Climate change puts US way of life at risk: EPA

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, under fire for apparently discounting the impact of climate change, on Thursday said global warming poses real risk to human health and the American way of life.

[Coolmind]

The climate crisis, in particular, is getting a lot worse – much more quickly than
predicted. Scientists with access to data from Navy submarines traversing underneath the
North polar ice cap have warned that there is now a 75 percent chance that within five
years the entire ice cap will completely disappear during the summer months. This will
further increase the melting pressure on Greenland. According to experts, the
Jakobshavn glacier, one of Greenland’s largest, is moving at a faster rate than ever
before, losing 20 million tons of ice every day, equivalent to the amount of water used
every year by the residents of New York City.

[JRS]

"no matter what happens in the world, it is always claimed that global warming is to blame and that the change will be for the worse," Lewis added. "That speaks to an agenda that will be asserted regardless of what happens in the real world."

Himalayan Glaciers Are Growing ... and Confounding Global Warming Alarmists
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm...

"Earth Day 1970 provoked a torrent of apocalyptic predictions. "We have about five more years at the outside to do something," ecologist Kenneth Watt declared to a Swarthmore College audience on April 19, 1970. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that "civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." "We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation," wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment. The day after Earth Day, even the staid New York Times editorial page warned, "Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction." Very Apocalypse Now.

Three decades later, of course, the world hasn't come to an end; if anything, the planet's ecological future has never looked so promising. With half a billion people suiting up around the globe for Earth Day 2000, now is a good time to look back on the predictions made at the first Earth Day and see how they've held up and what we can learn from them. The short answer: The prophets of doom were not simply wrong, but spectacularly wrong.

More important, many contemporary environmental alarmists are similarly mistaken when they continue to insist that the Earth's future remains an eco-tragedy that has already entered its final act. Such doomsters not only fail to appreciate the huge environmental gains made over the past 30 years, they ignore the simple fact that increased wealth, population, and technological innovation don't degrade and destroy the environment. Rather, such developments preserve and enrich the environment. If it is impossible to predict fully the future, it is nonetheless possible to learn from the past. And the best lesson we can learn from revisiting the discourse surrounding the very first Earth Day is that passionate concern, however sincere, is no substitute for rational analysis..."

"Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make," he confidently declared in an interview with then-radical journalist Peter Collier in the April 1970 Mademoiselle. "The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years."

"Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born," wrote Ehrlich in an essay titled "Eco-Catastrophe!," which ran in the special Earth Day issue of the radical magazine Ramparts. "By...[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s." Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the "Great Die-Off..."

http://www.greatlakesdirectory.org/mn/042204_...

[Reson]

Jack Corsaut wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh no!, Oh no!, Oh no!

Yeah really, if the earth is heating up, there's not much we can do about it. We're just along for the ride anyway.

[Gods warrior]

I look forward to the day Florida is just a giant barrier reef again and we can all live on boats like in WaterWorld.

[Baby Alex]

OGet a clue folks. The only thing at risk are the liberal democrats & Al Gore who are pushing this global warming bullshit on us. If you haven't learned in school the climate has changed before, even warmed. There once was glaciers covering North America and most of the planet. Was global warming responsible for their demise? I wonder how much the libs and Al are profiting off this global warming bull?

Ice age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An ice age is a period of long-term reduction in the temperature of Earth 's climate, resulting in an expansion of the continental ice sheets, polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers. Glaciologically, ice age is often used to mean a period of ice sheets in the northern and southern hemispheres; by this definition we are still in an ice age (because the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets still exist).

[A is A]

"We are not saying in this report that more people will die in the future due to climate change," he said. "What we are saying is that there's an increased risk of deaths due to heat waves in the future as the climate changes".

"We have an opportunity to anticipate these increased risks ... and to due to prepare for the future in order to mitigate these risks."

They should call the article "The Convenient Hypothesis".

Combining health and climate into a political issue, with one swoop even. Impressive.

The EPA has regulatory rights IF "climate change" has an effect on human health. It seems doubtful they would give up the privilege.

[compassionate]

Geeeee! Poor Americans! You have noticed that ?!
That's hilarious. If you put this kind of heading in 50-ties that would be all right but now...
Step down to the Earth, open your eyes - the USA is NOT (surprised?) THE Universe!!! I know it must be shocking 4 u. Poor "American way of life", dammmmm....
What about the majority's ( i.e. 5,5 billion plus people in the World) way of life?

[edd]

Climate is being manipulated by CHEMTRAILS+HAARP look at the sky then read about it.

[BEAN51]

INSANITY!!!.....if all the "GREEN" nitwits lived in a cave,with out any presence of civilization,they probably would object to the very fire which is preventing them from freezing.....

How much is enough?...Why do they advocate we reject civilization.

While others are going full blast ahead,the "GREEN SLIME" bunch,has this insane guilt complex.

Not pleased in self-flagellating them selves,they now want to infect others with their madness.

While wallowing in their hedonistic life style,supported by wealth,these,elitists,have determined whats good for us.We who are in the trenches trying to survive...while they,have leisure time and the Cash to sit around contemplating their navels!

This of course, while they are secure in there $$$ Kool Aid world.

There are limits. To day the US is on the verge of slipping into a third world nation.The "Greens" have effectively restrained the nation from continuing its growth.

Their hostile opposition to us having energy is tearing the country down.

Meanwhile the rest of the world is ready to surpass us in the quality of life we have enjoyed.

If they want to play "Nature boy",and hug trees,and recycle toilet paper ,well go ahead,take your collective money, and monkey faced followers,and start your own world...in the mean time leave what we got alone.It has served us well for a long time!

"OH LORD PROTECT US FROM THE INSANITY OF GREEN,LIBERAL NINCOMPOOPS

[Truth]

"climate change" (notice it's not GW anymore) sure does put the U.S. way of life at risk...We will all pay out the nose for a HUGE lie perpetuated by the "greenies" and the "nutty professor"....I predict we will all have less money......

[tina anne]

Whoever wrote that ought to be writing for Hollywood. I haven't seen more doom and gloom fiction in one spot since the Day After Tomarrow or Inconvient Truth.

[Fun Facts]

Look at the June Climate from NCDC.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/...

Tell me how is it that the northern hemisphere is the 5th warmest the southern hemisphere is the 23rd warmest but the global is the 4th warmest? Isn't the northern hemisphere 1/2 of the world? and the southern hemisphere 1/2 of the world. Why is it weighted to the northern hemisphere?

Read on. Why do all the satellite data show much more cooling but are not used to calculate the "global ranking".

And how is it that the real temperature measurements, UAH, RSS, all show the warmest year at 1998, but the constructed temperatures show warmer years at 2005 and 2007?

[The Truth Matters]

Fun Facts wrote:

Look at the June Climate from NCDC.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/...
Tell me how is it that the northern hemisphere is the 5th warmest the southern hemisphere is the 23rd warmest but the global is the 4th warmest? Isn't the northern hemisphere 1/2 of the world? and the southern hemisphere 1/2 of the world. Why is it weighted to the northern hemisphere?
Read on. Why do all the satellite data show much more cooling but are not used to calculate the "global ranking".
And how is it that the real temperature measurements, UAH, RSS, all show the warmest year at 1998, but the constructed temperatures show warmer years at 2005 and 2007?

It seems that NOAA/GISS/GHCN are still cooking the books. They are starting to diverge farther and farther from the other data services.

[Northie]

Reson wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah really, if the earth is heating up, there's not much we can do about it. We're just along for the ride anyway.

Not any more, we're not. We're driving this disaster.

[JRS]

Northie wrote:

<quoted text>
Not any more, we're not. We're driving this disaster.

There is no evidence that CO2 has ever ‘driven’ the climate in the past, nor is there any compelling evidence that it is doing so now.
http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.com/co2_...

[smudge]

Coolmind wrote:

The climate crisis, in particular, is getting a lot worse – much more quickly than
predicted. Scientists with access to data from Navy submarines traversing underneath the
North polar ice cap have warned that there is now a 75 percent chance that within five
years the entire ice cap will completely disappear during the summer months. This will
further increase the melting pressure on Greenland. According to experts, the
Jakobshavn glacier, one of Greenland’s largest, is moving at a faster rate than ever
before, losing 20 million tons of ice every day, equivalent to the amount of water used
every year by the residents of New York City.

And, why do you think it's called "Greenland?"
At one time, man made wine from vineyards in Greenland. Climate change has occurred since the beginning of time. It will continue, with or without human intervention.

And, how egocentric to proclaim that the change is, "...getting a lot worse."
What is the "perfect climate," and how do you purpose to retain it permanently?
Personally, I believe that extending the growing seasons across the planet is more beneficial to us then preserving glaciers.
Polar bears can either adapt or succumb. 95% of all the plants and animals that have existed on this planet are now, extinct.

[COUSIN PAULIE]

I have a message for the EPA. In fact I just sent it. I flushed real hard and more than once with the politically correct 1.5 gallon toilet to make sure it reaches their offices in Washington, DC.

[A is A]

COUSIN PAULIE wrote:

I have a message for the EPA. In fact I just sent it. I flushed real hard and more than once with the politically correct 1.5 gallon toilet to make sure it reaches their offices in Washington, DC.

I noticed you didn't mention any plunging. Are you saying you don't need to plunge your government toilet?

[Northie]

smudge wrote:

<quoted text>
Climate change has occurred since the beginning of time. It will continue, with or without human intervention...Personally, I believe that extending the growing seasons across the planet is more beneficial to us then preserving glaciers.

How do you feel about the spread of deserts across the continents as droughts intensify? How about famine and war as a result?

[JRS]

Northie wrote:

<quoted text>
How do you feel about the spread of deserts across the continents as droughts intensify? How about famine and war as a result?

Just the same recycled alarmism to gain money and power:

Earth Day 1970 provoked a torrent of apocalyptic predictions. "We have about five more years at the outside to do something," ecologist Kenneth Watt declared to a Swarthmore College audience on April 19, 1970. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that "civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." "We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation," wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment. The day after Earth Day, even the staid New York Times editorial page warned, "Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction." Very Apocalypse Now.

Three decades later, of course, the world hasn't come to an end; if anything, the planet's ecological future has never looked so promising. With half a billion people suiting up around the globe for Earth Day 2000, now is a good time to look back on the predictions made at the first Earth Day and see how they've held up and what we can learn from them. The short answer: The prophets of doom were not simply wrong, but spectacularly wrong.

Imminent global famine caused by the explosion of the "population bomb" was the big issue on Earth Day 1970. Then--and now--the most prominent prophet of population doom was Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich. Dubbed "ecology's angry lobbyist" by Life magazine, the gloomy Ehrlich was quoted everywhere. "Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make," he confidently declared in an interview with then-radical journalist Peter Collier in the April 1970 Mademoiselle. "The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years."

"Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born," wrote Ehrlich in an essay titled "Eco-Catastrophe!," which ran in the special Earth Day issue of the radical magazine Ramparts. "By...[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s." Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the "Great Die-Off."

http://www.greatlakesdirectory.org/mn/042204_...