"OR, does any source that says that global warming is a problem automatically become a lying, liberal, fascist, communist, terrorist, economy killing, democratic mouthpiece?"
That's a little melodramatic don't you think? However, let's look at that article. I don't have time to do an in depth analysis so let's just pick some low hanging fruit. I refer you to this picture from the article: http://static6.businessinsider.com/image...
This is a head to head comparison of the two dates July 20, 2011 and January 16, 2014. Well to start, if you look at annual water levels you'll notice that January is the low average level and June/July is the high average level. Further, if you go to this page, you'll notice that during July, 2011 the lake was almost at reservoir capacity and well above the historical average: http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cdecapp/resapp/...
If you use the same link and check out this year, you can see its levels are well below average due to the drought. So January 2014 is very, very low. And even still, it's not the lowest January by a long shot.
And yet, this is the picture caption: "The California water crisis, in one photo." I call that misleading while you probably call that effective climate science communications.
Who knows what accuracy the rest of the article presents. I don't have high hopes.
Edit: Oh, and check out the levels during the droughts of 76/77 and 89/90. Liberals claim to be open minded. Well, then show it. I'm Liberal and I'm open minded. That's why I don't just take articles like that at face value.
I am trying to understand the logic of the question. Is it like this?
"I disagree with some people. I will give them a name (Deniers) and I will link them to all the nasty things I can think of - like Big Business and Big Oil. I now see an article in a business publication so those people with whom I disagree will believe it. Just like I do when I see something at DeSmog or SourceWatch or SkS. I know it is true because I already believe it."
Does the fact that the points made in the article are not true have any bearing?
See other answers for details.
You forgot atheistic, baby-killing, gay-loving, socialist, welfare-loving, unBiblical. . . .
To answer the question -- possibly. We don't know for sure just how bad global warming will get and thus how damaging the resulting climate change will get.
The good news is that in the next few years, carbon emissions will pea and then begin to fall. NOT becasue fo Obama's proposed reduction mandate. BUSINESSES will make sure it happens. Solar power, wind power and energy storage technology are already competitive in many areas due to cost reductions -- and costs are still declining rapidly. Essentially the same story with producing fuel-efficient cars. When it's cheaper to "go green," people and businesses will go green. Simple as that. And innovative businesses are pouring billions into R&D. Why? The US energy sector alone is a multi-TRILLION dollar market. Better energy "mousetraps" are going to produce a whole new generation of entrepreneurial self-made billionaires. All of them "liberal, yada, yada, yada . . . ."
Leslie Baehr? Really? How old is she? 18?
That's what you get with a Government sponsored education.
Kids don't know that "pigs don't know that pigs stink", especially when they graduate Government sponsored educational system.
Environmental issues come with an emotional attachment for her. Most of her articles try to tug at the emotional impact just as liberalism has always tried to do.
They are simply regurgitating crap studies that have shown false already. Lets see what they covered
Hurricanes hitting the US: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/gw_...
Oops
Tornadoes: http://www.ustornadoes.com/wp-content/up...
Oops
Crops: http://sustainablog.org/files/2009/08/co...
Oops
Floods/drought: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/s...
Oops
They have sea level rising by 9 times its current amount by 2050 in order to show any "danger". Then they talk about historic locations problem 2000 years from now!!!
The forest fires is just plain funny. There has been no measurable increase in droughts in the US or in the world.
Droughts globally: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v49...
They are linking forest fires to droughts and drougths to AGW completely ignroing the real cause of undergrowth increases.
There is not one peice of this trash article that I cannot poke hole through. ALL of it is based upon models of the change to environments based upon models of temps (95% of which are overestimating) which are in turn based upon models that are based upon other models for their input. A model of a model of a model of a model of poor paleoclimate surrogate of surrogate of surrogate data.
This is what you call certianty??? I call it trash. Congrats to the warmers. They have been able to once again fool people into panic.
Edit:
It amazes me how most all fo these claims are entirely unsupportable by the IPCC reports and the IPCC reports have been continually overestiamting the warming.
The IPCC has 16 inches of sea level rise by 2100, yet your article say 31 inches by 2050??? The people saying no wamring, no change, no sea level rise are closer to the IPCC reports than the idiotic filth you provide. STILL, people pull out the assinine 97% survey, that only says that man is causing some warming as evidence that they can spew whatever stupidity and be "defending science".
Do you understand how stupid this is? Do you understand how dumb it is to more than quadruple the IPCC estimates?
If you do not, then perhaps you would like to look at #7 and tell me how the sea is going to rise by 11 inches in 6 short years, when the increase is about 1 inch every 8 years!!!!
EXPLAIN YOURSELF!!! In fact, all you warmers here yammering on. DEFEND THAT!!!
You constantly talk about warmers MAKING UP failed predictions. Here you go. You provided one right here. You think for a moment the sea levels will rise by 11 inches in 6 years???
Fact is, I care about the environment and would love to be on your side. But what you say is TOO ABSURD. The crap you spew is TOO WRONG.
You have this many failed predictions while claiming to be speaking for science and you denigrate the science that I love and have worked my life supporting.
Another totally false scary article, the IPCC says no proven connection between climate change and extreme weather, sea levels are rising at 3mm per yr according to dodgy satellite measurements or 1.78 according to tide gauges, neither of which would produce anywhere near the flooding they report, grain crops are at their all time highest, malaria is not restricted to warm places, at one time Russia had a problem, wild fires are due to a change in forest management, warming will produce more evaporation and more rainfall.
I am going to stop here, but I could poke holes in all 22 effects, and anyway there has been no significant warming for 17yrs 9 months, even though CO2 levels are escalating.
97% of the scientist say GW is real. The folks against GW have no facts, no research studies. Their only point is that the models the scientist use has flaws. People against GW see science as a liberal conspiracy. Some even believe the earth is 10,000 year sold. This is part of the divide in America. The uneducated conservatives, AKA old angry white people against the open minded and liberals.
No, see wikipedia, "Climate surveys". Lots of surveys show that CLIMATE SCIENTIST agree.
(as opposed to weathermen and oilmen.)
You should have stopped reading the article as soon as you saw references to "IPCC" and "Whitehouse" reports.
The IPCC is made up of a collection of lackeys who depend on maintaining the criminal lies that assert Catastrophic, Man-made, Global Warming in order to keep taxpayer funding flowing in. The current administration has one goal in mind regarding CAGW......tax revenues.
BTW, The "97% of scientists" babble was exposed as a hoax long ago. That number was the result of sloppy, amateurish research.
http://www.businessinsider.com/effects-of-climate-change-2014-6
Is this true?
It's from a business oriented publication.
Presumably, normally they're against raising taxes.
OR, does any source that says that global warming is a problem automatically become a lying, liberal, fascist, communist, terrorist, economy killing, democratic mouthpiece?
