer levels out there for decades, yet people continued to swarm to the southwest to embrace the dry heat and in doing so overtax the environment and squander water continuing to employ conventional architecture when energy and water  conscious designs should be dictated. On the other end of the barometer, why do we continue to pour investments into the seacoast while ocean levels are rising? This implies that we as a race are just too stupid to live. Are we collectively no smarter than yeast?

    • Modavations

      Flourishing Indian culture???The guys couldn’t figure out the wheel.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1816544 Dan Trindade

        wow man. just, wow.

      • Terry Tree Tree

        They created a far more accurate calendar.

      • John in Amherst

        actually, central american cultures did have wheels, but they were used only on toys.  What they lacked were draft animals and a landscape that lent itself to road building

      • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

        Is the wheel your test for success?  Really?

        We can’t figure out how to live within the limits of this planet.  We can’t ruin the environment and still survive.  If we can figure it out, great.  If we cannot, we are a virus.

        Neil

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1816544 Dan Trindade

      Excellent point. Some can call it doom and gloom or “leftist hand wringing” but the facts remain. Unless America as a whole starts to embrace conscientious development that is done with the next 100 or 200 years in mind instead of the next 5 to 10 we will follow those once flourishing civilizations into decline, dissolution, and dust.

      • Modavations

        In two hundred years we’ll produce water synthetically and we’ll be teleporting

        • Terry Tree Tree

          If we live that long?

        • Anonymous

          Sooner the better, Modavations. Please be first in that teleport line!

        • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

          How does one synthesis water?

          You burn hydrogen.  So, where do we get hydrogen?

          Neil

      • Anonymous

        If you know what the US will look like in the next 100 to 200 years or can predict it, you must be the smartest person on earth!

        The UN climate change predictions were proven completely false less than 5 years after being hyped by Al Gore and they wasted millions of dollars making them!

        • Anonymous

          Actually they were pretty spot on and what we are seeing in the South West kind of supports the theory.
          Of course you could deny this and just say it’s a natural phenomenon, which is partly true. However if the droughts keep on happening every year or they are prolonged the fact remains, that region is in serious trouble.

        • Anonymous

          That’s not only wrong, but it shows blindness to the natural world.  If you keep your eyes open and watch the changes in the biota, you will be, well, shaken — and a lot less apt to dismiss what both scientists and farmers will tell you.

        • nj

          Unconnected with any semblance of the real world, Branny prattles, “The UN climate change predictions were proven completely false less than 5 years after being hyped by Al Gore…”

          On the whole, climate modeling is fairly accurate. If anything, they’ve under-predicted the severity and rate of human-induced changes.

          http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

  • Modavations

    More Leftist Hand Wringing.What was the movie with Faye Dunnaway(?) and J.Nickleson(?)about water rights in LA.I think it was Chionatown(?).I think the movie took place in the 1930′s.LA’s still there and the sun still rises every morning.

    • Anonymous

      Boy are you misinformed. Chinatown, a great Polanski film, was about story of how corrupt people took the water from farmers and used it for their own personal gain in development. Do some reading, at least try to it right.

    • nj

      It’s unfortunate for the rest of us that self-embarrassment is not a self-limiting factor in this case.

  • Gregg

    4 or 5 years ago we had a terrible drought here in NC. We use about 600 big round bales and 2500 square bales of hay a year at our horse farm. There was none that year. Before it was over we ended up buying a total of 5 tractor trailer loads, 2 from NY and 3 from Texas. They were having record rainfall that year. It nearly put us out of business. The weather can be a bitch.

    • Anonymous

      Just imagine if that went on longer. Or that the price of hay was too high for you guys. 

      I’m not sure myself that global warming is the cause of droughts as they have been around for ever. However it a rise in the earths temperature adds to the frequency of these events that would be a pretty serious problem.

    • Yar

      Tease out where the money comes from to support your “horse farm”.  It is the entertainment industry, that would largely disappear if we paid the actual costs to produce everything.  You may still be able to farm, but your product would have to be eatable. 

  • Anonymous

    Civilizations have survived climate change for the last 2000 years!  Why would today be any different than much more primitive civilizations?

    • Anonymous

      Actually a lot of them did not. We humans can not live without water.

      So are you volunteering for being the first to go here?

    • Modavations

      12,000 years,but whose counting

    • Anonymous

      Because there are so many of us, so much so that a mass migration may not be supported by other areas that have water.

    • Terry Tree Tree

      Many civilizations have NOT survived droughts, extended rainy seasons, extended and extreme winters etc…
         Today should be different because we have history to show what can happen.  If you don’t learn from history, you repeat it.

    • Anonymous

      Not only is it correct that many civilizations have not survived droughts, no past civilization on this earth has had population expansion at the rate we have.  Is it okay to behave like people who don’t care whether the planet has a future… just so long as we can still live at the level we want? 

      I live in one of those “exceptional drought” areas– the darkest part of the drought map.  Having lived in semi-desert in the past, I know how to cut back — way back — on water use.  But a lot of people simply believe that if they want it they should have it — and future be damned.  So there are people here who still believe they “should” be able to fill their swimming pools because it’s “their” water.

      And then there are the fires….

      • Anonymous

        I’d just like to add that there’s more to the southwest than Phoenix and Las Vegas.  Has Tom spoken about what this is doing to ranchers and other land people as distinct from the water requirements of urbanites and tourists and Las Vegas gamers?  What it’s doing to the wildlife?  Why I have to spend $50/week on deer feed just to keep at least some of them alive? 

        Bring the lens in closer, Tom.  Look at what is being lost in the natural world and to agriculture.

    • John in Amherst

      suggest you read Jared Diamond’s “Collapse”

    • Brett

      Don’t you mean since Jesus died for our sins 2000 years ago? Those victims of climate change before 2000 years ago just didn’t have enough Jesus! 

    • nj

      Current population levels have never been this high and settlement distribution as wide as they are now. Intensity of resource use has never been as intense. Dependence on dwindling raw materials and earth’s natural services has never been as high. Current rates of climate change are unprecedented in at least 40,000 years.

      Other than that, you make a good point.

  • Anonymous

    No.
    From the National Park, soon to be formerly known as Glacier– south through the Inter-Mountain West, Montana, Utah, Nevada, Arizona.
    Historically, we’ve had four irrigated hay-cuttings a year. Last year, two. Primarily from loss of irrigation ground water. I reside in the Boise, Bend, Pendelton triangle, not the SW.
    Not long off, I expect to witness a Volkswanderung not seen since the Dark Ages. If I live so long. I expect crop failure we’ve not known since the Great Famine of 1315-1317.

  • Anonymous

    Tom,

    Can you talk a little about the unreliability of climate predictions.  

    I have yet to see an individual or group that can reliably produce climate predictions for 5 or 10 years into the future.  The Al Gore and UN climate models are perfect examples.

    How many millions of dollars were wasted because of this bad science?

    • John in Amherst

      yes, estimates of climate change from the 1990′s were wrong, in that they have proven to be too moderate. 

    • Beez

      How is it “bad science”? Just because they haven’t figured it out 100% accurately does not mean it’s “bad”. You actually make no sense. That is the essence of science; to make predictions based on experiments and research. There are no end-all conclusions in science, just a continued path towards understanding.
      Don’t politicize it. It certainly has been proven. The only bad science is from the lies of the right wing “studies”

      • Anonymous

        You are obviously not a scientist and have not taken any science classes lately.  

        Your statement ”
        There are no end-all conclusions in science,” is completely false, so I stopped reading after it.  

        Please review the following terms before posting about science; Scientific method, Scientific theory, Scientific Fact.

        • TFRX

          Your cognitive dissonance in these pages would dissuade many from taking seriously any of your questions about science terms, no matter your line of work.

        • Beez

          You really are out of your mind.

        • nj

          Why does it seem like the most ignorant seem to bellow the loudest and in the most definitive terms?

      • Anonymous

        It’s bad science because there is a concerted effort to shut out dissenting opinions as the hacked emails from East Anglia show.  The worst predictions about climate change and water usage may be true, but if research data is withheld, and contrarian opinions are blacklisted from prominent journals, how can trust the “experts?”

        • TFRX

          You keep bringing up “the hacked emails”; they don’t say what you think they do?

          But great job absorbing the “controversy”.

          • Anonymous

            What the emails show is that there is a concerted effort to marginalize contrarian facts and opinions.  That isn’t science, that is religion.

    • TFRX

      Keep JAQing it, Branny. No point in talking sense to you.

  • Terry Tree Tree

    Measure the temperature 50 feet off any asphalt road, then every 10 feet till you get to the center of the road.  Multiply the temperature difference by the millions, or billions of square miles of roads. 
        Do the same for any city, starting at 50 miles out, measuring every 5 miles.
       Some have dismissed this as ‘heat islands’, and say it makes no difference.
       Factor in the changes caused by agriculture, slash-and burn clearing, mining, the changes in the colors of waters of the oceans, rivers etc…
       With ALL that, and a LOT more, how can anyone say man has no effect on the environment.
        When you cool with air-conditioning, you HEAT the outside.  When you heat your house etc…, you HEAT the outside.

    • notafeminista

      So, down to just food,shelter and fuel yet?  Must have been an interesting Christmas at the Tree house this year.

  • Terry Tree Tree

    Where will the Southwest pipe their water in from.  People moved to the Southwest, for a drier climate.  They got what they went there for. 
       Those that were there, are the ones to sympathize for.

    • TFRX

      But many of them went for respiratory relief-allergies, etc. That went away as other people brought along their pollen-y plants, the ones that wouldn’t naturally survive in that climate.

      Perhaps that will change with the “greening” (by which I mean “no longer watering non-native species).

      And as I type it, a guest says just what I’m thinking: The catchall “greening” means something different in the arid West, at 53 minutes.

      • Terry Tree Tree

        That’s my point.

  • Anonymous

    Tom,

    Is this show about Climate Change or Man Made Climate Change?

    The first has been going on through all of time and the second’s magnitude of impact has yet to be proven.

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

      The current rapid and large changes in the climate are caused by human activity. This has been proven — the carbon isotopes came from burning carbon fuel.

      Neil

      • Anonymous

        Is your statement a theory or a scientific FACT?

        • John in Amherst

          You are demonstrating a gap in your education.  Facts are true or false.  Science is a way to examine facts to determine if they are true or false, and develop models that allow for predictions of behavior in physical systems.  Scientists gather facts, propose theories to explain the facts, devise experiments to test the theories, and if the theories prove to be valid explanations, they can be used for predictions about future states or actions.  This is opposed to taking the world on faith.  Faith has a place in human reality, but when it comes to manipulating the real world, science is a lot more useful than faith. 

        • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

          Do you believe in the Theory of Gravity?  How about Atomic Theory?  Or the Theory of Evolution or plate tectonics?  Do you believe in the existence of Pangaea?

          A scientific theory is as close to absolute knowledge as we get.  Facts = data and Theory = our best understanding of what the data means.

          I hope this helps you understand our climate science.

          Neil

          • Anonymous

            Well, I guess that’s it then isn’t it?  Many scientists agree with you and those that don’t can’t get a hearing because of a corrupted peer review process and we are all supposed to agree that AGW is real. 

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            The peer review process is the same in all fields of science.  It is not there for novices (like me) — it is for all of the scientists.  The conclusion that AGW is based on the data, and that is that we humans are causing this rapid rise in temperature.

            You arguing with me won’t change the science any more than if we were arguing about plate tectonics or DNA or atomic theory or the theory of gravity.

            All science works through the same process.

            You can continue to believe in a conspiracy and I will continue to accept what the scientists are telling us.

            Neil

          • Anonymous

            I don’t just believe in a conspiracy, I have included proof.  Honest peer review is how it should work.  However, it seems that there is something less than honest about the way climate papers are reviewed.  http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/27/the-tribalistic-corruption-of-peer-review-the-chris-de-freitas-incident/

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            Mr. Anthony Watts is not qualified to judge — the Berkeley Earth Surface Study was supposed to back up the “heat island” affect Mr. Watts has been pushing — but it in fact fully confirmed all the other major climate models.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tciQts-8Cxo

            Neil

          • Anonymous

            Other skeptics voiced concerns as well.  So far as I can tell, their concerns are not unfounded and are easily addressed.  Since Watts has one of the highest trafficked climate sites, you would think that if the “real” climate scientists are going to do a whole study to mollify this guy, they could at least answer his review of their work. 

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            They have answered his and others concerns.  Please look into Dr. Richard Alley and Dr. Ben Santer and James Balog and Dr. Lonnie Thompson.

            The evidence for climate change is all around us.  look into ocean level rise and it’s effects in Norfolk Virginia.  Look into the methane plumes that have been occurring in northern Russia.  Look into the soil errosion on the Alaskan coast.  Look at the moulins in Greenland and elsewhere, and how they are greatly accelerating the glaciers moving into the ocean.  Look into the acidification of the ocean, from carbonic acid forming as the water absorbs ever more carbon dioxide.

            And the topic of this hour of On Point — the drought in the Texas area is unprecedented.  As were the fires and drought around Moscow last year.  The crop loses are the biggest single factor in the Arab Spring, because of the increase in food prices.

            Neil

      • Anonymous

        Please provide me the proof that convinced you of the following; 
        rapid and large changes in the climate, and 
        caused by human activity.

        Until then your posts will be ignored.

        • Brett

          Study the Dust Bowl days if you want proof of anthropogenic forces affecting the environment, and look at how solutions were implemented…

          • Anonymous

            Please outline some of the anthropogenic solutions the the 1930′s dust bowl.

          • Brett

            I already have: replanting prairie grasses, practicing contour tilling, rotating crops (these techniques, generally, were not practiced until they were introduced to farmers through government programs).

          • Terry Tree Tree

            Low-till farming, letting fields lie fallow, crop rotation, countour plowing and planting!

          • Anonymous

            The methods you describe do help conserve soil and water, but, call me crazy, they didn’t reverse the dust bowl. 

          • Terry Tree Tree

            If they helped conserve soil and water, HOW did they NOT help reverse the dust bowl?

          • Anonymous

            Because the dust bowl came about from drought, not farming practices and no till farming doesn’t prevent drought. 

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            The climate scientists have included all the data, and their conclusions are correct.

            I am not a climate scientist — are you?

            Neil

          • Anonymous

            I am not a scientist and don’t assert that my  conclusions are true, I am asserting that yours warrant further scrutiny.  http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/08/alarmist-climate-science-and-the-principle-of-exclusion/

          • Anonymous
          • Anonymous

            I posted 2 links that directly refute what you say about the scientists and the data, are you going to refute what I posted or temper your beliefs?  

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            Mr. Anthony Watts is an amateur.  He has been shown to be wrong on many if not all the things he writes.

            What is his PhD in?  What studies has he done?  Where have the results been published?  Has any scientist taken him seriously?

            Ask Dr. Muller about Mr Watts’ theories:

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tciQts-8Cxo

            Neil

          • notafeminista

            So which guy started the drought?

        • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

          Anthropogenic climate change is the conclusion of climate scientists.  I take their conclusions for what they are: the best understanding of reality.

          What do you base your conclusions on?

          Neil

    • Anonymous

      The magnitude isn’t proven. Atmospheric gases: CO2, arctic methane, are far greater than the historical scale. (as sampled from ice cores)

      • Anonymous

        If 
        CO2 concentrations are as you say  “far greater than the historical scale” (even though that statement doesn’t make any sense, but I will ignore that for now)  This would increase plant growth rates improving crop production allowing us to feed the worlds population.  

        If you are determined to lower CO2 levels, you are also condemning the poorest around the world to increased starvation!  How dare you!

        • Terry Tree Tree

          Man is removing plants at increasing rates.

        • nj

          You really should take Lincoln’s advice:

          “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.”

        • Laager

          Where I live, sometimes a man, or, woman, must know when to shoot their own dog, or, horse. Never dare me, again.
          I make no claim to future knowledge, i’m no prophet. It is physics, simple. It is history writ LARGE! 
          Are you an idiot, moron, &/or imbecile?  id is NOT est! >CO2 does not = > plant growth ye < thot. 
          If I've religion, it is Quaker. We may survive, or, die. Choose.
          I do not listen to this radio programme to bump my ego. I listen to challenge my internal dialogue and reason.
          If I ever phone in–let me not forget to say–great listening!
          goodbye
          PS: USS Liberty, was Murder! 

        • Anonymous

          Please, continue to challenge dogma.
          Your words lack life-experience and CV. I replied to your nonsense in a mid-night awakening–not my best.
          This online feedback loop is insufficient to the horrific roots of the abyss of humanities’ extinction.
          We live and learn. Please, do so.
          Contrarian battering is of little worth– creative-thinking is demanded.
          The long-thread of your posts carry little value or reason.
          Please, add value to the discussion. You seem too immature and untested to HARD TIMES!.

    • John in Amherst

      What exactly would be proof?  Science gathers evidence in attempts to test theories.  There is overwhelming evidence indicating recent dramatic changes in climate, and also in a rise in CO2 and other greenhouse gases that is coincident with and parallel to industrial development and deforestation.  Despite vague claims by the small minority of scientists who deny climate change, there is no evidence or plausible theory suggesting that the accumulation of greenhouse gases and the rise in global temperature is due to anything but human activity.  And in the end, what does it matter to the Southwest?

      • Anonymous

        The rooster crows and the Sun comes up so we need to protect roosters, right?

    • cricket

      Brandstad,

      Since the start of the industrial revolution, we have burned massive amounts of carbon-based fuels in the form of coal, oil, and natural gas.  With oil alone, we have  burned 1 trillion+ barrels since the early 1900′s, releasing carbon into the atmosphere that had previously been sequestered in the ground for millions of years.  So what is it about this scenario that you disagree with?  Does burning fossil fuels not release additional carbon into the atmosphere?  Does a higher concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have no impact on the regulation of climate temperature?  What possible evidence can you provide to support your position?  More importantly, what possible evidence could climate scientists provide to people with your view that would convince you that we have a problem here?

      • Anonymous

        Cricket, you don’t characterize my position correctly.  The main disagreement between climate change alarmists and scientists is boiled down to the following question.  

        “Is the earths environment an inherently stable or unstable system?”  

        In order for me to be convinced of a man made global warming crisis, I would need to see proof that the earths environment is an inherently unstable system and I would need to see historical predictions that are proven to come true (or at least true to 90% reliability) in the 5-10 year time frame.

        This will not happen though since it is widely known in the scientific community that the earths environment is an inherently stable system.  

        • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

          What does the “stability” have to do with it, how do you define “stability”, anyway?

          The isotopes of the carbon in the atmosphere show directly that they come from burning carbon fuels.  And an increase in carbon dioxide is the only thing that explains this rapid increase in temperature, the increase in acidity of the ocean, the rise of the ocean levels, the melting Arctic ice and melting tundra, the increase in both intense precipitation and droughts.

          We have a greater than 90% certainty in the current climate models.  Are you ignoring the scientific conclusions?

          Neil

        • nj

          Hey, look! It’s Branny trying even harder to  pretend he knows anything about climate, general science, or earth history.

  • Allen – Omaha

    (Being sarcastic in the comment)

    States rights, States rights.  I’m certain all the affected States will work nicely with another and fix the problem together w/o the Federal Government.

  • Mike

    I just want to say I love this show. It is part of the fabric of my morning routine Monday thru Friday. Tom is the best. Happy New Year Tom.

  • Anonymous

    Bono can solve it with a benefit concert.

    • TFRX

      But if the crowd drinks enough water at the concert, it may not “break even” hydrologically.

  • Emjones

    Ask the guest about the five or more Trans-Continental-Divide tunnels in Colorado which steal water from the upper Colorado river and send it EAST to Denver and agricultural areas to the south. 

    Bemoaning the change in climate is a waste of time. We need major engineering projects to solve the problem.

    • Terry Tree Tree

      Many engineering projects for temporary improvement, will make the situation WORSE!  The engineering and social engineering needs to take the long-term possible effects into consideration.

  • JustSayin

    Is it worth presenting ANY science into any discussion with ideologues?  After many years of presenting evidence from all of the sciences, I could not convince an evangelical that the planet was older than 6000 years. He even denied dendrochronological evidence as irrelevant.

    There is no way he was going to believe that climate changes at all or has ever changed, with or without human influence. He did not believe in gravity, a spherical earth was the only thing he seemed to be tentatively agreeable on.

    Conclusion: No argument, no rational discourse, no science, no observational reality, can change the faithful and the believers.

    Is it worth teaching physics to a dog? Maybe you have to like the dog.

    The sad part about climate change is the certainty of cascade failure, and the small percentage of the population that will be dragged into the abyss by large number of deniers. Just like the links between cancer and smoking, they will bury their heads in the corporate obfuscation until the bodies pile up.

    • NotSpecial

      Talk to the wolves and rabbits. They don’t know what they are doing long term but it usually works out. Unless you’re a wolf or rabbit at the wrong time of the cycle.

      too bad.

      People will change when they feel the consequences, not when do-gooders tell them to. Will that be “too late”? Maybe, maybe just different.

      But tough cookies, who ever gave us a guarantee of where our evolution, choices and freedom would take us?

      • Anonymous

        What a load of crap.

      • JustSayin

        Dave, do you brush your teeth? If so why?

        • NotSpecial

          Because the government told me to?

    • Anonymous

      So everyone that is skeptical of climate change is a science denying evangelical?  What about everyone that believes in climate change is a radical secularist supplanting God with Mother Nature and humans with Lucifer?  The corruption of climate science as shown in the hacked emails should at least raise doubts in the minds of AGW believers. 

      Perhaps the warmists are right and timid in their predictions, but the closemindedness of the adherents needs to looked at too.

      • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

        The hacked emails are not indicative of anything wrong in the science.

        If you have proof that 98% of the climate scientists are wrong, then please produce your proof, and save us the effort!

        If you cannot prove your claim that the science is bunk, then you need to examine your logic.

        I am very skeptical that you can prove that climate science is wrong.

        Neil

        • Anonymous

          The hacked emails ARE indicative of something wrong in science.  It shows the corruption of the process.  Learned men with PhD’s write volumes both pro and con on the issue and you think I can prove one side wrong on this message board?  Check out http://wattsupwiththat.com/ for a skeptics view.

    • notafeminista

      Hey TRFX…isn’t this where you say…”anec is not a sufficient prefix for data”?

  • JUST CORY PLEASE!

    Mankind, at this stage of its evolution, is incapable of responding to long term threats to its existence.

    • TweedleDumDee

      you mean threats to it’s material and consumer comforts?

  • Ca_brit

    Climate Change deniers will have their come to Jesus moment when the fire is beating at the doors of their residence. So sad.

    • Anonymous

      Then they will blame government for not doing enough.

  • http://en-gb.facebook.com/onanov Donald Baxter
    • notafeminista

      Obviously time to ban electricity then. 

      • http://en-gb.facebook.com/onanov Donald Baxter

        ah, the conservatives provide such wise comments.

        • notafeminista

          I read the article…cause sort of matters don’t you think?  

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            The article mentions drought and high temperatures.  In January.

            Hmmm.

            Neil

          • notafeminista

            It also mentions a downed power line as being the beginning of the fire.  Miss that part or just neglect to mention it?

            Hmmmm indeed.

        • Terry Tree Tree

          ‘Conservative’ of the wealth of the rich, is ALL I have been able to be certain they are conservative of.

  • TweedleDumDee

    If you can’t sustain it, get out of the desert!

    -libertarian

    • JustSayin

      Ah, land reform… the spark of civil war.

      • NotSpecial

        People should be free to try and settle/exist wherever they want, if they can sustain it and pay the market rate for the land.

        Why civil war?  It’s the dictates and groups coercing other groups that spark war.

  • Yar

    I predict the death of the southwest will come out of flood instead of drought.  
    The dry conditions may make flooding worse, and the failure will be man made.  Look at the relatively small flood in 1983 and 1984, multiply them by 7 to get to the BLM estimates of predicted flow rates.  It will wash out Glen Canyon Dam, then the surge may very well take out hoover dam.  The desert will return.  The people will be forced to leave.  This disaster will make Katrina look like a minor failure.

    • Terry Tree Tree

      Another possibility.

  • notafeminista

    Well of course they have, because the Left needs something to feel guilty about.  Global warming/climate change meets all comers equally.  How arrogant of man is it to assume we have any control of this rock we live on.  We don’t know ANYthing..and yet we assume we can destroy or save the planet.  Disgraceful.

    • Anonymous

      No, the disgrace is how you seem to think that this is a left, right issue. It’s not. Just ask anyone who has lived through the recent droughts in Texas. Ideology is not on the forefront of ones mind when there are huge fires burning thousands of acres.

      • NotSpecial

        Dinosaurs should have occupied something to stop the changing world.

        • Anonymous

          They were more successful in their longevity, about 150 million years, than we seem to be. 
          I could say something here that would get me banned, but your not worth the effort.
          Try to use that gray matter between your ears.

          • NotSpecial

            Yep.

        • Terry Tree Tree

          Dinosaurs occupied the past.  If the descriptions in ‘Jurrasic Park’, are near right, I’m kind of glad they don’t occupy the present!

      • notafeminista

        Then you should read more of the comments on the board.  ..and speaking of fires burning thousands of acres..remind me specifically what restorative effect fire has on grasslands and forests.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_Y6CO5C2HE4WM2OYGCDVWGPRXXM oldman

    Our infrastructure is rotting as it is and we have less and less to put into infrastructure.

    Globalization doesn’t just apply to jobs and cities. Many rural and hard to support areas in  the US are going to basically be abandoned over the next 50 years, eventually resembling more the countryside of China and India than post WWII US.

  • Jim from Providence

    How fortunate that the semiconductor revolution should be based on  sand (silica).
    By the same token, perhaps we should look to salt water to solve our water/energy problem.
    I suggest a project, on the scale of the Manhattan Project, the purpose of which is to develop an engine/motor/furnace which burns the hydrogen content of salt water on demand.  Imagine going to the beach to fill your tank.
    It’s clean, cheap(?), plentiful and the exhaust is fresh water vapor. 
    Why not ? 

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

      How do you propose to split ocean water with electrolysis?  And then transport the hydrogen to the desert, to then burn it?

      I am very skeptical that this could even work, let alone be affordable.

      Neil

    • Terry Tree Tree

      Oil companies would stop it in a heartbeat, if it had any chance to succeed!
         Tesla invented a cheap way to beam electricity to houses, without wires.   George Westinghouse asked him where the meter goes.  Project closed down after proving it worked.

  • Brett

    I always wanted to write a song about the ‘dust bowl days’ and make it sound authentic…I guess I’ll get my chance.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_Y6CO5C2HE4WM2OYGCDVWGPRXXM oldman

    Haas anyone mentioned the winter dust storm in Idaho that shut down highways?

  • http://profiles.google.com/jmorrisson Jane Morrisson

    I want to see us be more pro-active.  Ban all green grass and require people to naturalize their yards with local flora. Require low-flow toilets and showerheads, and encourage composting toilets. Stop washing cars. Require gray-water to flush toilets – why are we using drinking water to flush our toilets?

    Australia went through a horrendous drought and made many changes that we could learn from. All water in the house is used at least 3 times before it goes out, and then it waters plants and gardens outside.

    • NotSpecial

      Mass suicides would be greener and more noble. Go green samurai.

      Freedom or servitude/compliance?

      Which is more human, worth living?

      It’s debatable.

      • TFRX

        Debatable?

        Really, you’re willing to die on that hill, stake your soul for the glorious Battle Of The Four Gallon Flush?

        You need to live in Texas over the summer. Or at least pretend you can imagine what it’s like.

        • NotSpecial

          When I give up low flow toilets and solar hot water system and organic garden (cold frames still giving lettuce in Jan), maybe I’ll go down to texas and be irresponsible.

          • TFRX

            You’re not fooling anyone with the new handle. Libertarianism won’t solve this communal problem.

          • NotSpecial

            Individual actions will be the only way it happens. Keep talking common sense, and keep rewarding ideas/products that reflect your view. 

            We’ll get there.

          • TFRX

            No sense talking sense to a Libertarian about water.

          • NotSpecial

            Federal Government (Military) has done more environmental damage than all other sources.

            Bigger not always better.

            Most people understand the point that of course we love Big power as long as it does the “right” things, but that history shows, it often doesn’t

            Small is Beautiful.

            Competition of ideas and products and freedom to try them and support them is more progressive.

          • Terry Tree Tree

            One part of the solution, at least.

      • nj

        Dave’s too embarrassed to use any of his previous handles, lest anyone just dismiss him out of hand at the sight of any of his many nomes de shill.

        • NotSpecial

          The shoot the messenger as opposed to making an argument tendency around here is just too common.

          But what a great point you made on the issue!

    • Anonymous

      I want to see worldwide IQ tests mandated and all the takers that score below 110 be sterilized.  I am sure that will take care of future deniers and most greedy, wasteful people.  Then we can have a sustainable population.

      • Lolabritney

        You’re first on the list, maggot

        • Anonymous

          There ought to be an IQ test for posters too.  Because, obviously, you aren’t smart enough to get the sarcasm or context. 

  • Emjones

    Oh, who are these crybabies?!!! The twentieth century was FULL of engineering projects to address water shortages. Why no just hire a bunch of Dutch engineers? They’d trade problems with the Southwest in a heartbeat!

    • http://en-gb.facebook.com/onanov Donald Baxter

      Actually, I doubt that.  Making water materialize where there is none is not the problem holding water back and pumping it out is.  Not all the world was meant to sustain a metro area of 4 million people.

      • notafeminista

        And you know this how?  Ehrlich was wrong.

  • Terry from Franklin

    Terry from Franklin.

    There was a book, Cadillac Desert, some years ago that talked about some of this without the climate change effects.  That book predicted future water problems.  Even without the effects of climate change there wasn’t enough water to support continued growth.  
    People would move to the southwest and rather than living with the arid conditions they put in green lawns and swimming pools and built golf courses, big water wasters.  I’ve been heartened by the efforts in some places in the southwest to encourage ripping up lawns and filling in outdoor pools.There were a couple of proposals in the 1980s to build a pipeline and ship water from the Great Lakes.  One was purely to move water and one proposal was to move a coal and water slurry.  These proposals were rebuffed.  Now the Great Lakes have lost a few feet of depth.

    • TFRX

      Agreed on Cadillac Desert. I read that book in the pre-internet era; it’s fantastically informative.

      I hope that some changes have been made which render parts of it out of date, at which point it will become a very useful document on the policies and the mindsets before (parts of) the West woke up about water.

  • http://www.dpsinfo.com LaurieMann

    I’ve flown across the country a number of times over the last 25 years. It’s clear that the many rivers are drying up and the land is becoming drier in the West.  I visited Melbourne, Australia last year, in a part of Australia that isn’t in the desert but is often dry.  People in the Melbourne area are being a whole lot more careful about their water use than people in the American west.  I wish people in the American West could be as pro-active. 

  • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

    It is critical that we do something about global climate change and our unsustainable consumption of many important resources — because we can have an affect. We started the ball rolling, and by the same token, we can work to reverse what we have started. It won’t be easy and it will be painful, but as moral beings we have to try.

    Paul Gilding in his book “The Great Disruption” talks about an approximate time line of 5 or 6 years of status quo before we hit a big tipping point, and then very aggressive reduction of carbon output over the next 25-30 years, followed by as much carbon sequestration as we can muster.

    We need to take the 2C increase very seriously, and we must
    not pass ~450ppm or all hell will really break loose. We need to return back down to <350ppm to avoid the worst effects. The equilibrium we had for ~65,000 years was ~270ppm.

    When and if we can do this, the world won't be back to what we had, because there is real and lasting damage to biodiversity, but it will probably settle down.

    We and all life forms here in the present are the results of all life that has come before us. We would not even have oxygen in the air without plants splitting water in photosynthesis. Each and every molecule in our bodies has been part of myriad other life forms before, many times over.

    Think of this as a kind of reincarnation.  I love this quote from Neil deGrasseTyson:

    We are all connected;
    To each other, biologically
    To the earth, chemically
    To the rest of the universe atomically

    Each and every drop of water has been cycling through life forms, the soil, and the rocks of this planet — over and over and over and over again and again and again… The oxygen carrying iron in our blood came from the stars. All the gold we have came from supernovas.  The soil itself was produced by all of life forms down through the eons.

    This is a balanced and efficient and bountiful cycle. The carbon we have so blithely thrown up into the atmosphere in less than 2 centuries was packed away underground over a couple of billion years.

    We have made a very basic change, and we must take responsibility for it.

    Neil

    • Anonymous

      “One of the most powerful religions in the Western World is
      environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice
      for urban atheists.”
      “Why do I say its a religion? Well, just look
      at the beliefs. I f you look carefully, you see that environmentalism
      is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional
      Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths. ”
      “It seems facts aren’t
      necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief.
      It’s about whether you are going to be a sinner or saved. Whether you
      are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the
      side of doom.
       “We need to get environmentalism out of the sphere or religion.”

      Michael Crichton

      • TFRX

        Crichton the science (fiction) writer?

        • Anonymous

          Have you ever read one of his books?  If you have, you would see the scientific research that supports his stories. Some theory and some fact…

          • TFRX

            His axe to grind about global warming got him onto the Rolodex of the denier’s propaganda media. He’s a hack.

          • notafeminista

            Was a hack btw, the man is deceased.

          • Terry Tree Tree

            Yes, I was sorry to hear that.  I enjoyed his books.  I wasn’t a patient of his. 

        • Anonymous

          Yes, the fiction writer.  He couldn’t possibly know anything, “Crichton
          graduated summa cum laude from Harvard College, received his MD from
          Harvard Medical School, and was a postdoctoral fellow at the Salk
          Institute for Biological Studies, researching public policy with Jacob
          Bronowski. He taught courses in anthropology at Cambridge University and
          writing at MIT.”

          • TFRX

            He had an axe to grind about global warming. He has been proved a hack, and got on the denier circuit for it.

          • Anonymous

            His point about environmentalism is a a good one and you have yet to refute it.  Typical leftist, attack the messenger and leave.   He IS correct in his assessment of the environmental movement.  And if you had any of the “open mindedness” so many on the left love to preach about, you assess his theory.  This should help.  http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/religion.htm

          • TFRX

            When I hear some right-winger compare something that isn’t religion  to religion, then get rewarded as the the right-wing propaganda press’s darling on the subject, there’s nothing better to be dug up on it.

          • Anonymous

            If you are a close minded bigot there is nothing to be dug up on it. 

        • Terry Tree Tree

          Michael Crichton’s scientific background is in most of his book bios.  In one copy of ‘The Andromeda Strain’, he says the U.S. government persuaded him to explain the actual event, to a degree.

        • notafeminista

          And physician.

    • notafeminista

      They thought “all hell was gonna break loose” with hurricanes too.  Oops.

      Well no matter, hydro-fracking is the new bogey-man now.

      • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

        The frequency of storms is not going to increase, but the intensity will increase.  And we have seen massive storms in many places around the world.  There have been a huge number of very large flooding events lately:

        http://www.treehugger.com/climate-change/these-32-extreme-weather-disasters-each-did-over-1-billion-damage-2011.html

        Neil

        • notafeminista

          Just admit it!  They don’t know.  They make predictions and scare everyone into thinking the world is going to end.

          There have been massive storms around the world since and before the beginning of recorded time.   Only now, the Left wants to say it’s humanity’s fault.  And not just any  humanity (as evidenced by the UN’s information and actions) but RICH humanity.  Western civilization those colonizing thieving miscreants are going to be held responsible for the demise of the planet.  This reeks of politics and a very specific agenda.

  • Eben markowski

    In draining the southwest every drop counts. Stop wasting it on golf courses, lavish lawns,water fountains, and unsustainable agriculture. We live with an economy of destruction and waste having convinced ourselves that it is the only way to do business. We are such mindless consumers who want it all and then cry to politician when our house of cards come down. stop waiting for government leadership and change your bad habits now.

  • Yardbird

    @Tom, when your guest refused to predict what would happen to Phoenix over the next century, your response was that you “were tired of that response” and that “you people” were always saying things like that. I thought the idea of your show was to elicit your guests’ viewpoints, not demand that they fulfill yours. I know that this time of year is often associated with glib predictions about the future, but I generally think of you as having more depth than that. Time for a vacation, Tom?

    • nj

      Yeah, that wasn’t cool.

  • Kevin

    Stop relying on technology but learn to be more efficient with our built environment! 

    • Terry Tree Tree

      THAT’S the technology we NEED to rely on!

  • Ca_brit

    I love this wait and see attitude of Climate Change deniers. They have this believe that technology can change everything. No doubt Mother Nature has another view.

  • Paul Chenard

    I believe that the southwest can survive, but it has to build denser compact cities. These denser cities will require less water and less energy to run. We also need to go back to look at how the environment works and work with the environment when building in the southwest, which we use to do. Smart growth can help save the southwest. 

    • notafeminista

      Because there will be fewer people in these cities?

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

      How do we supply food and water to these cities in the desert?

      Neil

  • silvio

    Another hour of “climate change” proganda.  Without explicitly stating so, the assumption again is that CO2 is responsible but not a shred of evidence is presented.  I have also noticed that any time that “climate change” is the subject of this program, an expert with a contrary point of view is ever allowed on to ask probing questions of the “climate change” advocates being interviewed.  Not all skeptics of climate change are cranks and many have the right scientific credentials.  Its a disgrace that On Point never puts them on.

    • Joni

      Sorry, but it’s the deniers who don’t have any evidence and thus there’s little reason to give them more of a voice than FOX already does.

      • Anonymous

        In science, theory’s only need to be proven false once before they fall into the waste bin and Man Made Global warming has done so.  Also proven by the fact that it has been renamed 3 times now to try to hide the theory’s falsehood.

        • Brett

          Prove that the reason climate change has been renamed by its proponents to hide falsehoods about the theory. 

        • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

          You are confusing “theory” with “hypothesis”.

          Neil

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

      Silvio,

      Who would you suggest as a non-crank climate change skeptic?  I am skeptical that you can name even one.

      Neil

      • Anonymous

        Anthony Watts.

        • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

          Anthony Watts is a weatherman, not a climate scientist.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcxVwEfq4bM

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wbzK4v7GsM

          His “science” has been debunked.  The heat island affect is not skewing the data.

          Neil

          • Anonymous

            The difference between a meteorology degree and a climatology degree is minimal.  The same basic science is needed for both.  There is a lot more to WUWT than the urban heat island effect. 

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            Climate change is far more complex and multidisciplinary.   Meteorology is looking only at current dynamics with what we know to predict general weather patterns.  Climatology spans the entire history of the earth, and requires knowledge of plate tectonics, geology, vulcanology, chemistry, some astrophysics, study of ice and glaciology, dendrochronology, paleontology, etc.Neil

      • notafeminista

        Is that comment more reflective of open-mindedness or tolerance?

      • notafeminista

        Is that comment more reflective of open-mindedness or tolerance?

  • Kevin

    Stop trying to build a “Green” Phoenix.  Be happy with brown and learn to live with it. 

  • Ellen Dibble

    Great to be hearing a developer next, but those with an even longer view would be the insurers and reinsurers, and they could steer our developing and settling and industrial centers toward where there is less chance of disruption this century.  So…

  • NotSpecial

    Most people will make the best choices they can, including being sensitive to the environment if they can and are aware.

    We have overpopulated the planet.

    Now we either have to live with the material consequences of our existence at these numbers, or force people to change.

    Forcing people to do things usually doesn’t end well.

    That’s a tough conundrum, but one that honestly needs to be appreciated.

    Just because you are right that our actions have consequences, and that collectively our huge populations are having big consequences, doesn’t mean it will justify a police state to do the right thing.

    Does it?  Would it be worth a police state?

    The pessimism about what the majority of people would choose to do over time is depressing.

    • TFRX

      Making the best choices is one thing, but the force of law is required at some point.

      I didn’t consider it a “police state” when we took the lead out of gasoline.

      • NotSpecial

        and the vast majority of people were happy to let it go.

        Change takes a bit of time. Patience is a Virtue.

        • TFRX

          Did you consider it a “police state” when lead was removed from gasoline?

          (You’re not fooling anyone with the new handle.)

          • NotSpecial

            I just answered you that it didn’t take a police state, people understood and we changed and overwhelmingly accepted it.

            The point is until there is near consensus, it does no good to get militant about things, even if one is “correct”.

          • TFRX

            No point talking sense to a libertarian.

          • NotSpecial

            No sense talking reality and human nature to a militant.

          • TFRX

            How few water barons will overcome the wishes for market pricing and conservation efforts of how many thousands of citizens?

            Libertarians have an answer to that?

          • Anonymous

            Bullets.

          • NotSpecial

            Competition and prosecution against collusion and market rigging.

            We should try it.

            Bill Black is still waiting.

          • Brett

            Actually people didn’t “overwhelmingly” accept unleaded gas. A lot of people cut open the necks of their gas tanks (unleaded nozzles are smaller) so they could still use leaded gas. I remember seeing old codgers cursing pump jockeys for refusing to put leaded gas in the old codgers’ cars. People were fined for putting leaded gas in their unleaded cars, and still continued to use leaded gas. I’ve seen many a car with its catalytic converter cut off, its gas-tank neck vandalized, and the “unleaded only” sticker scratched off. 

            It wasn’t until one could not get leaded gas anymore that people “overwhelmingly” accepted unleaded gas.

          • NotSpecial

            you should have shot the old codgers.

            Their will always be stragglers and resistors, but in the main people are reasonable, despite the partisan hyperbole.

          • Brett

            You are not responding to the main point: unleaded gasoline wasn’t implemented because of personal choices and personal evolving knowledge; it was imposed. I wish the only ways in which people cooperated were driven purely by reason, fairness, adhering to laws without having them imposed, and so on, but…  

            People are reasonable under certain conditions. But ask them to give up something they perceive makes their lives work better (albeit it may actually be causing them harm) and see how manipulative, underhanded, and protective they become.

          • NotSpecial

            The point is that if lead harms others, they can sue, the price of leaded products rises, and most people shift their consumer choices.

            We have to fight for real Rule of Law.

            Bill Black
            Glenn Greenwald

          • Terry Tree Tree

            Not to mention the ‘funnel extension’ for pump nozzles, that adapted leaded gas pumps to unleaded tanks.

        • Brett

          The change that resulted in universal usage of unleaded gas didn’t happen as the result of individualism or consensus among average citizens. This isn’t an example of libertarianism at its finest, the farthest from it in fact. Are you old enough to remember the transition to unleaded gasoline? People were up in arms even when octane ratings were lowered among fuels. I worked in an interstate gas station (saw people from all walks of life) my second year in college and witnessed first-hand the general public’s response to the switch to unleaded gas. 

          • NotSpecial

            People should have been suing about the lead risks to their right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, to make leaded gas cost more, and only rich freaks would keep buying that vs. unleaded.

            When the science is clear, ie lead risks, then the rule of law allow suit for damages to our property and liberty, and we discourage such things.

            If you want peace, work for justice.

          • JustSayin

            I hate to intervene with real science here. But leaded gasoline had outlived it usefulness as a valve cushion.  Scientific advances in metallurgy made the additive unnecessary, and the fact that it was a toxin was actually secondary to its removal. Oil companies are always happy to stop adding things in that actually effect the ROI.

          • Terry Tree Tree

            There was a LOT of backlash from the oil companies, and refineries FOR lead, at the time!

          • JustSayin

            Yes, but as I remember it, that was about service station infrastructure. Duel tanks and pumps for both types of fuel.

          • NotSpecial

            that’s great, but incidental. If lead was still useful, we would have to sue over its damages to our health to raise the price.

          • JustSayin

            No not incidental. Lead was well understood to be a toxin in the environment. The new engines were a response to the pressure to remove it. The same wailing and crying occurred with catalytic converters.

          • NotSpecial

            That’s my point then, I thought you said they removed it for tech reasons. People don’t like it, clamor about it, and they change, or we sue for change if there is a case for it.

          • Terry Tree Tree

            How many individuals are really successful in sueing a large company, or very wealthy person, and getting the amount of the settlement, in a timely manner?

          • NotSpecial

            I’m not saying that system needs to be reformed, and protection of our rights more vigorously appreciated and protected by equal access to the law, and not letting the elite evade it as they do.

            We need to fight that fight, so that we can otherwise enjoy our freedoms and avoid the pitfalls of centralized, non-competitive, big power.

          • NotSpecial

            I’m not saying it -Doesn’t- need to be reformed/better understood…..

            But we don’t throw out the liberty/rule of law system because we are too lazy or ignorant to maintain it vigilantly.  That’s sad.

          • JustSayin

            Yep. That’s how I remember it as well.

    • Anonymous

      So is dying of thirst. 
      There has to be policies that are designed for the common good. Having a green lawn in Phoenix Arizona is absurd.
      Having hundreds of golf courses is also absurd.

      I have family in Phoenix and every time I visit I can’t believe how absurd that place is. Golf courses and lawns are all over the place and it’s over 90 in May.

      This kind of thing can be changed. The amount of water saved could be huge. Again, we die without water.

      • NotSpecial

        Are the residents and businesses paying for the cost of that water, or is it subsidized?  If they can pay, let them waste their money fighting reality, but if it’s subsidized it’s another example of the bad consequences of unfree markets. Subsidized markets are not free markets. Free markets would reflect the true costs. Government subsidy with various agenda’s for growth/development et al just kick the can….

        Same old same old.

        • Anonymous

          All the water systems in the South West were subsidized by tax payers.
          Ever hear of the Hoover dam. 
          That was a huge government project.

          The idea here, at least my take on it, is that there needs to be change in how water is used in the area. What you are saying is people should be free to whatever they want. I disagree with that libertarian ideal.
          It’s not good for society, but from what I understand there are some conservatives who don’t believe in society. I’m thinking of Margret Thatcher who did in fact say this.
          More over one of the guests on today’s show also alluded to these changes. It’s absurd to have lawns in the desert and pools are a huge problem out in Phoenix.

          One can have growth, it’s what kind of growth that is the question.

          • NotSpecial

            If you didn’t subsidize water in the desert, it wouldn’t happen. That’s my point.  If someone wants to spend their personal wealth on defying nature or entropy, they are free to, as long as not polluting which harms others property/liberty. They will be sued.

            So Hoover, Rachel Maddow’s backdrop, was a great Government jobs machine, creating the illusion of long term employment, ended up hurting fish, and encouraging unsustainable desert development.

            Great.

    • nj

      More stupid oversimplification and phony dualities from Libertarian cultist Dave.

      “Now we either have to live with the material consequences of our existence at these numbers, or force people to change.”

      As if those are the only two options.

      • NotSpecial

        That’s the point.  Individuals making different choices is the way we will change.  Education, common sense and choices, not coercion.

        Your arrogant view of humanity is too negative.

        Its the powerful elite who are acting against our interests, and as such, transferring power from them to the people is a rational goal.

      • notafeminista

        Name another one.

  • Yar

    Wouldn’t a “green Phoenix” be brown? 

  • Tina

    As the developers develop, even using high tech means to “assure” water supplies to THEIR buyers, do they threaten the sustainability of life on the nearby Native American tribal reservations?!  

  • Shannonamullen

    I’d like to hear your guests describe the specific factors, besides extreme weather, that will drive people out of the southwest. Wil it be a cinematic Armageddon or a more systematic defection? Will people be physically thirsty or will their quality of life change dramatically? Or both? What does this look like on the ground?

    • notafeminista

      Aaaahh…you’ve hit the nail on the head. NO ONE KNOWS.

  • Ellen Dibble

    Kevin, the caller from Amherst, the hydrologist, I heard to say that even with a nuclear desalinization plant in play, that would only provide 1 percent of water needs (I forget if that is for Phoenix or what), so he is saying that human scientific fixes are creating a problem by continuing to stretch what the planet provides (my interpretation of his take), and we need to stop depending so much on human tinkering.  Interesting, if I understood him right.  I wonder if another nuclear desalinization expert would have another perspective.

  • John in Amherst

    Climate change denial is a symptom of some conservatives’ inability to accept the scientific method.  It is possible to have a conservative world view that does not deny science as a valid and useful tool.  However, conservatism is predicated on the desirability of resisting or countering change, and many conservatives react to it as if change and science were solely the result of liberals trying to meddle in God’s creation, or the industrial capitalist system.  For many conservatives, it would seem that when the products of scientific inquiry further the ends of the military, or large corporations, it is OK, but for guiding social policy, environmental stewardship, etc, science is a liberal conspiracy.  A lot of this country’s greatest achievements have been built on the work of scientists.  Science is not some anti-American subversive plot.  It is a pity so many conservatives seek to scale back education in the sciences and ignore science when it identifies and suggests new ways of addressing our problems and it envites our decline as a nation. 

    • http://www.dpsinfo.com LaurieMann

      And that’s why Santorum is now so popular among some Republicans.  He’s violently anti-science, so he suits this attitude well.

    • Anonymous

      Inability to accept the scientific method, really?  Silly me, I thought that the leading climate researchers in the US and the UK who coerce, collude, make their data opaque,  while doing their best to marginalize AGW skeptics were the ones going against the scientific method. 

      I and many others don’t deny that AGW is possible, we just haven’t been convinced by the data. 

      • John in Amherst

        The “climategate e-mails” you elude to comprise a very small slice of the scientific community and an even smaller percentage of the evidence for AGW.  In addition, inquiry into these e-mails showed that, while the correspondents were perhaps juvenile and unprofessional, most climate research is sound.  That these e-mails received as much press as they did is much more a result of the Murdoch media empire (FOX, Daily News, etc) carrying water for climate change deniers than the desire of a few researchers to call attention to their research and distorted their findings. 

        • Anonymous

          The president and congress are a small slice of America, but much of what we follow derives from them.  Same with the climategate emailers. 

          They hid their data and then claimed it was destroyed.  They colluded to keep skeptical articles out of any prominent journal discredited skeptical individuals.  What’s more, alarmists don’t approach the theory with an open mind, they believe it to be true and seek justification.  That isn’t science, that is religion. 

        • Modavations

          I don’t lie and my pals don’t lie.These were released by the Wikileak guys

      • TFRX

        You may have an unbalanced media diet. Or be suffering from Dunning-Kruger effect.

        • Anonymous

          I don’t get cable, I am a natural contrarian. 

          • TFRX

            You don’t need cable to suffer from the ailment your posts exhibit.

          • Modavations

            I have never seen someone so afraid of a dissenting view

      • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

        Yes, you are not being logical.  Do you have proof of this scientific collusion?

        Neil

        • Anonymous
          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            Again Andrew Watts is not a climate scientist.  And one scientist’s opinion of something he is not an expert in doesn’t make and entire field of science “go away”.

          • Anonymous

            YOu are sticking your head in the sand.  We are neither one scientists yet we both know what the peer review process involves.  Mr Watts site is the handiest one to find info from.  He provides links to the source so you don’t have to take his word.  Your insistence that he isn’t a scientist makes no difference when providing verifiable proof of nefarious actions on the part of climate researchers. 

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            Here’s a video that includes information on how reliable Anthony Watts is:

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tciQts-8Cxo

            Mr. Watts said he would accept the results from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project.  He did not keep his word.

            Neil

          • Anonymous
          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            What are Mr. Watts’ scientific objections?  Before the BEST study was finished, he said he would accept the results, even if they proved him wrong.

            The BEST study confirms the FOUR other major studies that have been done.  What is Mr. Watts’ alternate explanation of the data?

            Neil

          • Anonymous
          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            Send the link to a climate scientist and ask them about it; or better yet look for responses online by climate scientists.

            Neil

          • Anonymous

            You are the one touting the Berkeley study as Gospel, not me.  You are the one touting the peer review process and how it works.  Well, either Watts and co. are disingenuous or their questions haven’t been answered.  The questions they have don’t appear to be onerous or irrelevant, so I want to know why they have yet to be addressed.

    • Modavations

      Tell that to Copernicus and Gallileo.If you moved from Amherst, the Happy Valley of the Giai cultists,your perspectives will change

  • NotSpecial

    This guest is talking too much sense.

    Xeriscaping and natural forest cycles.

    Forest fires perfect example of government solutions, big and perhaps well intentioned, but actually unwise long term, make things worse.

    But every new benevolent dictator will be better than the last…

    • Bruce

      “government solutions…make things worse.”  Oh, really?

      Like our system of national parks, nature reserves and dams that are the envy of the world and a model for sustainable, efficient resource use as well as wilderness and biodiversity preservation…

      A system that was created in large measure by Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican no less. 

      Too bad that today’s GOP has taken “conserve”  out of the “conservative” movement.

      Funny, I never thought of Teddy Roosevelt as a benevolent dictator.  Thanks for that valuable insight.

      • NotSpecial

        I like National Parks.I might even like a single payer health care system, if there is a way the guaranteed payments don’t lead to price gouging by the providers and pharma, who so obviously will collude with government.
        We can walk and chew gum.

        In most other aspects of our lives/economy there is no reason not to appreciate and encourage a more libertarian approach.

        Only in these forums are we forced into black and white and broad-brush smears.

        You could call Conservation and Basic Health Care, special cases.

        The problem is that so many won’t accept stopping there, and want to micromanage so many aspects of our lives, being the control freaks we often tend do be.

        • Bruce

          Thanks for the reply…I agree to the extent that we don’t want government intervention when the market can operate without gross inefficiencies, injustices and externalities.

          And, yes, I obviously agree that Health Care and the Environment are “special cases” that seem to warrant govt. intervention and collective action. 

          You and I most likely differ on the scope and list of other things that require some kind of government action, regulation or investment. My list would undoubtedly be longer because there are certain things I believe that only govt. can provide or allocate and there are many functions it can and has performed well.

          I would suggest govt. intervention to ensure that economic growth is not only robust, but also sustainable, would not necessarily lead to overeach or micromanagement if it receives the  proper oversight.  Of course, you and I might disagree on what constitutes micromanagement.

          I find the suggestion that the slippery slope argument that it could lead to a “dictatorship” or “police state” to be a little over-the-top in the same category as a the broad-brush smear.

          • NotSpecial

            Fannie/Freddie were ostensibly set up for “good” reasons. The reality is that their market power and government backing led to reckless risk management and political horse trading for favors.  In the end, it contributed to more harm than good.

            So when competitive banking and background checking of borrowers could have done a better job of serving the housing market, we overreached.

            The early claims of needing them to address racism in lending were proven false, and used as political/institutional cover as Raines built his fortune.

            Reckless Endangerment, Gretchen Morgenson

          • Bruce

            Just a little off topic, but I’ll respond anyway.

            Freddie & Fannie are not the bogey-men…the liar loans and subprime mortgages were made in that segment of the market that was totally unregulated.

            Wall St. then bundled them into CDO’s that were approved by the credit rating agencies and sold to pension plans, commercial banks,  insurance companies and, yes, Freddie and Fannie, which also backed many of them.

            Blaming the sub-prime mortgage crisis and subsequent economic collapse on Freddie & Fannie (and implicitly Community Re-Investment Act provisions which applied only to FDIC regulated banks, not the private mortgage cos. like Countrywide that caused the problem) is itself over-reaching and scapegoating.

            CRA has been with us since the 1970′s.  Fannie & Freddie have been around since the 1930′s. 

            It wasn’t until the ’80′s and ’90′s that GOP led-efforts to deregulate banking and insurance (Glass-Steagall dismantling) and to keep derivatives from being regulated at all, succeeded in creating the environment conducive to reckless speculation and excessive debt to finance it.

            We had a competitive market and it was in the sub-prime sector. Freddie & Fannie did not originate one of these loans, nor did they sell any of them to investment bankers who then repackaged them into toxic derivatives that would ultimately bring down our economy and threaten the world’s economy. 

            Freddie & Frannie were guilty of accounting abuses, over-leveraging, and perhaps lack of due diligence.  And we should not be pleased with how they were managed.  But please stop the rewrite of history to fit an paranoid,  anti-government, conspiracy theory narrative.  

              

          • Modavations

            Frank Raines,Jamie Gorelick,et al took 100 million in commissions.Every mortgage they made yielded a commission

          • Terry Tree Tree

            Some corrupt executives, and politicians, do NOT make the organization bad, or dysfuctional, after the corruption is exposed, and brought to trial.

        • Terry Tree Tree

          Conservation and Basic Health Care, are part of the same, and other systems. 
             Vested interests in Status Quo, mostly the GREEDY rich, will use ANYTHING, including lies, distortions, and religion to maintain their control and wealth. 
             They own enough lawyers, and judges, to get what they want, most of the time. 
             Go with someone to an arbitration meeting.  No matter how the consumer has proven their point, the Big Business WINS 97% of the time! 
             Tobbacco companies ‘lawyered it out’, for decades, and STILL try to deny what a baby can tell you, before it can talk!
             If the GREEDY rich have their way, cockroaches will be the dominant species left!

          • NotSpecial

            True Rule of Law, equality before the law, and fighting corruption should be our #1 effort as a self-governing people. Without it we get what we have.

          • Modavations

            I spoke too soon.I should have known

          • Terry Tree Tree

            Why would you support the GREEDY rich?  Unless you are one, and want to ‘rationalize’ the damage you do?

        • nj

          First Dave admits his Libertarian Utopia theory is flawed enough that it needs to have “exceptions.”

          Then he argues that only his “exceptions” are the valid ones.

          They he accuses anyone who might have other notions for the proper role of government “control freaks.”

          And he wants to be taken seriously.

  • Ann Tiplady

    Tom, please plan an interview with Allan Savory (“Holistic Management: A New Framework for Decision Making”).  Mr. Savory’s work is fascinating; he studies and advocates the beneficial use of carefully managed grazing and animal impact for reversing desertification.  If people abandon a stressed, dry landscape wouldn’t it be smart to bring in land management that restarts the ecosystem?  Mr. Savory explains why dry ecosystems are so brittle, and how animal impact can reverse desertification.  (It involves long rest periods, but not total rest, which accelerates desertification.)  Your listeners may find his ideas and observations novel.

  • Brett

    The drought that outstayed its welcome back in the 1930′s (for almost a decade) wasn’t really a problem. There had been droughts of similar magnitude one hundred years earlier in the same Great Plains areas and with little adverse effect on the land.   

    The industrial approach to farming, starting during the industrial revolution (when techniques of crop rotation, contour tilling, replanting prairie grasses, etc. were unheard of and when the Great Plains began to really develop city and town populations needing water), took its toll on the land after three or four generations of industrial farming. 

    So the Great Plains were lands perfectly capable of weathering (pun intended) an extended drought, that is unless they were compromised from overuse (by humans)…Just sayin’  

    • JustSayin

      You will have a hard time convincing climate deniers that overworking of the land was the cause of the dust bowl. That would be functional observable reality, and that’s not enough.   

      • Brett

        I know; AND, they especially won’t buy the truth that the GOVERNMENT in Washington, D of C implemented programs that restored prairie grasses, taught farmers crop rotation and contour tilling, and actually created jobs in the process of saving the Great Plains! 

        Of course, soon after the catastrophe was brought under control, modern irrigation became the rage and farmers stopped practicing good farming techniques all over again…

        • NotSpecial

          More Corn ethanol, more forest “management”! More subsidizing of things that don’t work but garner votes and special interest money and provide cushy jobs!

        • JustSayin

          Yes, back to tilling and aquifer watering. The salt problem hasn’t even dawned upon the masses yet. Not solvable by any known technology.  On-Point should do a program on how U.S. agriculture is dying in two ways lack of water (natural and aquifer); and soil mineralization.

          Too many people, too few earths.

  • JustSayin

    Yeah, lets divert water from the northeast to sustain life in the southwest. LOL.

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

      I have heard “proposals” to divert water from Lake Superior to the southwest…  Oh yeah, that would be a great solution!

      Desalinization on a large scale is right up there with belief in unicorns…

      Neil

      • TFRX

        A quote for your amusement.

        As long as we have sci-fi, there will always be a place for a large-scale desalinization story.

      • JustSayin

        If Mississippi water was piped to Texas, would they complain about how filthy it is? What a conundrum. A needed resource, but its too toxic to be used directly. It would be strange to hear Texans complain about the Midwest not being good environmentalists.

  • Brett

    The earth will right itself; we will just not be here to participate.

    • Anonymous

      If you are referring to the idiots as “we”, then I can agree with you.

  • Quinn

    back in the 60′s i was taking physical geography with a professor that had an amazing mind and put before us issues yet to appear on anyone’s radar. The US south west’s water situation was high on his list (demographics and lifestyle) as was climate change. He felt that sooner or later the US would be knocking on Canada’s door claiming water was a contental resource.

    He felt that the US would come after “Canadian” water first by diverting water down the rockey mountain trench;  then as pressure continued to build, by reversing the flow of north flowing rivers south. First would be rivers such as the Red which flows North into Canada, then the great rivers that flow into the Hudson Bay and the Arctic.   

    Perhaps here one draws a line in the sand (oil is fine water no) 

    Jim Quinn, Richmond Ontario  

    • nj

      Some of my hydrology classes in the 70s dealt with water issues in the western U.S., too. People have been familiar with the issues for a long time.

  • nj

    The other Big Issue facing all of us in the coming decades, and not just the southwest, is going to be peak oil, which i don’t think was mentioned in this show. 

    Aggregate, world oil production is just about to peak (U.S. production peaked in the 70s), after which begins a steady, inexorable decline, which will be accompanied by a matching, increasing trend in price.Add this to climate change, limitations in resources like water, issues in food production, etc., and we’re in for a real rocky road in the not-to-distant future.We (in most of the West) have settlement patterns, food and materials distribution systems, power grids, etc. which are the product of and are dependent on cheap, readily available, liquid fuel. The era of cheap energy is about to end, and there appears to be widespread ignorance or even denial about this issue and its ramifications. All this plays against a background of a prevailing economic paradigm which expects, reveres, rewards, and depends on “growth.” Something’s gotta give. Either we plan rationally for what we know is coming, or stuff will hit the fan, and things will be ugly.This isn’t something far off in the future; most analysts put peak oil within the next decade or so.I’d like to see On Point deal with these impending challenges in an extended, more comprehensive way. Maybe a week-long suite of shows dealing in some detail with the key challenges.

    • NotSpecial

      How about we have the Fed pump more funny money into the economy for more “stimulus” so we can re-inflate or consumptive economy back to pre-crash levels and have these arguments on fancier gadgets in bigger houses?

      Keynsians are the biggest environmental, pro-growth culprits. They took away the circuit breaker.

  • Anonymous

    The Antarctic sea ice extent has been at or near record extent in the past few summers and the ice is expanding, the Arctic has rebounded in recent years since the low point in 2007, polar bears are thriving, sea level is not showing acceleration and is actually dropping, Cholera and Malariaare failing to follow global warming predictions, Mount Kilimanjaro melt fears are being made a mockery by gains in snow cover, globaltemperatures have been holding steady for a decade or more and many scientists are predicting global cooling is ahead, deaths due to extreme weather are radically declining, global tropical cyclone activity is near historic lows, the frequency of major U.S. hurricanes has declined, the oceans are missing their predicted heat content, big tornados have dramatically declined since the 1970s, droughts are not historically unusualnor caused by mankind, there is no evidence we are currently having unusual weather, scandals continue to rock the climate fear movement, the UN IPCC has been exposed as being a hotbed of environmental activists, former Vice President Al Gore is now under siege by his fellow global warming activists for attempting to link every bad weather event to man-made global warming and scientists from around the world continue to dissent from man-made climate fears at a rapid pace.  
    http://www.climatedepot.com

    • TFRX

      Yes, more posts from hack right-wing websites. That’ll convince people here.

      Nothing from Conservative News (sic) Service?

      Whatdya think this is, Foxnation?

      • Anonymous

        More close minded bigotry from trfx.  If he disagrees, it must be a right wing hack website.  Notice there is no disagreement with any data, it’s all about the messenger. 

        • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

          If you want to believe in a conspiracy theory, rather than accept a scientific theory, that is up to you.

          Do you accept any scientific theories?

          Neil

          • Anonymous

            Plenty, that’s why I know enough to be skeptical of something as incomplete and poorly understood as AGW.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            Plate tectonics?  Vulcanology? Geology? Physics? Chemistry?  Because all of these fields are part of climate science.

            Neil

          • Anonymous

            But nothing is closer in actual class requirements than meteorology and yet you disparage meteorologists that dissent because of lack of credentials. 

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            Who’s disparaging meteorologists?  They are experts at predicting the weather, and they have to qualify for that field.

            But they are not qualified to make a scientific dismissal of an entire field of science.  So, please look into what actual climate experts say about the science.

            Neil

          • Modavations

            Lindzen is from MIT,not Salem Community College

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            Yes, I know that.  He is a meteorologist, not a climatologist.  Do you know the difference between weather and climate?  If meteorology is like an obstetrician then climatologists are studying the human genome.  They are related, but certainly not the same.

            Neil

      • Modavations

        Can you converse without the name calling?MSNBC is nothing but hate speech.I think Fox between 8:00-!!:00PM beats all the other cable channels combined

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

      Just because it is on the Internet, doesn’t make it science.  Have you followed those claims to their source?  How do you explain the acidification of the ocean, the rapidly melting Arctic ice, the melting tundra, the huge methane releases?  A decade is not a climactic trend, and the rest of what you say is simply incorrect.  Antarctic snow is actually predicted by the current models, as are the increased precipitation and the more intense droughts, as well.

      Here is a well researched science reporter:

      http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/c/A4F0994AFB057BB8/0/52KLGqDSAjo

      Neil

      • Anonymous
        • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

          Right, the Arctic ice is melting much faster than originally predicted.

          http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

          Neil

          • Anonymous

            Not because of man made carbon. 

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            Where’s the proof that is is not from humans burning carbon fuels?

            You cannot produce any proof, because what you posit is not true.

            Neil

          • Anonymous

            It is not for me to prove my point, it is for you to prove yours.  You and your ilk say AGW is a problem and we must all sacrifice our standard of living for the greater good.  We say, ‘We will when you answer our doubts as to why this is true.’  Simple as that. 

            So far what we have is a bunch of folks that say, ‘Change what you’re doing, do it my way!!’ and getting mad, calling everyone names and trying to muzzle any dissent from their orthodoxy. 

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            Listen, the carbon isotopes in the atmosphere could only have come from burning carbon fuels.  That is a chemical and physical fact.

            Also, *none* of the climate models can fit the data unless it is the additional carbon dioxide that is triggering the change.  Period.

            These are the facts.  That is the scientific conclusion — that we humans have caused this current rapid climate change.

            To disagree with this means that the burden of proof is on you, and you have to convince the climatologists with your excellent scientific proof.

            Neil

          • Anonymous

            Water vapor is a much larger player in the greenhouse effect and we don’t even fully understand cloud formation.  The CERN cloud study points to the role of the Sun in determining cloud formation or lack thereof.  Not much we can do about that.

      • Modavations

        Melting in the Artic and gaining in the Antartic,or vice versa

    • Anonymous

      Area does not equal volume. Old thick ice is being replaced by young thinner ice: the total volume of sea ice, ice pack and glaciers is diminishing. Whether man-made or natural, this is happening.
      http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1047
      Watch the Nova on Extreme Ice
      http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/extreme-ice.html
      They caught a chunk of ice 200 meters thick the size of Manhattan calve off of an Ice Flow.

  • Anonymous

    ‘Climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables’

    The idea that CO2, a trace essential gas in the atmosphere that humans exhale from their mouth, is the main climate driver is now being challenged by peer-reviewed studies, data and scientists from around the globe. It is not simply, the sun or CO2 when looking at global temperatures, it is the Sun, volcanoes, tilt of the Earth’s axis, water vapor, methane, clouds, ocean cycles, plate tectonics, albedo, atmospheric dust, Atmospheric Circulation, cosmic rays, particulates like Carbon Soot, forests and land use, etc. Climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, not just CO2.

    • Worried for the country(MA)

      Also, CO2 is plant food.

      • Terry Tree Tree

        Do we have enough plants for all that ‘food’?

        • Worried for the country(MA)

          Maybe not.  Let’s plant some more?

          • Terry Tree Tree

            Most evidence says we’re going the other way FAST!!

      • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

        Yes, but higher temperatures reduce plant productivity.

        Carbon dioxide is absorbed by the ocean, where it becomes carbonic acid, and the pH of the ocean has dropped from 6.2 to 6.1.  This makes it harder for shellfish, corral, and most critically for plankton, which is the base of the food chain in the ocean.

        Carbon dioxide slows the heat loss of solar energy back out to space.  More carbon dioxide added quickly to the atmosphere is causing the rapid climate change we are seeing in the data.

        Neil

        • Worried for the country(MA)

          “rapid climate change”?
          You’ve been listening to Al Gore too much instead of the scientists.  1C in 50 years and flat for a decade isn’t rapid.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            I listen to the scientists — don’t you?

            Neil

          • Worried for the country(MA)

            Since I am one, I listen VERY carefully.

          • Modavations

            They all work for govt.grants!!!!

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            And that is why we have a government — to pay for important things like volcano and earthquake and tornado and hurricane prediction, that no one else will pay for.

            You know who is making a million times more money — the oil and coal companies who don’t want us to worry about the climate change that their oil and coal are causing.

            Show me a rich scientist and I’ll show you 100 rich energy company executives.

            Neil

          • notafeminista

            Being poor does not make one noble nor ethical.

          • Terry Tree Tree

            Neither does being rich, unless you get rich by being ignoble, or unethical! 
               Are tobbacco company execs, or other drug-dealers, ethical or noble?

        • Anonymous

          So all the vibrant biodiversity in the tropical rainforest is because of reduced plant productivity?  I would say it’s probably the opposite. 

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            Tropical rain forest have evolved over millions and millions of years.  (Do you accept the Theory of Evolution?)

            Crop productivity is dropping significantly as the climate gets warmer.  And droughts cause crop failures — I hope you’re not surprised.

            Neil

          • Anonymous

            You stated that heat reduces plant productivity and that is incorrect.  Some domestic crops do less well in heat but others flourish because of. . . evolution.  Cut down your apple trees and plant mangoes. 

    • Anonymous

      No, no no!!  It’s all because we drive suv’s, want a warm house in the Winter, cool one in the Summer, desire to eat apples any time of year and have our toilets flush with just one flush.  That is why the Earth is boiling.

      • NotSpecial

        You may be being sarcastic, but your right. I just think we have to make different individual choices, not be told and forced what to do.

        • Brett

          Most people would still be using leaded gas in their vehicles if it were an individual choice. 

          • NotSpecial

            Not if people sued for the lead damage to health and property.  The science is clear on lead, so the basis for suit for health diminishment is there.

            Your pollution is a threat to my rights to life liberty and pursuit of happiness.

          • Gregg

            I’m more worried about things like MTBE that was added to gas to cut down on pollution. It failed to do that and now it’s in our water.

          • Terry Tree Tree

            This has concerned me also.
               Aware of any better options?
               Water-injection?

          • Brett

            So, don’t implement laws making people adhere to environmental standards, just give them the freedom/right to sue if they get sick from pollution? That’s your solution? 

            Do you realize how difficult it would be to prove a direct cause of damage to ‘health and property’ as a result of using leaded gas? The most common “logic” from the old timers when they gave an opinion about leaded gas was that they had been around leaded gas all their lives and they never got sick. And, whom would be sued? The person driving the car with leaded gas? The oil company? Whose leaded gas made you sick? Was it your neighbor’s? Your local gas station’s? Was your health problem the result of a genetic predisposition? An abuse of health committed by your own unhealthful habits or by the person in the car in front of you in rush-hour traffic, and so on…Change would result alright! We’d become infinitely more litigious a society than we are now!   

          • NotSpecial

            Jury of peers would go a long way, and unlimited damages. That would scare the bejeezus out of reckless companies and outfits and they would truly act more conservatively, in the good sense.

            Better than Command and Control and constant societal polarization around wedge issues, coercion problems and emotional rhetoric.

          • NotSpecial

            Punish clearly frivolous/fraudulent suits, but protect strongly those which are not.

            Also I am not against legislation that reflects broad consensus. Its’ the partisan down the throat shoving of minority positions, regardless of the merit, that creates so much friction and resentment.

            Patience, education, freedom to choose and speak. Change will come, but you have to let people come on board even if its too slow for the know it alls.

          • Brett

            Interesting…a “jury of peers” (in terms of your use/thinking this is a solution).  Threatening corporations with unsympathetic juries sounds like you want laws to be applied arbitrarily so that the little guy can stick it to the big guy. This doesn’t sound much like relying on the “rule of law” to me. 

            Laws are either applied fairly and evenly across the board or they’re not. And, if someone didn’t have the choice of a judge instead if a jury, they would be subjected to an increasing level of kangarooism (the promotion of a kangaroo court). If we can’t trust judges and we want to see jury trials only for the purposes of sticking to the big guy then we can’t put much faith in the “rule of law.”

            If you were charged with a crime, and you knew your image wasn’t the best, would you not want a judge (who presumably would tend to listen more to facts and ignore  emotions) to preside over your case? 

            If I ran a small company that someone felt caused them harm, and I didn’t feel that way, I wouldn’t want to be denied a trial decided by a judge. If my transgressing company were forced to have a jury trial, wouldn’t that be infringing on my rights? 

          • NotSpecial

            I’m all for unbiased rule of law. I am against elites, political and financial, being above the law and having the power to bend the law to their advantage. I am against large centralized power.

            I was responding to other’s assertions that faith in rule of law is not enough, that the little guy can’t expect to stop the big guys.

            I’m not a lawyer or legal expert. I believe in evenly applied, non-arbitrary law and material punishments that are strong enough to discourage law breaking.

            “The great aim of the struggle for liberty has been equality before the law.”
            —F.A. Hayek[1]http://www.independent.org/students/essay/essay.asp?id=1612

          • Terry Tree Tree

            Many of the problems that people sued about and WON, are still there, due to corporate lawyering, distractions, refusal to abide by the decision, etc…

          • Brett

            Triple T raises another good point about litigiousness. Just because someone wins a judgement against a large corporation, this doesn’t mean changes will result/the corporation will become intimidated enough to change their ways. In fact, many large corporations know they will get sued for certain behaviors, and they calculate profits from the environmental infraction vs. profit margin increases from the polluting act. If the polluting act makes more money than the lawsuits cost, they’ll keep polluting. 

          • NotSpecial

            That’s why I said jury trials and no limits on settlements.

            Also, with precedent, once cases are won, others more likely to win.

            Litigiousness is not a happy thought, but its better than the ultimate alternatives: anarchy or totalitsrianism

          • Modavations

            Example?

          • Terry Tree Tree

            The toxic crap that Karen Silkwood sued PG&E (?) over.

          • Modavations

            I disagree.I often pay more for an attractive product

    • Terry Tree Tree

      I agree!  Several of the factors you mentioned are man-made, or man-enhanced. 
         I’m not sure that we yet have a Super-Computer capable of registering ALL the factors, and the changes to those factors, to accurately predict ALL the effects, and locations of those effects AND the timing of them.
         If man causes enough changes to the environment, that most life will be at risk, we can be sure the cockroach, and other survivors will probably survive.   Man?   Mammals?

    • Gregg

      Absolutely, especially water vapor. 

      • ulTRAX

        Red Herring and you know it. Unlike CO2 etc, water vapor varies with local temperature. It can locally act to hold heat, but it’s not a driver of climate change.

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

      The main thing forcing the current change in the climate is carbon dioxide from humans burning carbon fuel.

      That is the scientific consensus.  It is complicated, and we are always learning more as we go, and more questions always arise — but anthropogenic climate change is all too real.

      http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/c/A4F0994AFB057BB8/0/52KLGqDSAjo

      Neil

      • Worried for the country(MA)

        Bunkum!

        “scientific consensus”
        There is no such thing in science.  This is the problem with the current state of climate ‘science’.  True science evolves around theories and definitive proof with experiments.  The ‘consensus’ used to be Einstein was crazy when he postulated his theories.  Now his theories have been proven but it took years.

        Many are worshiping at the alter of present day climate science and ignoring tried and true scientific method.

        • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

          If you think that the vast majority of climate scientists are wrong — where’s your proof?

          Until you can produce proof, I’ll accept the scientific theory / consensus / conclusions.

          Neil

          • Worried for the country(MA)

            LOL!  Where is your proof.

          • Modavations

            All these guys are working for Govt.Grants.Hardly unbiased

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            Again, you need to follow the money on the denier’s side — and you’ll find people like the Koch brothers and Don Blankenship.

            Neil

          • Terry Tree Tree

            29 coal miners trusted Don Blankenship in Upper Big Branch Mine.  He got $Millions to bury them!

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            Right, and Mr. Blankenship is a climate change denier — I wonder why?

            Neil

          • notafeminista

            Thought it wasn’t about the politics.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            It’s not — it’s about money.  Look up the profits for oil and coal companies and compare them to science grants.

            Neil

          • notafeminista

            I would absolutely agree.  The left thinks some people (like oil and coal companies or insurance companies or drug companies or pick the current bogeyman of the day companies) and they want their money.

            Scientists work for those companies too.   Dang.

          • notafeminista

            Ugh.  The left thinks some people have too much money and they want their money.

        • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/3ETFGMQ3B7VD4AAMILBBEVMCWE JasonA

          Memo to you:  The World is NOT FLAT.

          • Worried for the country(MA)

            I vote for science every time.  Feel free to worship at your church of faux science.

          • Modavations

            Hang him!!!!

        • Bruce

          Perhaps “consensus” is the wrong term. 

          Try this: the overwhelming preponderance of empirical evidence and professional norms would seem to indicate that climate change is real, and the man-made portion of it is substantial.

          We can wait for absolute proof before taking steps to prevent or mitigate problems for ourselves and future generations…or we can act now.  

          In the absence of complete information or consensus, I think good stewardship, prudence and our moral obligation to future generations, demand a course of action based on the evidence already gathered by the scientific community.

          If we wait until all the longitudinal studies are completed or choose to ignore the data alread collected and to depend on some technical razzle-dazzle solution down the road, the damage to the biosphere may become irreversible or irreparable.

          I worry for the country (and the world for that matter, since pollution does not respect borders) as well as my children, that by then it will be too late to avoid major economic disruptions or even catastrophic loss. 

          • notafeminista

            And it might not. No one knows.  Scientists are wrong all the time, including in this area.  Furthermore, we don’t know that what we do now wouldn’t actually do long term damage.   Who knows what effects the banning of DDT will have long term in the name of “science.”

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Gordon_Edwards_(entomologist_and_mountaineer)

          • Modavations

            It kill;ed 5 million in Sub Saharan Africa and DDT is now back in use

          • Terry Tree Tree

            Most of the ’causes’ of ‘global warming’, are forms of pollution, waste, inefficiency, and should be fixed!!

      • notafeminista

        Galileo faced a “consensus” too.    A pox on your so-called consensus.

        • Modavations

          Don’t forget corpernicus

        • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

          Who was Galileo and Copernicus facing resistance from, I would like to know?

          Hint: it was *not* other scientists.  It was from the power brokers of the day — kinda’ like today’s oil company executives…

          Your example is more apt than you know!

          Neil

          • notafeminista

            Missing the point a bit here methinks (and perhaps deliberately so) Galileo faced opposition from the so-called settled data of the day (“the science is settled on global warming”) and was put on house arrest for his actions.  The “power brokers” as you refer to them did not want to hear dissent – I find it disturbing that a group of people presumably dedicated to scientific exploration and the embrace of knowledge would refuse to listen to all comers, instead working diligently to marginalize them and portray them as “less than.”

            Why do you need the consensus?  Galileo didn’t.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            He faced persecution by the Catholic church.  Hardly a scientific group.

            Galileo brought scientific data into the discussion, as it were, that made the powerful people in the world uncomfortable because it went against what they believed.  But facts are stubborn things.

            Facts like anthropogenic climate change are making the people who run oil companies and the people who exploit other finite resources very uncomfortable because it challenges the way they think the world should be.

            The analogy with Galileo and Copernicus is an apt one, but not in the way you may have intended.

            Neil

          • notafeminista

            The analogy is spot on and exactly the way I intended it to be.   Your posts (and those of others) reflect an absolute refusal to listen to anyone who does not agree.  Motives and funding are questions (despite saying it’s not about the politics) – education,intelligence and yes, sanity are questioned as well simply because someone doesn’t agree.  Exactly what Galileo faced.  I suspect that those who have decided that anthropogenically induced global warming is settled science would like nothing more than to throw those who would dispute that claim in jail.

            The most insidious thing about this however is the complete lack of any kind of consideration for how so called solutions will affect humanity.  See DDT comment elsewhere on this board.   Go with CFLs or LEDs and hang the cost.  What of those who cannot afford CFLs or LEDs?  How does that affect the overall lighting industry?  No one cares, we MUST save the planet with our harebrained solutions.

            Buy a hybrid car, buy an electric car.  Can’t afford one?  Too bad buddy we have to save the planet.  Dratted car might catch fire? No worries, GM will buy it back from you.

            There is no consideration for humanity in these discussion, only an overweaning desire to absolutely get an agenda based on questionable science pushed through.

          • notafeminista

            “questioned” not questions.  Editor still recovering from the holidays.

          • Terry Tree Tree

            This, I’ll agree with you on! 
              As much as I would like to own an electric vehicle, they are not at the price and capabilities, that I need, much less, want.

      • Anonymous

        So anytime a group of experts has a majority opinion, you just accept it, right?  The dissenters opinions are unworthy of discussion because they are outnumbered. 

        • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

          This is not politics.  This is facts.

          Neil

    • http://reinventing-america.blogspot.com/ ulTRAX

      TRANSLATION: If climate change is caused by factors other than greenhouse gases, WE’RE OUT OF THE WOODS!!!! We won’t have flooding of coastal cities, loss of prime agricultural land, the desertification of large parts of the planet, more energetic weather events etc. We won’t have massive dislocations of populations. Yeah!!!!6-10 thousand years ago humans could pick up and leave areas that became inhospitable. We don’t have that luxury any more. We have built our world based on the mild climate of the past 1-2000 years. If climate change is driven by factors other than greenhouse gases we STILL will have to deal with them because it may be the ONLY variable we CAN control to mitigate a disaster. 

  • Tina

    (I missed about 5 minutes of the show about 10 minutes in, so forgive me if this was covered)  There seems to be an aversion to SENSORY CHANGE that some people with ADD or Asperger’s have, making it hard for them to go from a State of Comfort to a State of Exercising.  Have you studied this at all, and do you have any suggestions for this difficulty:  the INABILITY TO INITIATE EXERCISE ACTIONS DUE TO AN AVERSION TO SENSORY CHANGE, especially away from a State of Sensory Comfort?  Thanks very much!  

    • Tina

      I apologize!  I submitted this comment to the WRONG SHOW — it was meant for today’s SECOND TOPIC!  Sorry!

  • Brett

    I thought the problem in the Southwest was God’s punishment for the Southwest’s social intolerance? …Oh, Ed?

  • Tina

    Is it possible that kids with ADD and Asperger’s have the Social Learning component that prevents them from seeing that they are not as healthy in their overweight as their healthier-weight friends are, and that the Self Esteem movement does NOT help them because they feel TOO good about themselves, thus THREATENING their true Good Health?  Then, add the possible aversion to initiating movement away from Comfort and towards move uncomfortable (to them) Exercise, and the result is that they wind up Unhealthy?

    • Modavations

      No,it’s 95% bad parenting

    • Tina

      ooops — I replied to the wrong show/wrong hour!  Sorry!  (I sent in a second comment that did the same thing!  Double apology!)

  • Gerald McDonough

    The Climate it is a Changing
    (A Lament for Las Vegas)

    Look down on the carpet of emerald green lawn,
Golf course and palace to awe Kubla Khan,
Bellagio’s fountains, the sculptures of glass, 
And reflect on the idea that brought it to pass:
”To hell with the future, We’re getting ours now.”
May the Lord save Las Vegas, and He’d better start now,
    For the climate it is a changing.

    This jewel of the desert, this oasis mirage,
This bold demi-Eden with a two car garage
We water with pipe-dreams and sprinkle with sand,
And throw it away when we draw the dry hand.
”To hell with the future, we’re getting ours now.” 
May the Lord save Las Vegas – since we don’t know how,
    For the climate it is a changing.

    They call us “Sin City” but we kneel and pray
    For faith and salvation day after day,
But our leaders are blind to all visions but one:
    A bright golden calf that gleams in the sun.
”To hell with the future, we’re getting ours now.” 
May the Lord save Las Vegas, or we’ll worship that cow,
    For the climate it is a changing.

    The investors so eager to share in the boom,
Sand lemmings who follow the crowd to their doom,
Are all rolling the dice just to see what luck brings
At Caesars, the Luxor and Coyote Springs.
”To hell with the future, We live by “The Dow”we’re getting ours now.”
May the Lord save Las Vegas; we’re getting ours now.
    For the climate it is a changing.

    The desert is empty, it’s nothing but sand,
We’ll fill it with suckers who don’t understand
That oil’s for salad and water’s for war,
And we can sell houses to two million more!
”To hell with the future, we’re getting ours now.” 
May the Lord save Las Vegas, for the future is now.
    And the climate it is a changing.

    The ranchers whose water we steal today
Will not be around when the sky turns dark gray
And the dust storms sweep down on our towers of glass
And the cattle and deer eye the last blade of grass.
”To hell with the future, we’re getting ours now.”
    May the Lord save Las Vegas, and He’d better at now,
    For the climate it is a changing.

    The warnings are carved on the Chaco cliff wall
At Pueblo Bonito and Chetro Ket-L
Written in sandstone – the stark petroglyph:
’Great works are all chimeras,’ ‘growth is a myth.’
”To hell with the future, we’re getting ours now.”
May the Lord save our Pueblo, since we don’t know how.
    For the climate it is a changing.

    Oh the city will fall and the children will weep
When the last drop of water is drawn from the seep
And a pillar of salt marks the place where we stood
And uttered our epitaph once and for good:   
”To hell with the future, we’re getting ours now.” 
May the Lord save Las Vegas, but He’d better act now.
    For the climate it is a changing.

    Gerald M. McDonough
8/31/07
    Notes:
    Bellagio’s: Las Vegas Casino known for its extravagant fountains and sculptured glass exhibits.
    Coyote Springs: a huge new development 60 miles north of Las Vegas. Plans call for 16 championship golf courses and homes for more than 250,000 people. The water for the development will be brought in via a pipe-line from wells 150 miles to the north, an area currently used for ranching.   
    Chaco: Chaco Canyon, the center of a vast pueblo civilization in the Four Corners area of the American southwest. Chaco thrived between the 11th and 13th centuries. Climate change, including a 60 year drought, brought about the collapse of the Chacoan Civilization and the abandonment of the complex by 1300.  
    Pueble Bonito: The largest of the structures at the Chaco Canyon complex contains more than 600 rooms. The Navajos, who moved into the area in the sixteenth century, called Pueblo Bonito Tse biyah nii’a’ah,“The House of the Gambler” who in Navajo tradition enslaved the pueblo people and forced them to build the great buildings at Chaco.
    Chetro Ket-L: Sometimes spelled “Chetro Kettle” or “Chetro Ketl” the second largest structure at Chaco contains more than 500 rooms.         
    Gerald McDonough                                      Email: mchozho@xmission.com
        1997 South 800 East                                   Ph (801) 487-4456
        Salt Lake City, Utah
        84105 

    • Terry Tree Tree

      EXCELLENT!

  • WhatsThatSong

    WHAT IS THAT BUMPER MUSIC? What was that bumper music played as the show was going to the 10:20 and 10:40 break? It’s kind of a squawky monophonic synthesizer. It’s used quite often just before breaks. Can’t place it in any genre… Frank Zappa meets Emerson Lake & Palmer?   Thanks!

  • Brett

    We can not control the natural fluctuations in climate that take place on our planet, but we can work to control the polluting elements produced by humans that exacerbate the undesirable aspects of those fluctuations.

    • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/3ETFGMQ3B7VD4AAMILBBEVMCWE JasonA

      True…but don’t tell that fact to the right wing Republican nuts who infest our planet.

      • NotSpecial

        You should exterminate them for the good of the rest of us.

        • Terry Tree Tree

          I advocate informing them, showing them their hypocricy, and encouraging them to do better ! 
             Violence is a last resort, except in self-defense.  Certainly NOT called for in this instance.

          • notafeminista

            Speaking of, have you reduced to food,fuel and shelter yet?

          • Anonymous

            Ever thought you are the one that needs informing?

          • Modavations

            I’m proud of you lad.You’ve finally made it a day without the Greedy Rich and the Molesting Priests.No doubling up tomorrow please.By the way,you remain wrong about absolutely everything.

      • Modavations

        We should just hang them!!!!!

    • Terry Tree Tree

      Many of those polluting factors are also heat-increasing factors.

  • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard
    • Worried for the country(MA)

      That video is just silly.  You could make the same point about Al Gore and his ilk.

      Where is your video regarding Richard Lindzen, the leading climate scientist at MIT and has studies showing the chicken little climate change scenarios are way overblown.  His answer?  Lets keep studying and make the science better.

      • Mpatterson

        Worried.
         The video did make a point about Al Gore & his ilk – however, they’re not pretending to be qualified climatologists.As for Chicken Little scenarios – the scientific community on climate change has been reticent in making predictions. However, they seem to be in agreement that models for change from a decade ago are proving to have been inaccurate – but not in favor of the  “we’ve got nothing to worry about” predictions. 

        • Worried for the country(MA)

          Yes, but the point is there are qualified ‘skeptical’ scientists.  We need to continue the studies but the small cabal of scientific activists need to open their data and also open their minds to studies that contradict their prejudices.  We clearly see evidence of corruption of the scientific process in climategate I and climategate II.

          • Modavations

            The judge in London made Gore attach a preface on his film saying it was a political screed.

        • Modavations

          A bunch of computer modelers(Colorodo) quit last month because theyy said they can’t predict squat..I know a Prof.at MIT(acoustics)who said modeling doesn’t wtrk because there are too many variables and half are invisible

          • Terry Tree Tree

            You also said you were on ‘personal’ terms with Barney Frank.

      • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

        I think Professor Lindzen is a meteorologist; not a climatologist.  And yes he is a skeptic.  But he is one person vs about 2,000 involved in the IPCC.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_profilepage&v=cp-iB6jwjUc

        Neil

        • Worried for the country(MA)

          No, Lindzen is a leading climate scientist and he is respected amongst his peers.

          And what is the point of posting silly propaganda videos.  There aren’t even good.

        • Modavations

          He’s the Sloan Chair holder at MIT,studied astrophysics at Harvard and is now climate professor at MIT.

          • notafeminista

            Obviously a hack employed some evil energy corporation to infiltrate the good work done by all other scientists.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            So, where are his published studies that have the correct climate models?  What do all the other scientists do about his critiques?

            Neil

    • Mpatterson

      Thanks Neil. 

      We don’t watch TV & I’ve learned something. (For others: click on the link here – you won’t get there by copying the url and pasting it into your browser.)

    • Modavations

      That’s one of the lamest things I’ve ever seen.No wonder I never read links

  • Brandstadisbad

    Latest Satellite Data: Human CO2 Emissions Have Caused Earth To Cool Over Past 15 Years’Confirm that global warming has stopped over the last 15 years despite large increases of atmospheric CO2 levels’

    • Happypeanutboy37

      can you cite that study?

    • Modavations

      Ultrax,just use your real name please

      • http://reinventing-america.blogspot.com/ ulTRAX

        Like you do????

        Are there ANY non-braindead Right wingers out there?

    • Deadflo

      yeah Brandstadisbad, that must be why all the glaciers continue to melt. and seas are continuing to rise, cause the earth is cooling. Just like your undershorts.

      • Anonymous

        Arctic ice has grown since 07!  Update your talking points please!

  • Brandstadisbad

    Celebrate! UN IPCC Chairman Pachauri: It’s Too Late to Fight Climate Change!Pachauri in 2007: ‘If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment’Climate Depot response: Great news. If it is ‘too late’, can we now just accept our climate doom and move on with our lives?!

    • Modavations

      Oh No,the return of Ultrax

  • Brandstadisbad

    Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming – Now Skeptics

    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12 

    • Modavations

      Ultrax,we haxd enouggh of the Stalking,please refrain

      • ulTRAX

        I’m here trying to make cogent and coherent  points on the topic of this show. Try it sometimes. And please take your personal vendetta and false accusations elsewhere.

        • Modavations

          So let me get this straight.You disappear for a few weeks and so do all the faux posters.Today you return and so do the shadow posters.I can spot you 50 miles away.If you keep it sane,you’ll have no problem with me

          • ulTRAX

            So typical of you Moda. You accuse me of “stalking” yet your the one actually doing it by hunting down my posts to respond to. If you can’t get that simple fact straight, why any other? Take your pissing contest and your ignorance elsewhere.  

          • Modavations

            I accuse you of being a stalker and the one who made the millions of phantom posts.Again,you’re gone for weeks and so are the phantoms.You return today and so do the faux posters.As for vendettas,anyone who wants to have anal sex with me and shoot me like a fish in a barrel,can depend on my animous.I suggest you remain cogent and we wiill have peace

          • ulTRAX

            Will the Mod, if there is one, PLEASE remove all of Moda’s foul and baseless allegations!

        • Still Here

          A certain stench has returned, though he promised he was gone forever.  

  • notafeminista

    http://www.mnn.com/your-home/at-home/blogs/orange-countys-law-breaking-landscapers

    http://solarpowerrocks.com/solar-trends/right-to-sun-lawsuit-won-first-of-many/

    Link 1)California couple in legal battle with their city for wanting to plant a xeriscaped yard apparently in violation of city code.

    Link 2)A redwood tree cut down in order to accommodate solar panels.

    Judas priest, we have NO idea what we are doing.

  • Happypeanutboy37

    Las Vegas tried to build a pipeline from Flathead Lake in Northwestern Montana.  Its a level of greed in the Southwest from people who believe that they can live in a desert and still use as much water as they want thats getting Southwestern communities into trouble.  

  • Realist1948

    This can seem like a crazy country at times like this.  The federal government has poured billions of dollars into water projects in the south-west.  At the same time, the Great Lakes region has become known as the “rust belt” with people leaving and factories shutting down.  And now, as people worry about how to get water for places like Phoenix, hundreds of abandoned and foreclosed houses are being torn down in Detroit and Cleveland — houses that sit near some of the largest bodies of fresh water in the world.  You might like sunshine and warm weather, but you need water.  If some of that water falls in the form of a January snowstorm — so what?  It sure beats a drought.

  • Modavations

    Yesterday,I said Pres.Obama signed a law NEW Years Eve that allowed the military to arrest Americans,in America, witth no charges.I’m wrong.I appologize and will self-flagellate

    • Anonymous

      DEAR OBAMA: Have You Gone Nuts? How Could You Sign This Police-State NDAA Bill?Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/#ixzz1icTsoD77

      • Modavations

        B.,I heard this from Louie Gomert of Texas.

  • Modavations

    Professor Lindzer holds the Sloan Chair at MIT.I repeat MIT and he’s a skeptic

    • nj

      Yeah, you know, that Linzer guy.

      Didn’t he invent the torte?

  • Modavations

    Most scientist work for govt.grants and are biased.

  • Modavations

    Copernicus and Gallileo were almost burnt at the stake for suggesting the earth is not the center of the universe.The Govt.scientists of the day(and JasonA)said,burn them.

    • Anonymous

      It’s amazing how you have the nerve to use Gallileo and Copernicus in your anti-science tirade. You then go on to make up a complete fiction about the history of what happened. Gallileo was put on trial by the Church, there was not really any such thing as “government scientist” in the 16th century. By the way Gallileo was the father of modern physics as well as being a mathematician and philosopher. You should try cracking a book on subjects you post on. At least Google them. 

      • Modavations

        Dude I went to Newton North,then to B.C..My father in law is a Nuke Professor at ——

        • Anonymous

          Then you should know better or maybe read more.

          • Modavations

            Dude,you tell me “read more”,every day.Have you used all your bullets so early ?.How the fu-k do you think I got into B.C.?????

          • nj

            Apparently they don’t teach writing, critical thinking, basic science or any number of other subjects there. Or maybe you were out smoking during those classes.

          • Terry Tree Tree

            ‘W’s daddy bought a $5 Million dollar wing for the school he FINALLY wasn’t thrown out of, and got a degree from as a ‘Legacy’ scoin?
               For someone with money, political clout, or criminal intimidation, it’s easy!

          • Terry Tree Tree

            He keeps forgetting the “J” that he promised!  That lead and mercury ingestion, at a tender age, has really done a job on him?

          • http://reinventing-america.blogspot.com/ ulTRAX

            Note, Moda never says he actually graduated HS or “attended” BC. I  think he was a janitor.

  • Modavations

    During the 1970′s Time Magazine wrote of the impending Global Winter.Same theory only back then,the CO2 was to block out the sunlight.

  • Modavations

    A couple of years ago Nat.Geo did a story saying Ice Caps on Earth and Mars grew and retreated in unison.

  • Modavations

    Earth’s warming and cooling is due to the aclination,or declination of the earth’s Axis.The wobble.

    • Anonymous

      Don’t forget solar cycles.  The earths warming and cooling is a 98% match to the cyclical output from the sun.  not to surprised here since that is what heats us in the first place.

  • Modavations

    This is just Leftists seizing more power.Remember the 100 watt light bulbs???

  • Modavations

    The reason the forests burn is because the Cult of Giai types, won’t let the forest service clear the brush.Remember when SLTahoe burned down.The Cult of Giai wouldn’t let them clear brush around their private  homes.

  • Anonymous

    Levin: Obama’s Comment ‘Forthright Statement Of A Dictator’…

  • Modavations

    Oceans rise or fall because of subduction and abduction of the continental plates.Not melting ice.Take a glass of water and add a few ice cubes.Draw a line at the surface.When the ice melts the water level would not have changed.The land mass under the poles,is the equivalent of a pea under a dinner plate.

    • Realist1948

      The analogy to ice floating in a glass is off the mark.  Large masses of polar ice are sitting on land, not floating in the ocean.  And there are other complicating factors.  If ice sitting on land melts away, downward force on the land mass is reduced, allowing it to rise.  In this case, sea level would rise but the local land mass might rise as well.  It gets complicated.

      • Modavations

        I stand by my statement.The land mass under the poles is like a pea under a dinner plate

        • Realist1948

          Can you say anything quantitative about your peas and dinner plates?  For example, we know that anything floating in water displaces it’s own weight in water.  But if a mass of ice is sitting on top of dry land, can you claim any consistent quantitative relationship between the mass of that ice and any displacement of the land below?  Clearly the amount of displacement will vary a great deal depending on the characteristics (like stregth) of the underlying strata.  For example, granite will distort less than shale.

          Estimates are that the pleistocene glaciers were up to a mile thick in the Erie basin:

          http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/Portals/10/pdf/EL/el07.pdf

          Are you suggesting that the Erie basin sank by a mile at that time?  Can you cite any work that suggests this happened?  Is there any faulting in the upper strata of that region (e.g. the Sharon Conglomerate) that suggests that it was greatly distorted by the weight of the pleistocene ice?

          • Modavations

            Can you not see the difference between glaciers covering half the land mass of N.America and a similar sized one floating on the ocean and covering a “pea”.Seas sink or rise from one continental plate sliding under another.Salton Sea and Rocky Mts.

          • Realist1948

            Sure, I can see the difference.  It’s just than none of the following are IMHO equivalent to a “pea”:  Greenland, Iceland, or the continent of Antarctica.  The ice that covers these land masses is not floating… it is not pushing down on a “pea” as you would have it.

            Can you name a few of the “peas” that you refer to?

          • Realist1948

            Are you saying that the movement of tectonic plates is the only reason that seas rise and fall?  Do you not believe that sea levels fell when large amounts of water were stored as ice on land during the ice ages?

          • Anonymous

            In chess they call this check mate moda.

            Thank you for a well informed answer that clearly points out that you know more than the average bear about this subject. But I must tell you that you are dealing with someone who is not interested in facts or information that goes against his ideological make up.

          • Modavations

            remember the new NPR law.No name calling,or temper tantrums before 10:00

          • Anonymous

            Take heed of your own discourse sir.

        • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

          Please see my earlier post on this.  Antarctica is as large as the lower 48 US states.  Do we live on a “pea” sized land mass in your estimation?  Do you also stand by your statement that the core of the earth is a nuclear reactor?

          Neil

          • Modavations

            How big is the ice mass,compared to the land mass?What would you call the earth’s core?You’re just involved in mental masturbation

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            Watch the Nova video I linked to.  You might learn something.  Science is cool, and I like learn about this little planet we share with all these other interesting life forms.

            Life is good, and learning about it is important.

            You don’t sound like you are very happy?  Get out into the world and *do* something, maybe?

            Ask me about my avatar — go ahead, I dare you!

            Neil

        • Anonymous

          One incidence of land rising or falling with glaciers is Norfolk, VA.  ~10K years ago, glaciers were down to about NJ.  The pressure from said glaciers pushed northern NA down and caused southern NA to rise.  With the glaciers gone, there is still some residual rise in southern NA and it is still settling.  At least that is one of the reasons given for the increased incidence of flooding in Norfolk.   

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

      Huh?  You’re just making this stuff up!  You were corrected elsewhere about your erroneous belief that the earth’s core is a giant nuclear reactor — why don’t you step back and listen and learn before you say anything thing else silly?

      Most of the recent rise is because warmer water is less dense i.e. has more volume — than colder water.  Only melting ice *on* *land* adds to the ocean levels.  Melting land ice (on Greenland and Antarctica primarily) is beginning to contribute more to the ocean level rise.

      Nobody is claiming that sea ice melting adds to the volume of water in the ocean.  Do you think they are simpletons?!

      The movement of the edges of the tectonic plates are what cause tsunamis.  It has nothing to do with the ocean level over the long term.

      The mass of the ice on Antarctica is enormous — it is pushing the land underneath it down thousands of feet, almost half a mile.  Antarctica is about the same size as the lower 48 states of the US; hardly a “pea”.

      http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/secrets-beneath-ice.html

      There is so much ice in Antarctica that is affecting the gravitational pull of the earth — the ocean level is higher south of the equator than it is to the north.

      If and when all the Antarctic land ice melts (it is a much as 3 miles thick!) it could raise the ocean level as much as 200 feet.  And about 100 years after it melts, the ocean level will even out across the earth, and the level in the northern hemisphere will be significantly greater than the southern; because of the gravitational shift.

      On a related point, can you tell me which mountain is closest to space?  If you said Mt. Everest, you’d be wrong:

      http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9428163

      Neil

      • Modavations

        Rocky Mts. Salton Sea.

        • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

          Burma!

      • Modavations

        I think in 2007 Nat.Geo. did the  article about the poles on Mars and Earth moving in unison.Explain that please.

        • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

          What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?  I didn’t see this article, and I’m not an astrophysicist, so…  what’s your point?

          Neil

          • http://reinventing-america.blogspot.com/ ulTRAX

             I see you’ve met OP’s resident Village Idiot. Have fun!

      • Modavations

        What would you call the earth’s core?

        • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

          Molten rock, aka magma.

          Neil

          • Modavations

            How did it become molten?

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            Gravitational pressure.  Why do you ask?

            Neil

  • Lolabritney

    The Southwest is out of water?  Sure, just ask any democrat who doesn’t live there.

  • Anonymous

    As an architect I find it fitting that Frank Lloyd Wright, the muse for our modern American settlement pattern, chose to live his final days in a suburb of Phoenix, the least sustainable American city.  Phoenix’s public library, designed by architect Michael Bruder always reminds me of the book/movie “Dune” with its huge ventilation fan.  Perhaps Phoenix will be a laboratory for our distopian future a la Michael Houellebecq’s “The Possibility of an Island”.  I do agree with the rancher, regardless of the validity of climate change theory, that we need to learn to live with what we’ve got.

    • Ad Hoc

      Will Bruder, not Michael Bruder. and before you shit on the Phoenix Public Library, there are a lot of passive solar things going on there. And actually I always felt its Dune-ness kind of makes it a cool project. 

      • Douglasmccallum

        Don’t get me wrong, the Phoenix Public Library is one of my favorite buildings, even if I can’t remember the name of the architect.  The point that I was trying to make is that it gives a glimpse of what the future of desert living might be (kind of like “Blade Runner” gives us a glimpse of a future Los Angeles).  I agree that it is exactly its “Dune-ness” that makes it cool.

  • Bruce

    The only thing possibly more toxic to the survival of the human race in the longterm than greenhouse gases is possibly the toxic brew offered up by the flat earth, anti-science, conspiracy-theory zealots (see below) whose skepticism seems rooted in an almost pathological state of denial that defends the status quo at any cost and upholds the rabid consumerism that is jeapardizing both our immediate and future prospects for a decent life. 

    • Modavations

      What did he mean(Mann?)when he said “Hide the Declines”>All dissenters were barred.You call that science

      • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

        There are plenty of skeptics in all fields of science — that’s how science works.  All scientists are skeptics, but when they prove something beyond the 95% certainly level, they accept the theory and continue to try and answer new questions.

        The phrase “hide the decline” does not mean what you think it means.  Please look watch the science reporter’s video I linked to several times here already to find out what was meant.

        Neil

      • nj

        Someone will need to publish a translation/deciphering guide for the Modatron.

        Here, does the question mark indicate Moda is not sure than Mann uttered the words in quotes? Or, does it mean that Modatron is uncertain of the spelling of Mann’s name? Or did he merely misplace it since there isn’t one at the end of his question?Apparently, question marks were not covered at BC.

        • nj

          ^ “not sure that”

    • Worried for the country(MA)

      Respected physicist and climate scientist Dr. Richard Muller,UC  Berkley, describes the “hide the decline’ exposed in Climategate and how he is disgusted with the “team’s” corruption of science and peer review.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk

      Don’t believe everything reported in the MSM as gospel.

      • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

        So, how did that BEST study that Dr. Muller headed turn out?

        It confirmed every other major climate study.  He had the grace to admit that he had been wrong.

        Neil

        • Anonymous
          • Modavations

            These are idealogues.Reason will not work.This is the Cult of Giai

          • nj

            ^ Doesn’t even know how to spell the things he’s trying to denigrate. Pathetic.

        • Worried for the country(MA)

          Neil are you being intentionally deceitful?
          Muller was very clear he was only studying the accuracy of land based temperature monitoring stations.  He was very clear to make ZERO statements relative to AGW and relationship to man made CO2 emissions.  All skeptical scientists agree there has been warming.  There is some debate relative to urban heat islands skewing the magnitude of the warming and BEST is still undergoing peer review.

    • notafeminista

      But ya just don’t know do you?  Science doesn’t KNOW anything.

      150 years ago surgeons didn’t wash their hands before surgery.

      We have no idea what effect (negative or positive) the solutions we implement now will have.  But let’s go all Chicken Little right now and elimate people’s livelihoods, completely wreck entire industries and/or economies and directly affect how people live their lives for something we don’t even halfway understand.

      Sound reasoning.

      • nj

        You’re right, science deals in probabilities, not certainty. Some theories are more well established than others, and all are open to prodding and questioning.

        98% of scientists dealing with anthropogenic climate change agree on basic tenants: Climate is changing, it’s changing at an unprecedented rate, a significant part of the change is being driven by human activity which is releasing previously sequestered carbon into the atmosphere, and the the results of this will also have significant and likely detrimental (on the whole) consequences.

        The specifics (rates of changes, specific biological effects, etc.) are not always predictable with precision, but the overall trend is clear, and to deny or ignore that is irresponsible.Your analogy is stupid. If surgeons continued not washing their hands after microbes were discovered to be a disease vector, it would make sense.People learn, science learns, and we move forward.We don’t have “no idea” of what effect our actions will have. There is a clear trend. 

        • notafeminista

          No, there isn’t.  As you just conceded the specifics are not always predictable with precision.

          Geez.  Equivocate and qualify much?  There is an agenda here and humankind ain’t included in it.

        • notafeminista

          And of course the climate is changing.  It’s been changing since and before recorded time.   The climate in my backyard is changing even as we speak.

      • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

        Right — and what has science done for us, lately?!

        Let’s ignore them, on all subjects, no matter what they want us to do!

        Neil

        • notafeminista

          Odd that these same scientists who claim to be able to predict (albeit without precision) the horrors about to befall us are unable to find solutions for said horrors  and in fact have warned the scientific community and the larger population outside of against catastrophic thinking….

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy

          This is absolutely about politics, money and power. 

  • Cam73

    John Wesley Powell tried to warn against open reservoirs and large scale development in the Southwest many decades ago.  People who didn’t like his message — who wanted to consume as much water and power as possible in the middle of the desert — ridiculed him.  Powell was right, the ridiculers were wrong, and now we have the mess we have.  

    It’s reprehensible that we would have a town called Fountain, outside Phoenix, whose only claim to fame is a giant spouting water fountain.  It’s downright criminal that Las Vegas has so many fountains and fake lakes everywhere.  It’s ridiculous that Phoenix and Palm Springs are full of golf courses, one of the worst uses of water imaginable in a place where water is a scarcity.

    • Anonymous

      While I get your point those fountains recycle the water they use. Otherwise it would cost way to much to run.
       

      • Terry Tree Tree

        Evaporation, and other losses would shut them down, if no water was added! 
           Re-using the same water is good.  WHY does a casino NEED a fountain?

  • Niesey

    Can anyone speak to the work of Paolo Soleri?
    http://www.arcosanti.org/ 

    Niesey in Laramie, WY

  • Lora Crombez

    When everyone wants to leave Arizona, someone please tell them that they will be welcomed in Michigan.  Detroit has infrastructure for 3 million. We have great universities, agriculture, manufacturing capabilities, beautiful landscapes, an educated labor force, transportation networks, everything needed for a thriving society except people!  AND WE HAVE WATER – this was the wettest season ever.

    • Ruskirebel

      Funny that I moved from Arizona to Michigan (Lansing area) for love, but I’m happy that I am back to the land of water.  Now where’s our snow?!?

    • Anonymous

      Start gay nightclubs in formerly nice areas of town.  It will be fixed up soon after.  If you can get the Deep South to take back their former property, Detroit will shine again.

      • Terry Tree Tree

        Bigotted remark about the Deep South former property?

        • Anonymous

          Bigoted?  No.  I should have said if the blacks leave Detroit and move back South, order will be restored and property values will go back where they ought to be. 

          • Terry Tree Tree

            Still strikes me as bigoted.

          • Anonymous

            Tell me of the majority black and black run city, state or nation you would be willing to move to?

          • Terry Tree Tree

            This country guy has NO desire to move to ANY city!  I would choose one on the basis of how well it is run, NOT on the basis of color!  I live in the South, in the country, because I like it here.  I don’t have problems with people because of their color.   We have FAR MORE than enough white, drug-addict, thieves and low-lifes here, where I live!
               MANY of whom, are on foodstamps, ‘disability’ due to drugs or alcohol, and other problems that bigots attribute to minorities.

    • notafeminista

      Probably because of global warming.  Better switch to LEDs.

  • Anonymous

    Hothouse Earth – 220′ Sea Level Rise, Pictures… ‘World Without Ice’ National Geographic  October 2011–”56 million years agoa mysterious surge of carbon in the atmosphere sent global temperatures soaring.  In a geologic eyeblink,  life was forever changed.  [seem to be doing it again]   
    No Time Left to Adapt to Melting Glaciers  Water supplied by glaciers…
    decreasing 20 years sooner than expected, according to a new study.”  READ MORE

    I heard Dr Heidi Cullen at Trinity Univ in SA a few weeks ago;
    she was part of the  24 hours of climate reality in Boulder on Sept 14. 
    HOUR 2: BOULDER
    Includes the climate change denialists, such as Dr. Frederick Seitz who 
    was also involved in tobacco propaganda in the 1960s.
    Latest science–Watch at least the 1st 10 mins!Guy McPherson (UAz Prof Em) on Climate Change, Sept 2011
    Couchsurfing with my soapbox Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (late 2007): 1C by 2100Hadley Centre for Meteorological Research (Late 2008): 2C by 2100Download COP14 and Read “The scientific evidence for early action on climate change” United Nations Environment Programme (Mid 2009): 3.5C by 2100 Hadley Centre for Meteorological Research (Oct 2009): 4C by 2060 Download When could global warming reach 4 deg. C. (PDF, 2 MB)Global Carbon Project, Copenhagen Diagnosis (Nov 2009) 6 – 7C by 2100 International Energy Agency (Nov 2010) 3.5C by 2035 Download the World Energy Outlook 2010 Executive Summary (pg 11)United Nations Environment Programme (Dec 2010): 6.4C by 2050 (Can’t find link)Proceeding of the National Academy of Science Climate change is irreversible (10 Feb 2009)UN Environment Programme (Nov 2009) During 2008, global carbon emissions increased (Can’t find link)Climatic Change: Only economic collapse will prevent runaway global climate change (21 Nov 2009)National Center for Atmospheric Research (Jan 2011) 16C by 2100 (including feedbacks):Science stunner: On our current emissions path, CO2 levels in 2100 will hit levels last seen when the Earth was 29 degrees F (16 C) hotter…Paleoclimate data suggests CO2 “may have at least twice the effect on global temperatures than currently projected by computer models”thinkprogress.org/…/science-kiehl-ncar-paleoclimate-lessons-from-ea…   
    Jan 13, 2011 – Joe Romm…  Thus, Earth was 16°C warmer…. that the effect of amplifying feedbacks in the climate system-where …~~~~

  • Worried for the country(MA)

    Name the peer reviewed scientific study that showed the 2011 US droughts were caused by human CO2 emissions and not the El Nino oceanic cycle?

    crickets

    Thought so!

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

      The climate drives El Niño and La Niña, and all the rest of the ocean currents.  The climate is much bigger than any one ocean current.

      Why is the Arctic ice melting again, opening up the northwest *and* northeast passages for the first time in human history?

      Why is virtually *every* glacier in the *entire* world melting away at a greatly accelerated rate?  Glacier National Park is down to 25 glaciers — it had 150 when it was opened.

      Why has the tropical zone (next to the earth’s equator) expanded by over 2 degrees latitude to the north and south?

      Why were there 32 massive flooding events in 2011?  The largest one was in Thailand is having a huge economic affect.

      Why is the US Navy rebuilding it’s piers higher up?

      Why do the US military planners call global climate change the biggest threat we face?

      Why did the wheat crop in Russia only produce 60% of what it should have?  Why did the peanut crop in Georgia fail?

      Why is the tundra (what we called permafrost!) melting?

      What is causing the methane plumes in the Arctic?

      What is causing the 5-6% greater water evaporation across the world?

      Why is almost the entire boreal forest of the northern hemisphere dieing?  These are the largest forests on earth.

      Why is the ocean getting more acidic?

      What caused the heat wave in Texas and Oklahoma< and why is the drought there still ongoing?

      Why aren't the lakes of New England freezing up — we used to harvest ice starting in early December?

      What is causing the 6th great extinction in the history of the earth?

      What has caused the carbon dioxide levels to rise from the 65,000 year constant of ~270-275ppm up to ~392ppm, starting precisely when we started burning coal?

      Can you deniers explain ANY of these facts?

      I am skeptical.

      Neil

      • Gregg

        “Human history” is but a speck in time. Why focus on a speck?

        Why is the Antarctic ice shelf expanding?
        http://www.iceagenow.com/Antarctica-Filchner-Ronne_Ice_Shelf_is_growing.htm

        Why are glaciers growing?
        http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm

        What caused the extinction of Dinosaurs?

        How can it be said CO2 raises the temperature when for 600,000 years temperature has increased before CO2 levels?

        Why would anyone ignore the fraud at East Anglica and the resulting bogus 2007 IPCC report?

        What caused ice ages to come and go?

        What was so bad about the hotter and highly productive Bronze Age?

        Why would any one ignore the resignation of a Nobel Laureate?
        http://cnsnews.com/blog/marc-morano/nobel-laureate-resigns-society-because-its-global-warming-fear-mongering

        Why would anyone assume the answer to all the questions posed is “man”?

        • Anonymous

          Interesting question. However why not.
          It is also interesting how you are so sure about the data you have read about the Bronze Age, which is based mostly on analyzing “proxy evidence,” and yet when presented with some very compelling evidence based on the last 150 years, (the time that reliable temperature records have been recorded) you doubt the science.
          Something not quite right about how you go about using the science to back up your arguments.

          • Modavations

            The earth is 4.5billion years old.Leif Erikson and Eric the Red set forth in the 1100′s, because the sea lanes thawed.How bout this,perhaps climate change is a natural phenomenom and that the Left is using a canard to grab more power?

          • Anonymous

            How about this: You seem to have some kind of weird conspiracy thing going on about the “left” which seems to me to be more about your mental state than reality, perhaps this is the issue.

          • Modavations

            Hold your fire lad,10:00 approaches.My politics are properly called “right wing anarchy” and yes ,I think the Left is planning a putsch(?)

          • Gregg

            When Phil Jones was busted one of the things he admitted was the Bronze age was hotter than now. He also admitted there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 (this was a year or 2 ago). That’s what I was referring to, I apologize for not looking it up for you but it’s a matter of record. This is the guy who was most responsible for the fraudulent data the 2007 IPCC report used. The holy grail. To understand how I back up my arguments you must know what they are:

            150 years is nothing in the context of the history of temperature. Mankind pales.

            Much of the debate has been dishonest.

            If man is causing warming, there is nothing we as Americans alone can do to affect anything.

            And any talk of pollution is better served without the hysteria of people screaming “The end is near”.

            That’s it.

          • notafeminista

            Heck satellite technology is only what? 60 years old?  We have no idea about anything before then.

          • nj

            ^ Blurs the line between ignorance and stupidity.

          • Modavations

            Again,just tripe.Don’t tell me you’re out of bullets already?

          • notafeminista

            Been waiting awhile to use that one haven’t you?

            You guys crack me up.

          • nj

            The shoe fits, bud. It’s hard to believe someone would make such a statement in public. We have no idea about anything before satellites.

            Hard to get more idiotic than than, but i’m sure you’ll come up with something.

          • notafeminista

            Smells like a ‘yes’ to me.

            Cheers!

          • Terry Tree Tree

            You’re saying we had NO methods to gather scientific earth information, before satellites?

        • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

          Parts of the Antarctic sea ice is shrinking because of warmer water, but some of the land ice is expanding because there is more moisture in the atmosphere, because the higher temperature is increasing evaporation.  Also, the earth is tilted on it’s axis, so the southern hemisphere is colder than the north.  We know the approximate level of carbon dioxide when it started to freeze, those many millions of years ago.

          This expansion of Antarctica land ice is not unexpected and is accounted for in the current climate models, as it should be.

          Almost all glaciers are shrinking.  There may be some growing because of the greater level of precipitation; which itself is because of greater evaporation.  This is why we have both greater flooding events and greater droughts, too.  It all fits the climate models.  These scientists are not as dumb as you and some other folks around here seem to think they are.

          What do the dinosaurs have to do with this discussion?  There have been several catastrophic events over the earth’s history — but we are living here and now.  And we humans have brought this calamity on our own heads.

          The East Anglia hacked emails show no such thing.  There have been numerous investigations (nine I think?) and all of them have cleared the science — it all is still quite correct and solid. please see my several posts with links to reports on these emails — they have the specifics you need.

          Ice ages over the history have been caused by several various changes in the balance of the forcings: some were because the tilt of the earth’s axis changed (about 10 degrees!).  Some were because of an enormous amount of volcanic activity after Pangaea broke up and the continents moved around the earth.  Volcanos have at least two effects: they put a lot of ash into the air which cools the earth in the short(er) term, and they put out a lot of carbon dioxide which is an insulation in the atmosphere.  The sun’s output has changed a lot — it generally increases over the long term — it behaves like all stars of it’s size should.  It has a 22 year sunspot cycle, as well.

          We have also had periods with absolutely no permanent ice at all anywhere on earth.  Alaska had alligators and the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was about 1,000ppm.  We know a lot about how all that carbon dioxide was moved from the atmosphere underground and under the ocean — most of it is by the weathering process and some of it is by plants and animals dieing and these are what became the coal and the oil.

          As the carbon dioxide levels came down (over many millions of years) and hit about 450ppm, the Antarctic ice started to freeze, and then when it hit 350ppm, the Arctic ice froze.

          And *how* do we know about these old climatic changes?

          We can learn a lot from studying them more, but what we have already learned is that we humans have put ourselves in a very tough spot by burning all those millions and millions of years worth of carbon that had been stowed away.  The climate had reached a level of stasis at about 270-275ppm of carbon dioxide for ~650,000 years.

          Now we have burned up a majority of all that carbon in just 150 years — why do we wonder that we are getting warmer?  This is what physics predicts!

           Neil

          • Modavations

            Mental masturbation

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            Scientific facts.  Look them up, sir/madam.

            Neil

        • Terry Tree Tree

          That ‘speck’ of time, is ALL humans have. 
              How many ‘heat islands’ are there?  What is their total acreage?  What percentage of the land mass?   How many are ‘strategically’ located, to create greatly unbalanced problems?
             Several other questions! 
             MOST theoretical man-made causes of global warming, are forms of pollution, or factors that are adverse to humans and the earth. 
             If they are corrected, stopped, re-claimed, WE ALL profit!  If NOT, we will ALL pay, for the pollution, if not by global warming!

      • Modavations

        Dude.you’re an idealogue and will not be swayed.Anyone who says Prof. Lindzen is disqualified because he’s a professor of of Atmospheric Science,as opposed to being a climate scientist, is remiss.He is not a professor at Salem State College.He holds the Sloan Chair at frigging MIT.

        • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

          If he has serious critiques or alternate explanations, I’m sure that his colleagues will hear him and discuss them with him.  That is how science works.

          MIT is quite prestigious, but that doesn’t mean that everyone there is better than people at other institutions.  He still has to argue his points with all the other scientists.

          No need to swear, sir.

          Neil

        • nj

          Well, that’s a step in the right direction. Moda-troll has figured out how to spell the professor’s name.

          This will no doubt generate a quantum leap in credibility.

          • Modavations

            That’s all you’ve got?As usual,quit the ad hominens and address the issue

        • nj

          Poor Moda can’t answer any of the questions, so it’s back to blathering about Lindzen, of whose position on warming Moda likely knows nothing about.

          So concerned you are about the issues, go ahead, answer Neil’s questions, or summarize for us the essence of Lindzen’s position on anthropogenic climate change.

        • Anonymous

          “Dude. You’re an ideologue and will not be swayed.” 

          Lindzen illusions exposed here:

          http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm

          And rebutted here:

          http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Richard_Lindzen

          See generally:

          http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Lindzen 

      • http://reinventing-america.blogspot.com/ ulTRAX

        Look, I’m sympathetic with your overall view that the global climate is warming. But specific events don’t prove a trend. It’s like the Bible prediction in the end days there will be war, drought, pestilence, strife, earthquakes etc. There are ALWAYS wars, drought, pestilence, strife, and earthquakes. I grimace whenever I hear someone say… see, that hurricane proves global warming just as much as some right wing idiot claiming a snowstorm disproves it. There’s a tendency to, for example, use hurricane damage as a measurement. But “damage” depends on a hurricane striking land and population centers when most blow out to sea. Could we estimate the total energy dissipated by hurricanes? But then that’s dependent on their track. If some drift into the ultra-warm Gulf of Mexico then they’d be more energetic then those which chance blows out into the colder mid-Atlantic where it dies.

        My point being any single event or measurement suffers drawbacks. Broader measurements, say of global sea temperature, might be more useful than periodic droughts in the mid- or southwest… droughts we know have historically occurred even when the climate was cooler. I’d scratch about half the examples off your list as interesting but irrelevant since there’s no proven causal connection.
         

        • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

          I take your points, but taken in total, this list represents a broad trend, that can only be explained by anthropogenic climate change.  The scale of flood and the frequency they are occurring, and the places they are occurring in are more important than the cost of the damage, of course.

          Neil

          • http://reinventing-america.blogspot.com/ ulTRAX

            My point simply is we tend to measure disasters by how it affects us… modern civilization with all its scorecards… deaths, property damage, etc. But a 10.0 earthquake in San Francisco would not be a “disaster” before we built a densely populated city with high rise buildings and gas lines… etc. A 10.0 quake there 15,000 years ago with no one there to affect would just be of interest to forensic geologists. It’s the same with many of your examples such as flooding etc.

            Sometimes how events affect us tells us more about us than the events themselves or bigger trends… and we need to keep the difference in mind. If there is more damage from hurricanes is it the storms are stronger or is it more a reflection on the how densely populated an area is, how good are the building codes, inflation of currency etc. Another example… homicide crime stats. Is the murder rate going down or can we now save people that 5-10-20 years ago would surely die?

            While we have to worry about how global warming affects humanity, we also need to keep in mind that the measurement tools we use to measure or “prove” it must be more objective and not anthropocentric. It’s those latter measurements that get even this believer’s eyes to roll.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            I take your point, and I agree.  Along a similar vein, we humans have to change our thinking — we are very much a part of the rest of nature, and all life forms are interdependent.  We affect the environment, and the environment affects us.  Our economy is a subset of the environment.

            I have a working hypothesis that our economy will not ever be the same as it was say in the 1950′s and 60′s.  That economy was based on growth, but since we live on a finite planet, an economy that grows forever — is a lie.

            Oil was the “Viagra” that artificially boosted our economy (if you have a growth economy for more than forty years, please call your doctor!) and this has given us a way overinflated opinion of ourselves.

            What we are just starting to find out is that it was too good to be true.  The transition to a steady state economy where *everything* is fully recycled back into the earth, with zero waste — and all of what we do becomes literally the nutrients for all the generations of life to come.

            Neil

          • http://reinventing-america.blogspot.com/ ulTRAX

            NB wrote: “That economy was based on growth, but since we live on a finite planet, an economy that grows forever — is a lie.”

            The doctrinal Right would not agree with you since they believe the market is a magical mechanism that can solve every problem. All that’s needed is enough demand to justify the investment of time, intellect, and capital to respond.

            It’s a compelling fable because the “law” of Supply & Demand seems to cover all eventualities. Run out of X and the demand for a substitute will rise.

            In reality it only works some of the time… and markets are grotesquely inefficient, but the Right can’t help but generalize a religion from their own half truths. In a world of growing scarcity that leaves billions behind, the other defects in this argument are soon apparent. One is the market only responds to those with money and not all players are interested in the dirty game of free market competition but in power and monopoly. And corporations don’t want all the costs/byproducts of their for-profit production brought in to the market. They prefer innocent third parties subsidize with the degradation of their health or property the private profit making activities of corporation. Unless these costs, these externalities, are brought into the market, capitalism as we know it… especially as practiced in nations like China, is dynamic, but a superficial and primitive economic system.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            Right, a growth economy is impossible on a finite planet.

            Especially one where we have soiled the only productive source of all life.  We cannot do this and still claim to be moral beings.

            Neil

          • http://reinventing-america.blogspot.com/ ulTRAX

            NB wrote: “Right, a growth economy is impossible on a finite planet.”

            This thread is soon to be imposible to read so I’ll start a new thread above.

          • Terry Tree Tree

            SOOOO TRUE!!

          • Terry Tree Tree

            CONCISE, and articulate!

    • Schamsie

      Any explanation as to why 2011 was the hottest ever?  I thought not.

      • Gregg

        “Ever” is quite a large word. Try another. 

      • Modavations

        anomaly

        • JayB

          Looots and lots of anomalies these past few years….

  • notafeminista
    • Anonymous

      “‘John Christy and Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama published a series of papers starting about 1990 that implied the troposphere was warming at a much slower rate than the surface temperature record and climate models indicated…’; but the discrepancy turned out to be an artifact of their having applied incorrect adjustments to their UAH satellite temperature record data.[5], [6]. As Ray Pierrehumbert at RealClimate put it:
      ‘Spencer and Christy sat by for most of a decade allowing — indeed encouraging — the use of their data set as an icon for global warming skeptics. They committed serial errors in the data analysis, but insisted they were right and models and thermometers were wrong. They did little or nothing to root out possible sources of errors, and left it to others to clean up the mess, as has now been done[7]‘”http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_R._Christy

      • notafeminista

        And Christy was invited to join the IPCC regardless….why?

  • JustSayin

    I have to add a personal observation to the discussion to warming and excess CO. Please spin this observation into your desired paradigm.

    I have been working with wood reclaimed (old NE barns) and harvested for my entire life. Observable tree rings have shown a three to four measurable increase here in New England. This astonishing growth is evident in every tree species for the past 35 years.

    Last year I was cutting a hill for firewood, and was astonished to find a single season 3/4 inch growth ring on a cottonwood, and a 3/8 inch ring on a 60 yo red oak.

    Such rates of growth for trees in NE have not been seen as far back as 1600 (My oldest reclaimed barn wood being Doug Fir).

    Indeed the farther one goes back in time the tighter the rings get. I have a reclaimed barn hickory (notably a slow under canopy single slope species) sample that has 175 years of rings in a 5 inch sample.

    The current hickory trees in this area are incomparably fast growing with wide rings. Politics may lie, and perhaps people can construct a liberal conspiracy around tree ring data, but for me, I have all the evidence I need for the environment changing fast and in a very significant way.

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

      I used to work for a timber framing company.  The best wood is the slow growing “old growth” wood, right?

      We’ll see how fruit trees do this year, without adequate dormancy time.  We’ll see how the food crops around the world do, as well.  We could try to plant mangoes in place of apples, but what would pollinate them?  How would they handle the soil chemistry?

      We have messed with Mother Nature…

      Neil

      • JustSayin

        Well it really depends upon the application, but slow growing is almost better for most applications. Antique lumber (recovered) can be nicely figured, but quite brittle and difficult to work with.

        There’s a lot going on in the north eastern forests now. persistent pests, fungus, invasive vines, ice storms, early snow, and too much heat in summer, and too much heat in winter.

        Ive seen trees dying due to heat stress. Many of the species in the northeast are not heat tolerant and cease to store carbohydrates above 80 degrees.  So each hot summer causes them to  starve in the spring.

        It has been predicted that the sugar maple will die off completely in the next 100 years at lower elevations in southern New England due to heat stress.

        • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

          Yes, this rapid climate change is quite damaging to a lot of things, that we all depend on whether we know it or whether we want to acknowledge it or not.

          I have heard reports that in places like Chicago, when they need to plant trees, they are no longer planting oaks and beeches, but rather gum trees and other species that *were* native to places about 800 miles south.

          We are living in a changed world, and one that will continue to change rapidly.

          Neil

  • Modavations

    Mr Blanchard,this of course,will not sway an idealogue.Sane people would be agnostic on the climate issue,I think you incapable.When I say we live on a nuclear reactor this is what I mean.The earth’s moolten core is a result of the decay of radioactive material,ie.Uranium which degrades over zillions of years.Please,no need to reply,I’m off to Manhattan.Play with the other guys,please

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

      Where’s your proof sir/madam?  Do you know what causes the ocean tides?  If so, you should educate Bill O’Reilly.

      You want me to disavow our best understanding of reality — i.e. science.  I cannot do that on this field; climate, unless I also disavow all other fields of science, as well.

      You see, science is not a salad bar.  You cannot “believe” or “disbelieve” science, either.  Science tells us a lot of things that might seem crazy or fanciful or magical — but all those things remain whether or not we accept them.

      Neil

      • http://reinventing-america.blogspot.com/ ulTRAX

         NB wrote: “Science tells us a lot of things that might seem crazy or fanciful or magical — but all those things remain whether or not we accept them.”Actually science is a self-correcting intellectual tool to get at truth… it’s not truth itself. And here’s where true scientists and industry shills and ideologues will part company. True scientists will follow the peer reviews and modify their views as the evidence comes in. Paid shills and ideologues of all stripes will place their views first despite the scientific evidence. They will engage in selective recognition/denial of the evidence.Either way, if the facts show the planet’s climate is warming, then it almost doesn’t matter why… the consequences could be dire. See my post above.   

        • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

          Thank you for putting it so succinctly.  I agree with you.

          Neil

    • http://reinventing-america.blogspot.com/ ulTRAX

      No Moda… and of all people you’re the last to comment on sanity. Sane people aren’t agnostic for being agnostic’s sake. Sane people follow the best evidence at the time and adjust the beliefs as new evidence comes in.  

  • nj

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1189

    2011 Year in Review (part 1)

    It took until 2011 before scientists had checked the numbers and worked out that there is an 80% chance that the Russia’s 2010 record-breaking warmth, and the tens of thousands of deaths that went with it, wouldn’t have happened without global warming (Rahmstorf & Coumou, 2011).

    Meanwhile Arctic sea ice kept up its shrinking trend, coming in at the second lowest September recorded. Antarctic sea ice, temporarily protected by wind and ocean changes, remains stable (with a long term trend that is increasing, but not statistically significant) – we find that globally, sea ice is shrinking.

    Satellite measurements of sea level show a rise of +3.2 mm/year, an acceleration of about 90% from last century’s average (Church & White, 2006). Last year NASA reported a ‘pothole on the road to higher seas’, where it rained so hard that the seas fell.

    The World Glacier Monitoring Service released their bulletin, reporting on the state of glaciers measured from 2008 and 2009, and found that 90% are shrinking.

  • http://reinventing-america.blogspot.com/ ulTRAX

    Sure, detecting signal (human activity) from noise in a complex system isn’t easy. There may be a host of variables cumulatively at work. But I have a question to our friends on the Right whose corporate driven ideology seems desperate to blame claim change on factors OTHER than human activity.

    So say those who claim climate change is based human activity have it wrong and climate is driven by the sun, the precession of the earth’s axis, or cosmic rays. None of the above are unreasonable explanation. But does that mean we’re magically out of the woods? That we won’t have flooding of coastal cities? That we won’t lose prime agricultural land? That there won’t be desertification of large parts of the planet? That there won’t be more energetic and damaging weather events? That we won’t have massive dislocations of populations? That there won’t be mass extinctions of plant and animal life or that insect pests won’t move to new regions where they lack natural predators?

    6-10 thousand years ago humans could pick up and leave areas that became inhospitable. We don’t have that luxury any more. We built our world civilization based on the mild climate and the sea level of the past 2000 years.

    If climate change is driven by factors other than greenhouse gases what’s your “solution” to avoid the above? Or do you deny those probable consequences?

    Economics may dictate we will to drastically reduce greenhouse gases because it may be the only variable we CAN control and the least expensive way to mitigate a global disaster.

    • ulTRAX

      Oops… correction:

      “But I have a question to our friends on the Right whose corporate driven ideology seems desperate to blame climate change on factors OTHER than human activity.

  • Terry Tree Tree

    The Southwest is in drought.  Much of the Southwest has over-built, and over-used the available water. 
       Many of the same solutions for Global Warming, Climate Change, etc…, whether you believe in them or not, will HELP the situation in the Southwest, and other places that are experiencing temporary, or permanent ‘climate change’!
       Solar Collectors, in the sunny Southwest, would cut the heat and pollution produced by oil, coal, and nuclear energy production.  Also, it would cut the need for water to clean up from their use, and the water involved in their use!  
        Wind-Turbines, would have similiar advantages over ‘conventional’ energy! 
       Multiple re-uses of water would cut the need for MORE water! 
       Smarter, Energy-Saving buildings, private and public, will save water and other resources!
       Many other smarter solutions to the problems, regardless of the cause!

  • Worried for the country(MA)

    Attention climategate deniers.

    Michael Mann famous for the now debunked hockey stick curve and outed in the climategate emails in corrupting science with the ‘hide the decline’.

    Oh wait, he was exonerated by an internal review by a blue ribbon panel at his University.  Where does Michael Mann work?

    Penn State

    This is the same Penn State that had a blue ribbon panel exonerate the child molester football coach.

    Oooops!

    • nj

      Penn state and a bunch of other reviews…

      National Science Foundation Investigation Clears Climate Change Researcherhttp://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/08/24/national-science-foundation-clears-climate-change-researcher/

      Climate change scandal: MPs exonerate professorhttp://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/climate-change-scandal-mps-exonerate-professor-1931631.htmlFederal auditors find no evidence to support ‘Climategate’ accusationshttp://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2011/08/feds-clear-climategate-scientistBut, of course, they’re all part of the socialist hoax, too, and probably abuse kids in their spare time.It’s instructive that the denialist goons have to resort to this kind of nonsense.

      • Worried for the country(MA)

        1) Your link  is broken
        2) The article is about Phil Jones at CRU not Mann
        3) Phil Jones was cleared by a split vote of MPs – politicians. 

        The facts are the hockey stick was bad science on two fronts.  Frist, the statistical methods were so flawed that if white noise random data were input into Mann’s algorithm a hockey stick would be produced 90+% of the time.  Second, the ‘hide the decline’ treatment of tree ring data is deceitful scientific method by any objective measure.

    • Anonymous

      “There is no evidence that scientists have engaged in alleged conspiracies. Three investigations discerned no scientific misconduct in emails stolen from University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit. It has been claimed that the decline in the number of weather stations in the global network since the 1990s was due to purposeful removal, but there is no evidence to support this; furthermore, the reduction in number of stations reporting data has introduced no detectable bias in the trend of the global average temperature anomaly.  The IPCC reports undergo significant scrutiny, but as is inevitable in a 3000-page document, that scrutiny sometimes fails to detect errors. The few errors identified in the latest IPCC report were primarily in referencing and not in content.  Their existence does not support a conspiracy to misrepresent climate research.”

      http://www.dbcca.com/dbcca/EN/investment-research/investment_research_2355.jsp

  • Pingback: a dry future for the southwest - As We See It

  • Anonymous

    Talking about climate change while not talking about overpopulation misses the whole problem. 

  • Anonymous

    “[T]he volume of this debate has turned way up as the ‘skeptics’ launched a determined assault on the climate findings accepted by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community. Unfortunately, the increased noise has only made it harder for people to untangle the arguments and form their own opinions. This is problematic because the way the public’s views are shaped is critical to future political action on climate change…

    Simply put, the science shows us that climate change due to emissions of greenhouse gases is a serious problem. Furthermore, due to the persistence of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the lag in response of the climate system, there is a very high probability that we are already heading towards a future where warming will persist for thousands of years. Failing to insure against that high probability does not seem a gamble worth taking.”

    http://www.dbcca.com/dbcca/EN/investment-research/investment_research_2355.jsp 

    (Climate Change: Addressing the Major Skeptic Arguments)

  • Anonymous

    “KEY ISSUES:

    ~ Water supplies will become increasingly scarce, calling for trade-offs among competing uses, and potentially leading to conflict.

    ~ Increasing temperature, drought, wildfire, and invasive species will accelerate transformation of the landscape.

    ~ Increased frequency and altered timing of flooding will increase risks to people, ecosystems, and infrastructure.

    ~ Unique tourism and recreation opportunities are likely to suffer.Cities and agriculture face increasing risks from a changing climate.

    Recent warming in the Southwest has been among the most rapid in the nation. This is driving declines in spring snowpack and Colorado River flow. Projections of future climate change indicate continued strong warming in the region, with much larger increases under higher emissions scenarios compared to lower. Projected summertime temperature increases are greater than the annual average increases in parts of the region and are likely to be exacerbated by expanding urban heat island effects. Further water cycle changes are projected, which combined with increasing temperatures signal a serious water supply challenge in the decades and centuries ahead. The prospect of future droughts becoming more severe due to warming is a significant concern, especially because the Southwest continues to lead the nation in population growth.”

    http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts/regional-climate-change-impacts/southwest

  • http://reinventing-america.blogspot.com/ ulTRAX

    Continued from below… the thread was getting unreadable:

    NB wrote: “Right, a growth economy is impossible on a finite planet.”

    I do wonder how capitalism would work IF all the costs of production externalities were brought into the system. Right now people can profit from X knowing the full social/environmental costs of X’s production, use and possible disposable are NOT paid by the producer or consumer of X. Petrol products come to mind. These products are heavily subsidized through the backdoor… such as the military expenditures in the Mideast to protect oil producing allies and keep the sea lanes open. I once tried to calculate the cost and these numbers are dated… from 1999, but it seemed that there was about $1 spent on the military and other US spending in the Persian Gulf area for every gallon or gasoline or fuel oil from that region. That’s not counting the occasional Oil War… and the consequences of war.

    One might think that religious free market types would decry such subsidies… but they don’t. Similarity, they don’t want to have users of those petrol products paying the full cost of their use… and here the area is hazy since “full cost” is subject to the best science of the day. What are the aggregate health costs of petrol use from released VOCs to fine particulates to greenhouse gases? With coal what of acid rain? Back in the 80′s it was estimated that New England and NY were suffering some was it $10-20 Billion in damages a  year in acid rain damage to buildings, forests, etc just because dirty coal plants in the Midwest didn’t want to spend $2 billion on scrubbers. It takes government to force those coal consumers to pay the full cost of their use… but free market zealots, who you might think are all for the sanctity of private property, really seem interested in the sanctity of private profit and redistribution of “wealth” via the back door. One might think Libertarians would truly defend the principle that we have a right to do anything that doesn’t negatively affect others… but when push comes to shove, they are too enamoured with their precious market model and superficial monetary transactions to extend the principle much past that. 

    To be continued…

    • http://reinventing-america.blogspot.com/ ulTRAX

      To bring this back to the topic of the show, if we subtract all the federal and other public money that goes into water and power projects, what would be the “market” cost of sustaining urban or agricultural life in the arid SW? Why isn’t the Right raising hell about such socialistic redistribution of the wealth in these public works projects?

      • Terry Tree Tree

        GOOD QUESTION!

        • http://reinventing-america.blogspot.com/ ulTRAX

          Probably because it’s an indirect redistribution of wealth… as opposed to what they see as more direct redistributions… food stamps etc. Either way the principle is the same. But the Right won’t complain about the more hidden subsidies the rich get. It’s the hidden nature of such subsidies that permits their hypocritical whining about the high taxes they must endure to support the poor.

  • Terry Tree Tree

    GOOD Questions!!

  • Terry Tree Tree

    What does this map look like to the south of area shown?  Mexico, and Central America?  How far into South America does the drought conditions go?  Over what time?
        How much would someone be paid to partially correct this problem?

  • Pingback: Will the Southwest Survive the 21st Century? | Perspective

  • Terry Tree Tree

    STUPENDOUS!!!  Many of the same methods that limit pollution, would help fight Global Warming, man-assisted, OR completely natural!  
        Corporations, mostly polluters, want to ignore it ALL, because they may be able to refute some of the smallest details!

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/ZC5TWQHCKIOZCZA2L4J6BHNWYE Yan

    Sure, detecting signal (human activity) from noise in a complex system isn’t easy .  There may be a host of variables cumulatively at work. But I have a question to our friends on the Right whose corporate driven ideology seems desperate to blame claim change on factors OTHER than human activity .

ONPOINT
TODAY
Aug 29, 2014
Ukrainian forces guard a checkpoint in the town of Mariupol, eastern Ukraine, Thursday, Aug. 28, 2014. Ukraine's president Petro Poroshenko called an emergency meeting of the nation's security council and canceled a foreign trip Thursday, declaring that "Russian forces have entered Ukraine," as concerns grew about the opening of a new front in the conflict.  (AP)

War moves over Syria, Ukraine. Burger King moves to Canada. Nine-year-olds and Uzis. Our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

Aug 29, 2014
Beyoncé performs at the 2014 MTV Music Video Awards on Sunday, August 24, 2014 in Inglewood, California. (Getty)

Sex, power and Beyoncé’s feminism. The message to young women.

RECENT
SHOWS
Aug 29, 2014
Beyoncé performs at the 2014 MTV Music Video Awards on Sunday, August 24, 2014 in Inglewood, California. (Getty)

Sex, power and Beyoncé’s feminism. The message to young women.

 
Aug 29, 2014
Ukrainian forces guard a checkpoint in the town of Mariupol, eastern Ukraine, Thursday, Aug. 28, 2014. Ukraine's president Petro Poroshenko called an emergency meeting of the nation's security council and canceled a foreign trip Thursday, declaring that "Russian forces have entered Ukraine," as concerns grew about the opening of a new front in the conflict.  (AP)

War moves over Syria, Ukraine. Burger King moves to Canada. Nine-year-olds and Uzis. Our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

On Point Blog
On Point Blog
Our Week In The Web: August 29, 2014
Friday, Aug 29, 2014

On hypothetical questions, Beyoncé and the unending flow of social media.

More »
Comment
 
Drew Bledsoe Is Scoring Touchdowns (In The Vineyards)
Thursday, Aug 28, 2014

Football great — and vineyard owner — Drew Bledsoe talks wine, onions and the weird way they intersect sometimes in Walla Walla, Washington.

More »
Comment
 
Poutine Whoppers? Why Burger King Is Bailing Out For Canada
Tuesday, Aug 26, 2014

Why is Burger King buying a Canadian coffee and doughnut chain? (We’ll give you a hint: tax rates).

More »
1 Comment