Talk to me in 100 years when Miami, NY and New Orleans are under several feet of water.

And how exactly is that going to happen? Asteroid collision perhaps?
There's been tremendous melting this past century, and sea levels have gone up 4 to 8 INCHES since year 1900.

It is predicted by the best of the best that sea levels will rise 8 to 16 inches by year 2100.
I'm totally, and 100% OK with that. Most of Floridians are ok with that too.

Edit: Do you realize if we did not have sophisticated scientific instruments such as computers and laser altimiters that NO ONE would be concerned about this? Do you know without such sophisticated instruments this "problem" would not exist? This is because it has has no significant impact on mankind. It would happen, but go un-noticed since it is such a slow, and benign change.
This is a case of too much information being harmful to society. We are ( well, you are ) worrying about something tiny, when there are much greater issues out there that we both should focus on, way ahead of this.

Do you want to ban the use of Dihydrogen Monoxide also???

http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...imate_100.html

I'll leave it at that

Oh, brother......
"Say Goodbye to Mixed Nuts"

Ok, I'll say goodbye to some nuts and leave it at that.

Truth not comfortable? Reality too real? Our future generations are gonna be pissed at us...

I guess I'm not sure why it's such a big deal to curb our bad habits to ensure that the only planet we know supports our species can continue to support us?

Personally, less humans are WAY over due, but that is NEVER pondered. And it IS the root of the human problem, just taboo for some reason? Must be a blind spot not to see this...

'04 Seaside Pearl #7. Fumoto oil drain, mudflaps, rear bumper scuff protector & rear warn system, compass mirror, EV mode button, 8" subwoofer in right rear cubby & 6" subs under seats, power lumbar in the front seats, Coastaletech hitch w/ Aspen bike/snowboard rack. iPod2car, 2 amps, Alpine component speakers, and DVD video, solid 47 MPG @ 70000 miles.

All the terms still obtain and climate change is perhaps the most accurate because it captures the overall problem rather than focusing on certain aspects.

In recent years, I've changed my position on climate change. I now accept that climate change is happening and accept that human activity is responsible. The tone of the rhetoric is much more reasoned today, and those who deny climate change, IMHO, are sounding less certain and more desperate.

There is a divide on the issue, but it's probably not the divide some are thinking. It's not a divide between Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, left and right, or blue and red. It's a divide between an environmental camp and an economic camp.

The environmental camp gets the science but doesn't get the economics. The economic camp gets the economics but doesn't get the science.

The threat of climate change, IMHO, does not endanger the planet. The planet's inhabitants have come and gone, but the planet has remained. The planet has undergone change that no human could survive. The planet will be here long after the humans are gone.

The threat of climate change, IMHO, does not endanger the human race. Even if the more dire scenarios come to pass, like the ocean level rising 250 feet. Would people die as a result of flooding, rioting, massive population displacement, famine, pestilence, dogs and cats living together, etc.? Absolutely. But extinction? No, not IMHO. In the past, we've survived too much without the benefits of modern science, mathematics, etc.

The real threat of climate change is to civilization. If we believe civilization is a good thing, then we need to address climate change. But absent climate change, economic policy could bring about the end of civilization as well. Many who deny climate change do so because some of the proposals put forward might well bankrupt the world, bring about an end to civilization anyway, so they are simply betting on the theory that maybe it won't happen and we get lucky and economically grow our way through a period of turmoil.

To those in the environmental camp, I invite and encourage you to embrace the economics and consider how tax policy and other economic policies can be used to bring about huge change in environmental policy.

To those in the economic camp, I invite and encourage you to embrace the science and consider how carbon emission reductions and a move towards energy independence could prove a boom to the global economy.

Each of the two camps holds roughly 50 percent of the solution. Economic progress without a consideration for environmental impact hasn't proven to be a workable solution to date. Conversely, environmental progress without a consideration for economic impact won't work either.

Why? Are you pissed at previous generations for inventing the automobile? Or the electric light? Or the computer?

We ARE making great strides in many areas. Electricity use per capita is going down. The number of forests being conserved is going up. Pollution per automobile is way, way down. The exhaust from cars these days isn't dirty. It just has CO2. Something you really can't avoid, but you can reduce by reducing fuel consumption.

It can support a finite number of us. Can the Earth support 500 billion people?
I think you would say no, that is ridiculous. Is 15 billion less ridiculous? Maybe not.
Which leads us to....

If you are getting at human overpopulation, then I totally agree with you.
If you are suggesting a major disease, war, or human catastrophe is in order, you are not out of line. Put rabbits, mice, birds, dogs, any creature (even plants) in a habitable environment with unlimited food supply ( yes, humans over-all have had unlimited food supply... a relatively few starve to death, while the bulk flurish ) and those creatures will be fruit-ful and multiply... at exponential rates. To a point. At some point, food demand exceeds supply. Do the creatures "taper off" and maintain a large population? Nope.
As soon as mouths exceed food, the vast majority of the population starves, dies off, then food becomes plentiful again, and the species slowly recovers.

I don't see how man can circumvent this. We can delay this, but without population control, you can't avoid it.

The truth is, we should not spend another dime on CO2 caps, emissions caps, consumption caps and the like. We should put all our time, effort, and money into population caps. Man, is perhaps the only creature capable of mentally controlling his own reproduction rate.

People don't like the idea of being told they can only have 2 children.
However, that IS the ONLY smart, responsible, sustainable solution out there.
With population caps, we will not need caps on anything else.
And that's the gospel truth.

Well said Ken. You were typing at the same time I was typing, otherwise I would have agreed with you too in my previous post. -John

I agree with you here. We can only grow so much as a species before the bad begins to far outweigh the good....but this cap is needed in addition to certain other caps. If electricity use per capita is indeed going down (not sure if this is the case or not) the overall population is still going up.....just look at a population projection chart. The end result is more people using more exhaustable resourses, many of which poison the very planet we live on.

Exactly. Use per capita is going down ( U.S. ), but the number of "capita" is going up!
( World-wide population is growing fast... Western Europe and N. America populations are not steady, but are growing pretty slow now...)