Shared publicly  - 
 
Our new series Coping with Climate Change (to.pbs.org/GP14fT) explores how communities across the country are feeling the impact of environmental changes.

In our first installment, +Hari Sreenivasan visits two towns that have run out of water in drought-stricken Texas. You can find more pictures, reports and video here: to.pbs.org/GPWQT3

What kinds of changes have you been seeing in the weather? Tell us your stories: to.pbs.org/GStGWg
140
50
Walter Baker's profile photoZev Mo Green (zevmo)'s profile photoTrung Pham's profile photoIvan Brugere's profile photo
153 comments
 
They can have huge trade shows, but cant water their crops...priorities people..
 
I'm so completely baffled by all of this.
 
actually Texas runs out of water all the time... lol I have lived there my entire life. this story does not cover the truth. and +Todd Kleinert our priorities are straight... what do you want people in Texas to do? rain dance? lol OR bring in business and economic growth with large trade shows? This is not the hotest year, this is not the least amount of water in Texas and this report is so flawed by not covering that.
 
"climate change" is a goofy term... where the heck is there a constant climate? I'm from West TX where there is little water to begin with... periodic drought is a fact of life in many places, and has been since the beginning of humanity.
 
+eric flintion +Dylan McGowan it is dried out dirt from where crops were supposed to be planted and +Gus Sapien I know what you mean hahaha Texas is the definition of climate change. I love my Texas always will but summers are hell... and are you nt getting any rain out west yet? Where I live (in between Dallas and Fort Worth) we got alot of rain the past few months...
 
+Shannon Mccrary well I live in VA now near the Potomac River but even here there are water management challenges due to the topography of the Piedmont, and some years the reservoirs run very low. there are actually only two natural lakes in VA and one of them is a geologic accident :)
 
It's been very strange in Northern IL. 80's, sunny, trees budding, daffodils blooming.forsythia in full flower. That is not supposed to happen until late April. It was also reported that all the ice on the Great Lakes has melted. Also abnormal. The report also indicated that the average water temp of the Great Lakes was warmer than normal. The reporters also noted that the ice was all gone because of the extremely mild winter kept the temps higher. The big concern is for the fruit growing areas of MI, NY and the Niagara Peninsula in Ontario. If the buds begin to open and then there is a hard freeze (last regular frost date for Western NY is May 16) the growers will lose the years fruit crop and prices of fruit will go up.
I would concur that hot, dry summers are hell. I lived through 6 of them in Sacramento CA. Decided I'd rather spend winter "up north" than summer in a semi-arid desert. Never regretted my decision. When I left Sacramento, Folsom "Lake" was just a puddle of its former self.
 
+Gus Sapien Yea im living in Japan right now, and I go to college in Boise Idaho, born and raised in Texas, and excaped from the heat in Colorado. lol But there is always something about Texas (when its not melting your balls off) that is so wonderful :) and in Japan it has been really cold so you just have to deal with cards you are dealt because everywhere is changing. It has always been changing but its not something to worry about, its just something to adabt to and move on. :)
 
My story is... we just keep taking, and give nothing back. And by the way, hoping, wishing and praying aren't going to do it.
 
+John Phipps if you beleive that we have any effect on this, then do some research ill give you some hints. Look at past historic records of climate change (there are a lot) like how greenland was once entirly farm land for england... and another thing to look up is the coralation between mars` ice cap and earth`s... we have nothing to do with the climate change.But in saying that i am pro new energy and I support cleaning up ur planet, because it is the only one we got. But come on... do some of you own research please.... (not saying this in a mean way, I just agreed with the whole global warming/man made climate change thing) when I joined a large research group on the subject. and all we found was proof that it was not man made. and when i presented the finding to the headof the research department he laughed and said `I know`. turns out that research group was gettin $34mil every year and only 7 went to supplies and research and the other went to their pockets)
 
and +Rosalie Majewski there is no comparing the heat in CA to the heat in Texas lol. and so you know Wheaton IL? my brothers go to college there
 
ha i live in Mississippi. We are having an early spring . Been around long enough to know this has happened before. Texas? no Trees in the west taller than a man and who wants to drink lake water when i can have clear cold spring water and tall trees in Ms. The wide open spaces of Texas? Just that right wide open spaces!
Kevin
+
3
4
3
 
+Shannon Mccrary your "research" does not jive with 95% of the scientist out there. To think that humans have had no impact or just a low impact is to ignore facts, science and reality.
 
Science is not a popularity contest, or the Sun would still be revolving around the Earth.
 
+Kevin M actualy only 86% of scientist agree with dramatic climate change. And only 68% with man made climate change. And sure im ignoring the fact... actually I`m taking the facts into acount. I mean we contribute to .2% of .1% of Green House gasses. Mar`s ice caps are receding and expanding at the exact same rate as ours. NASA proved that heat ecapes into space, surprisingly, at a much greater speed then first predicted, and this increase negates any theory that the entire world is warming, not to mention that the southern Hem has been cooling constantly for the past 500 years.
 
+Kevin M Or that C02 does not cause warming. They have proven that warming comes before the increase in CO2 on most occasions. Which makes sense do to the increase in methane, CO2, and water vapor that ocurs when there is an increase in heat. (for example when the ocean warms, more CO2 and Methane escape from seeps)
 
Come live in Australia, where we while we have had the coldest and wettest summer in years and years, parts of the country are still in drought, and have been for the past 14 years. Many of those places have just had floods, however, they are not as bad as they were 40 years ago.

Yes, the climate is changing, and perhaps us humans have contributed to it running a little faster, but since when has this planet has a consistant climate? We have had tropical weather in places that now freeze periodically, ice ages, etc etc - why should it be any different now that we are 'civilized'? Climate change is not going to stop, even if the human race was wiped out tomorrow. We should be more environmentally aware if only to ensure that we don't run out of the resources we need to survive. Thinking that it will stop or reverse climate change is going a little too far.
 
+Kevin M and I`m sorry I was using old data, the numbers as of Q4 2011 are: .117% of 3.502% of (CO2) greenhouse gases are man made
 
Thanks +Shannon Mccrary I guess we get a little forgotten down here LOL - but having lived in an area where some kids have never seen rain, and you are on constant water restrictions, you do realise that there is a limit to what you need to use it for.

There is a big debate in Sydney at the moment, because the Desalination Plant now seems to be redundant as with the rains, the dams are all full. What people seem to forget is that only 18 months ago, the dams were nearly empty.

For those in TX - have a look at the link on how to save water - it will also cut your costs which can't be too bad in the current economic climate

http://www.sydneywater.com.au/Water4Life/WaterWise/
 
Good research plus bad statistics still equals bad science. This has been exposed for years at http://climateaudit.org, but of course if Mann and the true believers actually acknowledged it, they would no longer be invited to the right sort of cocktail parties.
 
So in conclusion, we can say that global warming after the last ice age was due to human pollution? Or was that just a fluke thing?
Kevin
+
1
2
1
 
From the link above: "... A 2010 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences - the official publication of the United States National Academy of Sciences - found that out of 1,372 climate researchers surveyed, approximately 97 to 98 percent of those actively publishing in the field said they believe human beings are causing the climate change, which they term anthropogenic (i.e., man-made) climate change. ..." I would add, because even they left it out, that there isn't one of these scientist that would say that "climate change" is 100% man made, just that humans have pushed it along at a much faster rate.

Yes you will always have warming and cooling, but the historical graph shows that those ups and downs, when looked at over time are on a continued upward path and most of that started with the industrial revolution and espoecially with the advent and global use of cars and the burning of coal/oil products. This is not make believe.

Even in hard core climate change that is warming the earth, you will have areas that have harsh winters, but the overall facts are that the earth is warming at an accellerated rate and we humans are to blame for that acceleration but not 100% of the over all climate patterns/change.
 
And do I need the bring up the email scandal of 2009?
Kevin
 
+Shannon Mccrary ... what??? "ps I love that 3,000 views rated that report false lol"
 
+Kevin M i worked with a group of 400 climate researchers, all of which said that they agreed with it in public. Why would they not if me and my coeworkers said that its not real then we would be done with research (i.e. out of a job). But out of the 400 I only knew of around 30 that would agree in private, none of which were any of the 40 top researchers.
Kevin
+
1
2
1
 
+Shannon Mccrary oh give me a big friggin break! So... it is a quite conspiracy? So I guess fox "news", right wing talk radio and the current crop of repubs running for office are right... science and education are a liberal conspiracy to indoctrinate our children. Since "most" scientist all agree that that world is not flat and that we did go to the moon... that must mean.. that the world really is flat and that we never did go to the moon! What next?!
 
+Kevin M The comment made by +Scott Beasley regarding bad science should always be referred to with any publication. Especially when such a small number of researchers is used. Do we know what the survey participants were working on? Do we know if they were randomly selected, or was there a filtering process whereby the participants were selected based on what they were publishing to get the result that they wanted?

Personally, I'm going with the Pastafarian argument that rising sea temperature is the sole reason for the decline in pirate numbers
 
actually its not a conspiracy its a fact... there are many companies pocketing the very large amounts of funds provided by both political and private supporters. I also do not watch Fox new or MSNBC, due to the fact that they are both very bias towards their own side, I do my own research. It is one of the reasons I love studying things like this. I will tell you the numbers again, we only contribute .117% of 3.502% of green house gases (CO2)
Guy W
+
2
3
2
 
These short term changes are actually weather - and weather changes all the time. Climate change is long term, and while it changes it has very little to do with man.
Kevin
+
1
2
1
 
+Shannon Mccrary it is not a fact, it is your supposed "observation" that is not backed up by any "facts".

Also... of course thier are companies and people trying to cash in on the "green" wave, but please do not even try to compare it to or dismiss the HUGE amounts of profit being made by the climate change deniers machine. From fox "news" to big oil and coal and everything and everybody in between... the money being made and changing hands via "old" energy at the expense of the rest of us and all for thier power and greed... is sickening.
 
BUT! remember I am not saying we should be accountable for our actions. I love this planet and I think we should take care of it. I have pollution and thrown away waste. I like keep as much of this world beautiful for the generations to come. I believe in finding a new energy source (not because I think we need to) but because it will be benificial and help people all around the world, because if we can find a great renewable resource people, that could not afford energy, would be able to (due to the fact that an efficient enewable energy source would make it very cost effective).
 
actualy the fact that some (if not many) of climate researchers are pocketing money is a fact, I am not saying all, but I am saying there are ones that do. There was one last year that got $14mil spent $3 packed up with the rest of the money and left the country. Or I can talk about the researchers presented in the 2009 email scandal. And I already admited Fox News is Bias, also MSNBC is very Bias. Thus I do not agree with either. and of course large energy companies are corrupt, but I have also stated that I support new energy research.
 
well they are always braggin they do things bigger in texass...might as well use all the water too...
Kevin
+
1
2
1
 
+Shannon Mccrary haha! I was waiting for you to bring up the "email scandal" ... pushed by fox and the righties. The "scandal" was throughly debunked. (that is also in the link I provided above).

Also, the "fact" that there are bad apples, such as the one person you stated, is not representative of the whole, but the "fact" that you try and use things like that and the "email scandal" to "prove" your "facts" is humorus and so... fox like.
 
+lavina street LOLZ! ture, (I`m from Texas)i think it is my fat next door neighbor that drank it all.... haha (makes the most sense)
 
Actually the emails were not from Fox they were from a private British new company. Again I love that you love bring up Fox even though I do not even watch their news. And the emails were not debunked, but charges/actions could not be made due to the emails being illigally apprehended. And I would appreciate it if you would ague against me, and not a new company that I already do not support.
 
+Gus Sapien obviously they are referring to human induced climate change. Rising water levels and such plus more pronounced extreme weather patterns. There are always droughts yes, but as the climate and deep sea warms up these will get a lot worse, and cripple the global economy.
Kevin
 
One other thing... being "biased" is not the problem, not being truthful and factual is.
 
+Shannon Mccrary "actualy only 86% of scientist agree with dramatic climate change. And only 68% with man made climate change." This is incorrect, see: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/22/1003187107.abstract

"(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers."

Thanks.
 
also they only reviewed 8 of the over 350 pages of the emails.
Kevin
+
1
2
1
 
+Shannon Mccrary ... hello... once again... did you read the link? I never said the emails were from fox, I said the whole "scandal" was pushed by them and you buy into it. It was DEBUNKED.

From the link above... please check it, because they have links within this quote.

"... If you’ve been following the debate recently, you may remember that climate research on temperature was called into question in 2009 when stolen e-mails from the Climatic Research United at the University of East Anglia were released on the Internet. Global warming skeptics said the e-mails showed climate researchers were manipulating data.

But several inquiries debunked those allegations, including those conducted by the British Parliament, the U.S. Department of Commerce, Pennsylvania State University, and the InterAcademy Council. The inquiries found that while the scientists had made rude remarks about people who questioned climate change, they were not falsifying data. A few reports recommended greater transparency and sharing of climatic data, but the independent investigations exonerated the researchers of falsifying data. ..."

So... you are wrong again.
 
+Ivan Brugere like I said its all about who you ask. And if you dig down there many people answer yes becaus if they didnt they would have no job, like what I and all my coeworks did...
Kevin
+
1
2
1
 
+Shannon Mccrary once again I call BS on your "conspiracy" or your unsubstansiated "observations and conversations".
 
OK +Shannon Mccrary, it's very difficult for me to decide, someone posting in a Google+ thread without citations, or PNAS.
 
actually I am not wrong, they reviewed only 8 of the questionable pages. And I didnt buy into anything I made my own conclusion from my own research. did you know that 3 people that worked for the company wanted to come forward and testify (found that out through my own research) but they were not allowed, and were told that it was strictly a review of the current evidence.
 
LOL +Shannon Mccrary
Maybe they should work out how to get all that water out of your next door neighbour - how much water would there be then?
Kevin
+
1
2
1
 
Once again... you make unsubstansiated allegations. facts please.
 
+Kevin M +Ivan Brugere I have the information that would prove me right but, due to the confidentiality agreement i signed with the company I can not all I can do is point you in the right direction. Look into NASA research, look into the cause and effects of CO2 and warming ( look closly so you can see which comes first) look at the past 300,000 years climate change research and see how it is on a trend and our modern activity has not effected it. look into the climate change on Mars and how it is reative to Earth`s and look at the true numbers of Greenhouse gases when all greenhouse gases are factored in (including water vapor)
 
+Kevin M im sorry im offended you fatness sir. I used to be fat. so fat I was picked on ... you know what i did about it? i worked out. So i will state again... he is really fat.......... AND OMG! he has one of those electric wheelchairs! So i asked him if he was sick or anything but nope, he said he was only in the wheelchair because of his weight and if he wanted to he could go without it but it isnt as easy! LOL
 
+Shannon Mccrary I'll wait patiently for you to substantiate anything you say. It seems at least one thing I knew the immediate citation for, you were factually incorrect. I can't factcheck everything on the fly, especially on an issue such as climate change which requires a great deal of context for most claims or even to understand what is understood and what is known not to be understood. I'll leave the troll feeding to anyone else.
Kevin
 
+Shannon Mccrary ... I am not fat and never have been, but you have now proved yourself to be a jerk and an ass. (very much like those on ... yes... fox) You are pathetic.
 
+Ivan Brugere I can cite my sources of all my information and numbers. But I do not need to they are all my own work and research. I have traveled the world researching. I am in Japan right now researching renewable waste energy. So the numbers I have come to believe in are my own.
and +Kevin M Yes I am an ass and a jerk sometimes, but so are you, so is everyone. So don`t try to make yourself seem better than everyone... because your not... and I dont ever support fox new but I will defend them... they are Bias and they are idiots, but they are not Jerks or Assholes. They are the company that is always bullied and always picked on. they have people like you that hate them because theypresent the news as they see it (even if it is also from their prespective). So you are the real ass and you are the one that is pathetic beause at least I can admit it...
 
meri desh ki dharti But Banjjar dharti
 
+Shannon Mccrary Also, if you'd like to contest the PNAS article I'd like to see it. You can check the citations on Google, and from what I have seen no subsequent publication has rebutted it. As a researcher (computer science) who collaborates with climate scientists I can tell you (1) PNAS is usually the highest quality publications across disciplines, and (2) that according to my absorbed understanding, ACC is treated as settled fact amongst leading researchers and 'disagreements' within the climate change research are regarding the extent, effects, and potential mitigation strategies for climate change.
 
+Kevin M your fighting a losing battle, man. This past drought in texas wasn't even our worst. Weather is ever changing. The solar storms have more of an effect on our weather than CO2. Get over it. we're not buying what these money and power grubbing nut jobs are selling anymore.
Lance G
+
2
3
2
 
The Arctic Ice Pack is back to 1995 levels and growing. The Antarctic Ice pack is .513 Million Square Kilometers more than the average since 1979. These are facts I just looked at a few minutes ago at this site.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
 
and +Ivan Brugere please continue to have your strong opinion. I respect it so much, the world needs more people like you.Because we need people on both sides so that we can argue, research, compare, and grow :) I hope you do not think of me as some guy that was just shooting shit out his ass :) But please continue to be who you are because people that have strong opinions and are willing to fight for them and look into them and research them, are the people I truly honestly repspect. So maybe one day one of us will change to the other side but until then. We can learn off of eachothers opinions :) now... I was going to say the same to +Kevin M but now he is being annoying so... no.... haha
 
I live in VERMONT and we have had absolutely no snow to speak of and this week in March we have just ended a week of above 60 degree days with 3 of them near 80 and above! The Killington Ski area,premier ski area east of the Rockies has had it's worst year since I don't know how long? The Maple Syrup industry is forecasting a horrible year due to the unfavorable conditions for the trees! THIS is not the Vermont I grew up in with predictable weather patterns for each and every month! 55 years old and wondering? Thank you.
 
+Shannon Mccrary Because otherwise it seems like you cant substantiate any kind of expertise, nor any of the numbers you've suggested. I would expect one but not necessarily both. I'm just a graduate student who collaborates with climate researchers, but I've substantiated both.
 
hey +Kevin M , all of the climategate emails were verified as authentic by the Met Office's Climactic Research Unit, just sayin
also, +Ivan Brugere , you mean the facts like our climate record? the climate record that the CRU and GISS have retroactively "adjusted" several times over a few years? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/19/crus-new-hadcrut4-hiding-the-decline-yet-again-2/ < go have a read, even if you don't agree with Watts or any other skeptic. you can't deny that they're not changing the record, inflating what is a minor bout of coming out of a mini ice age, into a catastrophic oh god we're going to die unless you pay us lots scenario.
 
+Ivan Brugere well the facts I can offer you from my research is thet green house gases (when taking in account of water vapor) CO2 accounts for 3.502% methane .360% N2O .950% other (CFC`s, ect) .072% of which .001% of CO2 3.225% of methane 18.338% of N2O and 65.711% of others is man made. Also researching the ice caps of Mars (accounting for distance, momentum, and RPD, and also the corralation betwen the loaction of mars and earth on the suns axis) I determened (as far as I could tell from visuals) that the icecaps were mimicing the ice caps of earth, I determaned that the ice caps and the surface temperature was being affected by solar flares, due to the close corralation between the two. But that is just a hypothesis. Because I will never be able to go to mars to do further research haha (I wish I could though...) Also studying the history of climate change over the past 300,000 years i have determand that we are on the upword path of increasing tempuratures but, this still is on the earths trends of warming and cooling.
 
additionally, might I just point out that the "settled science" of climate change has a minor problem when the IPCC 07 forecasts and the actual temperature diverged long ago. none of your forecasts are right, they will never be right, and you're all looking in the wrong place for where the heat is coming from. (it starts with s and ends with un, and is essentially a giant literal space heater, which has been pretty active these past few years, too)
Kevin
 
+Garrett Cramer as I said before.. ignorance is not bliss. Also, if you think people are making more money off of green tech than big oil/coal make... then I have a bridge to sell you. The "money grubbing and power nut jobs" that have been screwing us for decades... are big oil and coal.
 
+Kevin M the same big oil and coal that - gasp - fund green energy!?
maybe it's not so common in the US, but we have BP trying to shove solar panels and biofuels and random crap down our throats at every agricultural show
 
FARMS us to but tree around there land to keep the soyoil stays there from wind
Kevin
+
1
2
1
 
So +Shannon Mccrary thinks fox "news" is..... "They are the company that is always bullied and always picked on." and that I hate them because "because they present the news as they see it". hahaha! They do not "present the news", they lie and tell half truths. They also just make stuff up.
 
+Ivan Brugere No there is no way to verify, I was only with the company for a little over a year, I had to leave when the branch moved and merged into several other branches... The numbers I researched are credible. as they corolate with most other peoples findings. the only difference is I take water vapor into account, which for good reason because it has a direct and significant effect on the climate.
Kevin
+
1
2
1
 
+Syka Bee ... sorry, but the email "scandal" was debunked, by nurmous people and numerous groups from around the world.
 
+Kevin M even though realclimate confirm that some of their emails ARE in the CRU email dump? http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/ < see, warmist website, confirming that at least parts of it are true.
there was also, you know, a parlimentary investigation over some of it. so, obviously they were of merit enough for the Crown to ask some questions of the CRU
Kevin
+
1
2
1
 
+Syka Bee ... they do fund some green energy, but it is a drop in the bucket. Also, I find it humourus that so many of you defend big oil and coal while they are raking in the biggest profits in history, but are outraged that a green company would want to make any profit? very strange.
 
+Kevin M yea and so do every other news company. Hints why I dont watch them... (like I have said before) Im Libertarian so listening to right wings and left wings all day is a waste...
 
and +Kevin M again I will re state that I said that I do not support the current large energy companies. And there is a differnce from making a profit, and pocketing funds.
Kevin
 
+Shannon Mccrary I knew you were a libertarian. You come across like a typical libertarian.

hmmm... so you are telling me that because one scientist, that you spoke of but gave no proof of, pocketed some money and ran like a greedy ass, that this has never happened in the big oil/coal corporate world? Or in companies like... oh... enron?
 
+Kevin M they can make all the profit they want! I welcome the world becoming a little bit "greener", and reducing our reliance on dead dinosaurs. but that is my reason for wanting solar/etc - our current methods aren't working. not because "bawwwwww CO2", but because we're running on a resource that's becoming less and less easy to get.
by the way, have you ever heard of what goes into green energy production? wind farms are left to rust because they're too expensive to repair, solar panels have various bad chemicals in them, and biofuels are collectively defiling the food costs for 3rd world countries, where you can make more money selling it to BP to make it a biofuel than selling it to people to eat.
maybe being Australian, this makes a lot more sense to me, but I really have to ask - why do you believe in global warming?
 
+Kevin M and like I have stated 4 times, I do not support current large energy companies, because they are abusing the system...
 
+Kevin M if ignorance is bliss than your probably a happy guy. When I was a kid I went to glacier n.p. And I saw these huge glaciers that were formed in the ice age. I was told they covered the whole area once, but they have all melted. Why? Because it is no longer the ice age. Later in life I saw a tv show about the same park, but now all those glaciers are gone because of co2. Really? did all those damn suv drivers back in the 1200's screw me out of seeing those glaciers.
 
+Shannon Mccrary I actually would suspect that you are not legitimate, or are a poor researcher. I can't validate your numbers, but more importantly they are presented without any context or significance testing. So if you're making a point it isn't well supported. Second, I didnt get the bit about Mars. What data were you analyzing? Could you please point me to the source? 
Kevin
 
+Syka Bee I believe in facts and reality, not opinion and denial.

Much of what you state is not true and some is true. Manufacturing anything has various levels of negative affects. But what are the negatives and positives of using those manufactured items? There may be some early wind farms that are "left to rust", but just the opposite is actually happening, more and more are being built, but wind and solar are only a piece of a long term puzzle. There will never be a 1 for 1 replacement of oil and coal, they will be slowly replaced with various alternatives. Biofuels, as they currently stand I think in many ways are a waste. We should not use food to make fuel. Personally, I would like to see industrial production of bio fuels only be used for things like big rigs and not for cars, until they can come up with a form of biofuels that does not use food or land for food to make fuel.
Kevin
 
This is too funny. I see that +Garrett Cramer is also a libertarian. I have always wondered why libertarians don't move to places like Somalia... the land of no government, no laws and no regulations and a true "free market" (anarchy is really the only true "free market" system)... survival of the fittest. Isn't this a dreamland for libertarians?
 
+Kevin M oddly enough, I have not seen any reports on what kinds of emissions these solar panels are putting out during production, nor how long they take to give a positive effect. I have not seen anyone advertising "using this solar panel over 4 years puts you in the eco green", only "SOLAR MAKES YOU ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY" on billboards and at ag shows.
and let me guess, you hate nuclear too?
there is a wind farm up at Cervantes in Western Australia. I urge you to visit it, and see the environmental impact of wind farms on our earth. this is not an old one - unless "six years" is "old" for you - and there are several rusting wind turbines which will never be replaced.
 
+Syka Bee I cant confirm any of that analysis. The trouble with commentators on climate change is they start from the belief and then a series of plots without sufficient context can make whatever argument one wants. I work in statistical learning and data mining, and I can say that often interpreting a result takes far longer than finding it. And given a large publication in PNAS and the personal interaction with climate researchers, I'd presume that non peer-reviewed blog posts are missing the sufficient context of the problem. 
 
+Kevin M so I take it you're a hard-leftie? eco-slant, likes government regulation of the oil/gas industry, doesn't realise how free market theory actually works
 
+Kevin M man you really don`t no anything about economics... I`m sorry for your loss. and there is no market in Somalia, no product to sell, no foundation or property rights, you talk about it as our dream land but it is far from it. How could a free market thrive when the only owner of a product is the person that holds the gun? there is no incentive to move there and none for Somalia to grow because if you make a product that give you wealth, then yo become a target. If you know anything about libertarians you know that we strongly believe in property rights, which they do not have. Also the may not have a strong government, but they have a very strong rebel group, which is worse because individuals have no sense of protection. and also they do not have strong human rights, which is also key in a libertarian stand point.
 
+Ivan Brugere which analysis is this, exactly?
additionally, the IPCC reports were not well peer reviewed, at all, so why do warmists always point to their conclusions using that?
 
Anyway, I'm out until I see some citations. It's silly to talk about facts without engaging them. 
 
anyway, fun talking/debating with you all, i'm going to have a shower with some of the water being dumped from the sky in my wonderful home of tropical north Australia! and then I'll go destroy some ecosystems, or something, whatever us skeptics are supposed to do on Friday afternoons.
<3
Kevin
 
hahahaha! libertarins are funny.
 
+Kevin M , ah, so, two years ROI as far as the solar panels go. why don't they advertise that, then? apart, from, you know, the nasty batteries, but that's only a minor thing!
 
hey +Kevin M one question, how is the left wing treating you? I mean now that you have your poster boy Obama there?
Kevin
 
Oh trust me, I understand how a "free market" works, I don't think you understand what a true free market is. (it can not exist outside of anarchy)

Interesting thing you said there +Syka Bee ... you called it a "free market theory". Throughout history, people have tried thier theories of governance and economies and what always seems to work best for the most people, is a regulated capitalist/socialist system that works for all and not just the top few or the power elite.
Kevin
 
+Syka Bee as I said... it took me seconds to find that info. Try doing it yourself. Also, batteries are often not a part of a solar installation on a home, unless you are "off the grid" and much of what is in a battery anyways, can be recyled and new battery and storage systems are constantly being developed.
Kevin
 
+Shannon Mccrary much better than with bush and would be even better if the repubs would stop playing games and retreat from thier increasingly "radical far right christian" ways (in many ways, many of the new repubs would be happy with a christian version of Iran or Saudia Arabia). Not sure what you mean by a "poster boy" in reference to President Obama.
Kevin
 
I wonder how many people noticed this from the original post above. "Our new series Coping with Climate Change " ... emphasis on "series", this is not just about Texas.
 
+Kevin M if you really think as a Libertarian I supported Bush than you are pathetic and need to go google libertarian... and you Also know that if we had a Libertarian president we would be in any of the war messes we are currently in.
Kevin
 
+Shannon Mccrary I know what a libertarian is and also, we already determined who was "pathetic" and it was you and your joking on fat people.

Also, if we had a libertarian as pres in the Civil War, we would... oh never mind, the south was a libertarian dream land. We also would not have fought against Hitler if a libertarian was in power then.

The war messes we are currently in, were caused by repubs.

See... I and most thinking and caring people look at things like this. I care for my family, my community, my city, my county, my state, my country and yes... the world. My caring does not stop at my door or our border. It is all about WE The People, not me me me.
 
+Ivan Brugere well the data i recorded over the green houses gases were done by mutiple weater balloons. set off from Dallas Texas, Boise Idaho, Chicago Illinois, Seatle Washington, and Greenville South Carolina. We used a Green House Gas Analyser F (GHGA-F). a part of the group also did a coupld of launches in Europe but I was not with them. the Mars report is Imposible to cite as it is my own research but I bet you can find some information on google if you need, but you have any specific questions you can just ask me...
 
+Kevin M and you really got offened by my fat comment... you sure your not fat? Because it sounds like it. And your argument, again is invalid, the civil war would have been the same because the south did not acknowledge the rights of the people, which is against Libertarian views. And WWII would have still happened because we only entered the ward after being attacked ourselves. So as a Libertarian we still understand an act of aggression and we would still respond to it. and I think it is great to help people and think of the people. But you can just have the government give out free handouts when they dont have any money to give out...
 
Future wars will be fought over water!
 
+Ivan Brugere I used a 12" ACF LX800, and I recorded the data at the beginning of every month, for a year and a half. I compared my charts to that of earths ice caps and determend that their southern icecap is melting and increaing at the same time that earths is. I also determend that Mars` northern Icecap is increasing very slowly, Which also coincides with earths southern Icecap. Not I know you will say that well.. it is wrong there north and our south are increasin and their south and our north are decreasing in size. But I looke into this. due to the flight path of Mars, Mars is located farther north of the suns hemisphere when we are further south. it is a fact that there is more solar activity on the suns equator. thus the impact of them would me many located in the southern hemisphere for Mas and Northern for Earth which would support why he the northern Icecap is rapidly decreasing in size, while the sothern ice cap is slowly increasing. And support why Mars is having the same effects. It would but much easier to show you the charts... they are a mess, but they are easy to understand. But I will have to get back to texas to be able to send you them.
 
and the type of data I recorded was in charts. and overlaying the %decrease in size from mars, with the %decrease on size on Earth.
Kevin
 
again... +Shannon Mccrary you prove what a pathetic ass you are. "Kevin M and you really got offened by my fat comment... you sure your not fat? Because it sounds like it." ...wow.
 
In a place that prides itself on thinking its people are better than every one else, that they are on the moral high ground, etc, etc. You would think that the state would spare no expense on insuring the flow of water. Woops guess they aren't as bright as they thought they were thinking.

You can never run out of water, like energy it's literally in the air.
-Here comes the water!

So this means only 18th century idiots could run out of drinkable water.
-Yes, even in a drought.
 
CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from about 280ppm to 390ppm. And increase of over 35% so far and expected to be over 200% by the end of the century at current projected emission rates. Isotope analysis (C12/C13) has confirmed that this increase of 110ppm is over 95% due to direct human emissions. CO2 is a greenhouse gas as confirmed by laboratory spectral analysis. The increase in CO2 in the atmosphere adds heat to the atmosphere through the greenhouse effect and that energy forcing can be theoretically calculated and confirmed by measurements of radiant energy by satellite and reflected energy by ground stations. Exactly how much this extra heat energy will effect planetary temperature is unknown due to feedback factors but all calculations, modelling and current observations indicates that it will increase planetary temperatures by between 1.5 to 4.5 degrees per doubling of CO2 concentrations and current observations track within this uncertainty band. If you think that just because CO2 is only 0.039% of the atmosphere (up from 0.028%) it can't have any effect and is inconsequential please go stand in a room containing 0.039% hydrogen cyanide gas. Since its only 0.039% it can't possibly have any effect right?
 
Texas will be the first one to experience industrial scale drought then.
 
It will happen across the world....we need to reduce the human population first
Its not a sustainable development.
 
It's a bit dry over hear in England at the moment!
 
Why don't they just use their oil? I mean - isn't that what the Texans live for?
 
Thank you everyone for the engaging discussion, but we kindly remind you to keep in mind our comment policy:

The PBS NewsHour welcomes your original comments. We reserve the right to remove posts that do not follow these basic guidelines: comments must be relevant to the topic of the post; may not include profanity, personal attacks or hate speech; may not promote a business or raise money; may not be spam. Anything you post should be your own work. The PBS NewsHour reserves the right to read on the air and/or publish on its Web site or in any medium now known or unknown the comments or e-mails that we receive. By submitting comments, you agree to the PBS Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, which include more details.
 
+Shannon Mccrary OK, I dont mean to denigrate, but I don't hold your hobbyist investigation of Mars in such high esteem. I don't know your methodology, and I don't have the expertise that if you published, to know if it were a reasonable method. I would generally have to rely on the reputation of the conference or journal in that domain. Look, I'm not interested in your political views. Political views can either be true or false by accepted evidence, and yours, from what you've shared, are false. I'm not a climate change activist because I dont like the political implications by some tenets of libertarianism. Without a shared understanding of what is well-understood by scientists, it is difficult to have a discussion. I don't think you can argue with evidence the inexistence of anthropogenic climate change. We can argue about its extent or consequences, and these are internal discussions that climate scientists have that are misconstrued (sometimes purposefully, I suspect) as a lack of understanding or consensus. I've cited a major PNAS paper showing that your information was incorrect. I could likely do the same for other information you've provided, but much of it wasn't without sufficient context so it wouldn't matter to argue its consequences or impact on the larger body work.
 
+Shannon Mccrary And for the most part, I as a graduate student in my own domain, defer to experts in climate science, as I would expect for climate scientists if the world of statistical learning suddenly became a central political issue. It's easy to look at a time series with some strange characteristic and say "I knew it, climate change is false," or as Mr. Rick Santorum put it "tell that to a plant, how dangerous carbon dioxide is." In fact, I reserve the right not to know. Mr. Santorum's statement certainly /seems/ intuitive, but without a sense of context it is difficult to know, and it is these kind of "common sense" arguments which are politically effective but not factual, and do not build understanding. You do the same (lets assume these are legitimate numbers, even though you haven't provided a citation): "the numbers as of Q4 2011 are: .117% of 3.502% of (CO2) greenhouse gases are man made," see, I dont know the /significance/ of that number. Sure, it /seems/ small, intuitively but I as a scientist in a different domain may not understand.

So in effect I've not seen anything compelling from you, and that's likely because your aim is to disagree (without citation) with a vast area of scientific research with broad consensus (with the citation I provided). If your point of contention was with a particular aspect of the science, then I'd be interested, but by now "The inexistence of anthropogenic climate change" is not a scientific problem statement. That inexistence would consist of a wide body of work addressing actual scientific problem statement in the domain of climate science (and the natural sciences more broadly). But it makes good political conversation if you're into that kind of argument.
 
So it's settled, then, that we call it the more benign sounding 'climate change' and not the more direct and 'global warming'? Is 'global warming' not more accurate?
 
+shannon mccrazy: if the cost for sxsw included a gqllon of water, in the price, then there would be xx,xxx gallons of water to give these towns. As it stands now, they are just plain screwed. Just because this isn't the worst year ever, doesn't mean a thing to those effected. Also, these shows increase the use of already low resources throughout the state. Maybe mexico should take back tx since the residents obviously are not maintaining it effectively ignoring the needs of some counties entirely. I am very happy to be gone from the sorrow and depression that is tx.
 
+pbs newshour: suck it.. this is g+ where censorship is not allowed!
Add a comment...