Shared publicly  - 
 
"In the next 100 years, sea levels will rise by approximately one meter. We have no idea how much devastation that will cause because it's metric." -- Stephen Colbert http://on.cc.com/KwY72Y
338
84
parvindhiraj kumar's profile photoJake Weisz's profile photoJennifer Bennett's profile photoCora Reed's profile photo
49 comments
 
Haha, I saw that segment. That line was fantastic.
 
1 meter is the amount of energy trapped in a carnivore. About five Coulombs/milliCandela
 
I'm glad that in my universe my glass doesn't overflow as the ice melts.
 
Good point +Ross Thomas Maybe the geniouses of the world should work on pipelines to irrigate the deserts of the planet with all that run-off instead of trying to convince us that if they just get enough of our money they can keep the ice from melting.
 
Hurray, the desert is one step closer to becoming beach front property
 
So does that mean I don't have to conserve as much water as I did before? Lol. No more short showers!
 
Plenty of water. That's not the problem. The problem is access to it. That, unfortunately, is beginning to be controlled more and more by people who think people are the cause of climate change. To them, no people, no problem. Or, as they like to cache the idea, "sustainable development".
 
why dont they just take some of the water out in the next 100 years and give the water to people who need it like the tv show tanked the should get there water from the ocean and disinfect it and that is what they need to do
 
Ross, the vast majority are wrong. Read the Agenda 21 documentation. It calls for the herding of people and a vastly reduced population. 
 
However, Agenda 21 isn't really the issue, the issue is anthropogenic climate change. If it is invalidated, and it is, then there is no government planning or government force in the Solar System that can abate the change. Surely the climate is changing, both acutely and chronically. Unfortunately, it is abundantly clear that man and his puny might, has essentially no input to that change.
 
I'm not denying Climate Change, just that man is involved in any but a very tiny, tiny, tiny way. For example; Sunlight on a nearly flat surface (ground) results in 1,000Watts per meter squared, per SECOND. There is nothing in human activity that compares to that input of energy into our atmosphere / ground.
 
In fact, it's even difficult to even measure our atmospheric input, compared to sunlight, the scale would have to be enormous...
 
Closer coastal building:  More federal flood insurance payouts due to severe storms that push the coast line back.  Somewhere in this mess, it's all about money.  
 
Also, Climate Change has happened way before man came on the scene, in a much more drastic manner, etc...
 
Thankfully, the USA will be saved as they use feet & inches. Poor ol' Canada. ;-)
 
I'm all for science but observation and planning for the deluge, unless it gets colder again, is all we can do. As far as leading people into complacency I can still think for myself unlike those in Louisiana who believed building homes on a lake bed below sea level was a good idea. Nature will do what nature wants to do.
 
Description should read: "In typical fashion, Democrats blame Republicans for all their problems"
 
You can only predict and plan based on history and what we observe today. We can predict future events and then observe to see if we were correct or not. Al Gore buying a waterfront home doesn't lend much foundation to the argument. Government needs to stay within the confines of the constitution even if it can change the weather.
 
+Rodney McGuire "Unfortunately, it is abundantly clear that man and his puny might, has essentially no input to that change."

Um, not if you've been keeping up with the research these last few years it isn't.  In fact, we know we're contributing to it.  How much is caused by us is still debated, but we know it's not an insignificant amount.  

There's little in this world more annoying than people who make stale arguments, long after the facts have been updated.
 
Cool. My balcony will be my dock. Buying that boat!
Jim A
+
1
2
1
 
As usual. Colbert is pandering fear and not facts.
 
More extremist eco propoganda
 
Who is listening? One side they looks at the ice in their whisky glass and say what warming. And the other side afraid to open the subject and Gore name come in the discussion.
 
Although, the holy books mentioned the great flood and Noah, but these are stories. The movement of the great Noah boat can not move against God nature against the flow of the river from high ground (north) to lower ground(south). That will end the boat into the gulf and mountain arrerate. 
 
Yes, we scientists have monthly meetings where we plot on how to steal more and more money every day from honest tax payers like yourselves, so we can go and buy our Ferraris and mansions with heated swimming pools. Because everyone knows scientists are in it for the money right? I mean name one climate scientist that isn't filthy rich thanks to government subsidies...

Yes republicans, you've caught on to our evil world-wide plan where almost 100% of the scientists in the world are willing to lie to get our big fat pay checks that we use to buy our diamond-coated private jets. You got us!
 
AHA! I knew it! I just knew it! hahahahahahahahahahaha!
Translate
 
+Chris Bartos The speed and persistence of warming deniers to attach themselves to a thread, any thread, anywhere on the internet that even mentions melting ice caps can't possibly be driven only by altruistic motivations.

I sense that there may be a pay cheque involved.
 
+David Belliveau You'd be right most likely.  There is a great book out that highlights just how it's all done called Merchants of Doubt. 
 
Oh man it's amazing how Colberts managed to keep it fresh after all this time. I still get amused every time its says something wacky, and twitches his eyebrows! bahahaha its cracks me up thinking about it. 
 
+Chris Bartos - most logical ” deniers” (oxymoron to you, I'm sure) aren't denying that warming and climate change occur. The real debate is a.) How much humans have in reality affected compared to natural production, and b.) Some ”sustainable” product companies have been exposed as corrupt and feeding into the frenzy to make insane profits.

Personally - I recommend people to buy locally, and have the smallest carbon footprint that is practical/reasonable. Because that is the smart and responsible thing to do. Also, I don't feel that the currently available research is strong enough to suggest that the current warming trend is the fault of humans.
 
I'm not in favor of having to pay to pollute (carbon credits) all in the name of climate change. I know, they think I'm dumb enough to buy into their presumptuousness that with enough of our money, they can do something about the climate. I've got a better idea, keep taking the temperature and keep me posted, if I feel I need to adapt, so be it, I will.
 
Stephane Dion, former Canadian Liberal Leader planned on taxing carbon.  The taxes collected on carbon emissions would go into a fund.  The fund would be equitably returned to the taxpayers as an annual refund cheque, each taxpayer receiving the same amount.  

Therefore, if you didn't perform activities that emitted CO2, you would end up in the black at the end of the year.

The result would be that not producing carbon would help out your bank account.

If you wanted to buy 10,000 barrels of oil and burn them in your back yard, you'd probably be on the losing side of the equation.

Makes more sense than trading carbon credits, if you ask me.
 
we can decrease water level by incresing gravity strength
munju s
 
another doomsday prediction....
 
One meter per century is 0.03 mm / day.  I'm reminded of a quote from Invader Zim:  "EVACUATE THE CITY!  Uh... No hurry, though. Just... you know, whenever."
 
If all the ice from the ice age melted today how much that add to the ocean?
 
+Cody Jones "I recommend people to buy locally, and have the smallest carbon footprint that is practical/reasonable. Because that is the smart and responsible thing to do"

Not always.  Sometimes buying locally is the least efficient and has a larger carbon foot print.  It runs against common sense, but when you take all factors into account, there is a lower carbon footprint for a person in Britain to buy New Zealand lamb, for example, than english lamb, even accounting for the longer travel route.

+Brian Dunning of Skeptoid.com has a very informative article/podcast on this topic if anybody is interested.  http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4162
 
+David Belliveau perhaps the Canadian government can do the equitable thing, but how is that  going to make the world colder? Would a jogger get less money back than a non jogger? Taxing smoke as a solution to a unalterable natural phenomenon proves that some people will believe anything.
 
Don't private insurance companies have their own formulas? The problem comes when overdeveloped low lying areas are destroyed and demand a bailout through tax payer backed insurance, which happened in Florida with Citizens Property Insurance Corp. This temporary solution then becomes permanent because of the legislator's delusional risk assessment formula. Expect NC to have a future tax payer funded insurance bailout of property owners who bought from long gone confidence artist developers and their paid legislators. This is common practice in Florida, the Swampland Deal State.
 
+Paul Hickey I don't really want to argue with you over this particular topic.  It will only end up wasting my time.
Add a comment...