Climate change is real, and it’s causing Delaware to sink

Filed in Delaware by on February 27, 2013

Delaware coastal flooding climate change

Sen. James Imhoff (R-OK) is noted for suggesting that climate change is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. He’s also the ranking minority member on the Senate’s Environment and Public Works committee.

Wonder why nothing ever gets done about climate change?

I would invite Imhoff and all his neanderthal colleagues down to Delaware, where up to 11 percent of the state could be swept away by flooding next century due to rising sea levels. It might be hard for Imhoff and his fellow deniers to convince residents who lost their home that the damage is all in their mind.

Continue reading at Newsworks.org…

Tags: , ,

About the Author ()

Rob Tornoe is a local cartoonist and columnist, and can be seen in The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Press of Atlantic City, The News Journal, and the Dover Post chain of newspapers. He's also a contributor to Media Matters and WHYY. Web site: RobTornoe.com Twitter: @RobTornoe

Comments (39)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. SussexAnon says:

    Forget Imhoff, State Sen. Hocker in Bethany Beach doesn’t believe in sea level rise, let alone climate change.

  2. anonymous says:

    Then Hocker shouldn’t accept millions in sand, infrastructure money due to climate change.

    Must be a tough sell, when a politician backs a coal power plant when he represents areas inches above sea level. Although CO2 sure am good for the extended crop growing season and extended beach season.

    If a politician doesn’t fight climate change, he shouldn’t be able to accept climate change funding- and should be run out of office.

    The photos of Bethany homes, looking like cupcakes in a pond, comes to mind. And Sandy didn’t even hit Delaware.

  3. anonymous says:

    Of course they know what causes climate change.

    It seems there are many levels on which people approach climate change, from lying to believing. Republicans, for decades, pretended – it’s a hoax. Now, even republicans can feel, can see, the climate really is changing. Many in the fossil fuel driven industries and their lying republican politicians now say, the climate is changing, but, but, we don’t know what’s causing it. (Of course they do – it’s CO2. You don’t think deniers believe what they have to pay “skeptics” to write, do ya?

    There are a very few, who really can’t know. Then there are people who know, but aren’t concerned about future generations. “I couldn’t care less, I’ll be dead by then,” or They {the poor} are going to die anyway.” I’ve actually heard both said, by republicans of course.

    Or, “I like hot weather. And you’ve heard it said, “CO2 is harmless, I exhale it every time I breathe.” Or the earth is coooooling. Ha. And we know industrialists like cheap industrial power, here and at overseas sweatshops and still call it a hoax. Others like the way their crops grow tall on CO2, in an extra growing season, as crop values rise, as farmers in drought areas produce nothing.

    Then there are those who say, it costs too much to stop climate change.” “I’m not paying for it.” Or, perhaps they’re thinking, the world’s too over populated. Perhaps the rich falsely think – they can afford to survive, on the short term basis that is. Fact is, in some areas, conditions may seem to improve with climate change and wealthy feel they can access those areas. But a few more years of ‘business as usual,’ will in the longer term, mean no one survives. Attention politicians, welcome to Venus. With runaway feedback systems, at 180 degrees, no one survives.

    There are people who know that climate change is real, is happening and are depending on politicians to do something about it. “What can I do, I’m too busy; I need a new SUV to get to the power plant, not solar panels.”

    Then there are people who know better than anyone (legitimate climate scientists) who are trying to inform the public and politicians that they under estimated climate change; it’s been in the works for 250 years, and they haven’t yet included present and future feedback systems.

    And then there are the people who know just how serious, costly, immediate, deadly, the climate change events are/will be and know it is the greed and indifference of mainly the fossil fuel industries, their politicians, even ordinary citizens, who look out for the present and future fossil fuel profits, the free releasing of CO2, discouraging clean energy solutions, who are enabling, encouraging climate change to progress full speed ahead, causing droughts, floods, extreme storms, melting mountain tops, glaciers, melting both polar regions; changing air and water currents; eroding shorelines, changing global temperatures, changing climates; loosing water supplies, islands, homelands; causing food costs to rise; causing food/water shortage immigrations, causing grazing, water wars, unlivable temperatures; loss of coastal properties, infrastructures, roadways, railways, ports, bridges, wetlands; loss of natural and wildlife systems; the increasing changes due to feedback systems, dying corrals, loss of forests, deaths by the millions around the world; threatened cites, jobs, savings, futures, the exponential costs of climate change, an unlivable planet, very well known and understood and ignored.

  4. Geezer says:

    Much of the stuff you claim to “know” is actually just stuff you believe, because it’s just speculation, even by the scientists.

    For example, could you provide a link to bolster this: “Attention politicians, welcome to Venus. With runaway feedback systems, at 180 degrees, no one survives.” Thank you.

  5. anonymous says:

    “The runaway greenhouse effect,”

    For starters, Geezer, see Dr. James Hansen.

  6. Geezer says:

    I don’t watch videos, but I’m familiar with all this stuff anyway. As I expected, the most frequently encountered verb in those print links is “could.” Which means exactly what it says — they might, or they might not. Even these sources don’t claim anything about “180 degrees.”

    Once you start talking about what you believe, instead of what we know, you have to grant the same leeway to others who believe something else.

  7. anonymous says:

    When one sees CH4 gushing out of Arctic permafrost,(many videos of that;) moulins draining lakes of arctic waters in minutes; glaciers calving, space photography of a melted greenland; videos showing graphs, charts of extreme rises of CO2 in the last 100, or 30 years compared to hundreds of thousands of years; ancient ice cores with which to measure the CO2 levels; even Waldens record of plants and temperatures in Massachusetts, l50 years ago, I find it adds to one’s understanding.

    Tell me Geezer,do you think that an ice free Arctic won’t warm the oceans, change currents or help defrost the tundra; the permafrost, the shallow ocean bottoms won’t release huge storehouses of CH4 into a endless feedback system, that feeds on itself?

    Did you not even ‘listen’ to the first two videos?

    If man won’t stop dumping CO2 into the air, who exactly will stop the methane of the arctic region from entering the air, at 23 times the greenhouse effect of CO2? Do you imagine that the “runaway feedback” process will stop at a livable temperature? Haven’t heard or read of anyone saying it will. Tell it to the ten of thousands who died of heat stokes in France a few years back.

    If one doesn’t want to believe what legitimate scientists have to say, one ‘could’ listen to some paid skeptics. Add that as another method people use for dealing with the subject of climate change. (12:10 p.m.comment) (But then they would have to prove to you, that a “runaway feedback system” ‘couldn’t’ happen.) They’d have to prove to you that man can put back the Arctic ice cap, refreeze the tundra, take the CH4 from the atmosphere, put the CH4 back into a frozen permafrost.

  8. anonymous says:

    I brought a copy of an Email from “Climate Change” along with me to speak for itself. Climate Change can better explain ‘the situation.’

  9. geezer says:

    I know exactly what the climate scientists say. You are the one who is mistaking what COULD happen for what WILL happen. Your certitude is not backed up by the data (and no, I didn’t listen to the videos. I read.)

    I don’t listen to hysterical warnings from either side of the political spectrum.

  10. geezer says:

    You can post all the stuff you like, but you still don’t seem to get it. The scientists are talking about probabilities. You seem to think they’re talking about certainties.

    We don’t know exactly what will happen, and we don’t know if any of the claims about cutting back on CO2 will stop what already has been put in motion in terms of feedback loops.

    What is a very high probability outcome is that humans will do nothing until it is too late. I base this statement on the high incidence of past crises in which humans did nothing until it was too late.

    Indeed, I cannot offhand think of any situation in which humans acted in advance to avoid a looming crisis. You are shouting into the (ever stronger) wind.

  11. anonymous says:

    The Venus Syndrome

    The top-rated climate scientist in the world, James Hansen from NASA stated, “If we burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal, there is a substantial chance we will initiate the run-away greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus Syndrome is a dead certainty.”

    “Dead certainty.”

    Simply put, we are melting away the Arctic summer ice. That causes the ocean to warm, which allows the permafrost, the shallow ocean bottoms to release methane gas, which is a powerful greenhouse gas, which causes the temperature to rise, (especially in the Arctic region,) which melts the ice……

    Hansen, published a paper that warns the impending increase in temperature may be at 6 degrees Celsius (10.8 degrees F), not at the 3 degrees Celsius as had been previously estimated, bringing us “dangerously close” to climate tipping points. Reminder, we’re at 1.8 degrees Celsius. They had underestimated the safety of 2 degrees Celsius. And one cannot forget the “impending increase in temperature.”

    http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2007/EastWest_20070925.pdf

    Hansen advises that a focused effort toward an absolute reduction of C02 impact, combined with a slow-down of C02 emissions and limiting coal use to plants that capture emissions could help to contain additional warming.

    An absolute reduction needs to be addressed by politicians now, rather than later, before it is too late to avert the tipping points Hansen warns of in his report.

  12. Roland D. Lebay says:

    @anonymous-

    You focused on one part of the quote. The full quote is much more informative:

    I believe (emphasis mine) the Venus Syndrome is a dead certainty.”

    I believe the moon is made of green cheese. My beliefs are irrelevant, as are the beliefs of others. What matters is what we can prove to a reasonable degree of certainty.

    Further, what Geezer said is true. It’s rare that humans actually DO anything about a looming crisis.

  13. anonymous says:

    Lebay, I believe Geezer was wondering why I came up with the ‘Venus’ reference.

    Quote from Lebay, “It’s rare that humans actually DO anything about a looming crisis.” What?????

    What’s happening isn’t out of the blue. Legitimate scientists have been predicting that there would be melting ice, rising sea levels, droughts, extreme storms, floods, pests, migrations, forest fires, etc due to anthropogenic climate change – CO2.

    What’s particularly alarming is, some changes are happening with less warming, sooner, more rapidly than expected, melting ice sheets, summer ice, glaciers. And that we have less time to take action.

    A melting Arctic, has methane in permafrost, clathrates, methane in bogs, tundra, ocean bottoms, etc., that can and is being released – and is 25 times more powerful than CO2.

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22549-arctic-permafrost-is-melting-faster-than-predicted.html

    Here’s an interesting interview of James Balog, premier photographer, who photographs climate change in action. (It’s not really happening, right LeBay?)

    http://billmoyers.com/segment/james-balog-on-capturing-our-disappearing-glaciers/

    People who aren’t scientists have a hard time trying to understand the studies of climate scientists, so good people like Dr.James Hansen, are going out of their way to try to help politicians and ordinary citizens understand.

  14. anonymous says:

    Lebay, uses this argument, Quote: “I believe the moon is made of green cheese. My beliefs are irrelevant, as are the beliefs of others. What matters is what we can prove to a reasonable degree of certainty.” End quote.

    That having been said, let’s go with it. Lebay believes the moon is made of green cheese and in his above post, he pretends his belief is as irrelevant as those of thousands of scientists who have spent their lives studying science, physics, chemistry, space, geology, planets, the actual study of the composition of moon and pieces of moon rock as well. Anyone believe that the scientists’ beliefs are equally irrelevant as Lebay’s green cheese theory of utter nonsense?

    Lebay follows his green cheese theory, with quote: ” What matters is what we can prove to a reasonable degree of certainty.” So Lebay, where is your green cheese scientific degree of certainty?

    Sure , it’s Lebay babble, which he supposes proves that tens of thousands of scientists around the world, are of an opinion that is equal to Lebay’s opinion.

    Lebay, have any theories on mice with human brains, humans and dinosaurs walking together, teaching creationism in public schools? – or. what will happen to the earth when massive amounts of methane are released into the atmosphere? Any theories saying ice won’t melt or that it doesn’t matter what Earth’s atmosphere consists of?

  15. anonymous says:

    Another Lebay quote: “It’s rare that humans actually DO anything about a looming crisis.”

    And what is it that separates mankind from a really dumb animal hell bent on self extinction?

  16. geezer says:

    He said “I believe” before he said “dead certainty.” The scientific data DOES NOT SUPPORT HIS CONTENTION, which is why he said “I believe.”

    What part of this don’t you understand?

  17. geezer says:

    “The top-rated climate scientist in the world, James Hansen…”

    Top-rated? Where? I missed the Top 25 Climate Scientist rankings, I suppose.

    “If we burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal…”

    Do you realize how much that is? We have a 300-year supply of coal alone in this country alone. That’s a gi-fucking-normous “if” at the beginning of that sentence.

    “An absolute reduction needs to be addressed by politicians now, rather than later, before it is too late to avert the tipping points Hansen warns of in his report.”

    Yes, this is always the point of climate alarmists. It will not happen. It doesn’t matter whether you or I want it to happen. It will not happen.

    We get it. You’re a climate-change pants-wetter. It’s as tiresome as any of the other pants-wetting memes we constantly hear from the right.

  18. geezer says:

    “what is it that separates mankind from a really dumb animal hell bent on self extinction?”

    Nothing.

  19. Roland D. LeBay says:

    @anonymous-

    I believe you have me confused with a climate change denier. I am not. I also am not Chicken Little, unlike you.

  20. anonymous says:

    Geezer, It is you who doesn’t understand that Dr. Hansen has spent a lifetime acquiring scientific data that SUPPORTS his contention. If you would simply press at least one link and follow it down to the bottom of the page, you would notice he was the head of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies. You could note his education, his degrees in physics, mathematics, astronomy, his planetary research in climate change on earth anthropogenic changes of the atmospheric composition; his work with remote sensing and with satellites as one of the most effective ways to monitor and study global change; as well as planetary research that involves understanding the climate changes on earth that will result from anthropogenic changes of the atmospheric composition.

    Note his studies of Venus, it’s history, atmosphere, it’s runaway greenhouse effects; his studies of global temperature analysis, black carbon and dangerous anthropogenic interference with climate systems; his work on climate model development and projections, as well as his work on climate forcings, climate feedback and climate sensitivity, along with his outstanding leadership in attempting to inform the public; his stand on the responsibility of climate change; his choice as a scientist, to speak out, the consequences; as well as a long list of references, books, articles, publications.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen

    http://350.org/en/about/science

  21. Geezer says:

    You truly are dense. I’ve read all of this. I know who Dr. Hansen is, and I know what contentions the data actually support. They do NOT support Earth turning into Venus.

    Here’s the problem with the fear-mongering approach: It doesn’t work. For example, Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” shows New York under 20 feet of water, but never acknowledges that such an outcome is an outlier in the computer modeling. Indeed, many climate alarmists have acknowledged that they peddle these disaster scenarios not because they have a high probability of coming to pass but in an effort to scare the public and politicians into action. You are a victim of this approach.

    Unfortunately, when you don’t confine an argument to its strongest points, opponents attack those weak points. You give them the openings they need to portray the whole issue as bogus, as indeed opponents have for more than a decade now. Hansen and Gore’s brilliant idea backfired.

    Here’s an idea: Take a look at the title of the blog, and stop preaching to the choir.

  22. anonymous says:

    “An absolute reduction needs to be addressed by politicians now, rather than later, before it is too late to avert the tipping points Hansen warns of in his report.” anonymous

    Geezer says,”Yes, this is always the point of climate alarmists. It will not happen. It doesn’t matter whether you or I want it to happen. It will not happen.”

    Exactly what a denier would say – or want to hear.

    That’s fine with Geezer? Why?

  23. anonymous says:

    Lebay,

    Your ‘chicken little’ reference = classic ‘denial’ response.

  24. socialistic ben says:

    People respond to “it’s an emergency!!!!!!!!!!!” with skepticism. A pretty good chunk of Americans dont even trust science.

    not that it should be a debate… and IM not questioning the existence of man-made climate change…
    But I think those of us interested in preserving our planet need to change debate tactics. Again, im not debating the existence, but to deny that some have made it a debate is to give “our side” a disadvantage.
    Stop, as a means of public branding … not as a dismissal of facts…. Stop focusing on potential outcomes 100 years from now. Most people are way too self absorbed to think in those terms. Focus instead on air quality and immediate health issues. All the shit in the air that makes the planet hotter, also makes people ill. Lowering the pollutants based on THAT notion will also accomplish the goal of lowering pollutants for the sake of the health of the planet.

    I think sometimes we get caught up in trying so hard to force people that the science is real, that the “other side” can just sit back and say “see? they cant even prove the basis for their argument is factual” (which it is, but public perception is the only reality that actually matters) It is much tougher to claim that a very high asthma or cancer rate among people who live close to coal plants is because of anything other than the toxic fumes pumped into their lungs.
    Different approach from the “Impending apocalypse” is all im sayin

  25. socialistic ben says:

    so, you are either an outright climate change denier, or you accept that Delaware will be under water in 3 years. got it.

    well, put me in the denier category i guess. Thanks, anony.. now i know i should have been voting for republicans and running my AC in the winter.

  26. anonymous says:

    Socialistic ben, it’s you that just said, “Delaware will be under water in 3 years. Anonymous wouldn’t make such a claim, and wouldn’t immediately put you in the denier category; uh, you did that.

    PS The flag in the 3 ft of water, in the cartoon reads 2100

  27. socialistic ben says:

    oh, well if the cartoon said it, that’s good enough for me.

  28. anonymous says:

    Socialistic Ben: Al Gore was extremely effective in getting his point across. It was the fossil fuel industry that attacked him, for that very reason. It’s called, attacking the messenger. Are you saying, his being less effective would have been better?

    Also removing harmful pollutants such as lead or mercury, does nothing to reduce CO2. Removing black carbon is helpful to the environment – but it doesn’t reduce CO2. Republicans claim CO2 is not an air pollutant and fight against CO2 being part of the Clean Air Act.

    And of course there are those who want to release CO2 for free; those who like CO2 for crop growing reasons; those who love cheap coal as an energy; or as an investment; and there are those that like that the Arctic is melting because metal mining, the oil the trade routes; and those that like that there are longer growing seasons due to climate change, or like that their bitter climate is warming. They are the people who liked to say, it’s a hoax; and who now say, the climate is changing – but they don’t know why. (Of course they do.) And they are the people who will soon say, too bad, we’ve passed the ‘tipping points,’ – no sense in doing anything about CO2 now, even though the effects of CO2 can last up to 200+ years (and longer considering run-away-feedbacks.) (Not to mention the acidification of the oceans due to releasing of CO2.) Add not to mention that people are ignoring the fact that future generations have rights too. They are the people who would attack, deny science. They are the people who fight regulations, a carbon tax, a Clean Air Act and clean energy.

    Al Gore was so effective – and therefore so attacked, so ridiculed, that the people who should have been backing him, didn’t; so the fossil fuel industry et al, was most effective of all. Other examples, Michael Mann, now James Hansen – as a jack ass like James Inhofe is a ranking minority member on the United States Senate’s Environment and Public Works committee, talking about what his ‘god is doing in the climate ‘ as the Arctic ice cap melts away .

    Al Gore, James Hansen, Michael Mann, are men of great accomplishments and leadership, with a greater good in mind.

    Here’s someone republicans and climate change deniers/liars admire.

  29. anonymous says:

    This link should work

  30. socialistic ben says:

    If Al Gore was so effective, why is there less support for climate control then there was under Nixon? Think about that. A republican President chartered the EPA, now a Democratic president causes controversy by MENTIONING climate change. We are loosing the battle because of egos and a desire to win the argument in factual terms….. facts dont really seem to matter much in today’s discourse. Ive said this so many times about so many things…. all that matters is results. By any means. (legal)
    I believe in man made global warming. YOU believe in it.
    That doesnt matter. Stop trying to win this fight the way you WANT to win it. It’s selfish.

    We must do something by any means necessary. If that means not discussing long term effects while we focus on immediate health problems, so be it. Do you deny that cutting down on emissions in order to improve air quality will also benefit the planet’s long term health?

  31. anonymous says:

    Socialistic Ben says, “If that means not discussing long term effects while we focus on immediate health problems, so be it.” Can’t say anyone should do that, because the “long term effects” are – forever.

    Truth is important. My God. Politicians are playing games with millions, billions of lives.

    What I remember of Gore’s film, was that it was brilliant. What’s interesting in mentioning Nixon, is that anthropogenic CO2 has been around and known and ongoing for forty years, as powerful corporate interests have promoted a culture of anti-environment, anti-government, anti- regulation, anti-EPA, anti-clean air, anti-clean energy, anti- tax, anti-science and anti anything else that will secure a vote, – all being paraded as being in the ‘best interests of the people,’ when they are mainly in the best interests of powerful corporations. Not only has the republican party been taken over by 1% interests, but they are taking over the people’s government as well.

    Nixon chartered the EPA, but he didn’t do anything about the release of CO2. No one has, of sufficient result. True, there wasn’t the volume of information there is now. With business-as-usual, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is rising. The pre industrial amount was 280ppm. What is ‘considered’ a safe limit, is less than 350ppm.

    http://co2now.org/

    Socialistic Ben: If by “focusing on immediate health problems,” you mean personal health as in breathing CO2, breathing CO2 isn’t a concern. The same parts per million (395.55 ppm) are of concern in the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas, which will effect people’s well being, so you would have to be talking about the levels that affect the health of the atmosphere and the heath of oceans, rivers, wetlands, perhaps even ice sheets, glaciers, etc.

    If you mean reducing CO2 emission levels that contribute to global warming, such as reducing power pant emissions of CO2; vehicle emissions of CO2; conservation; clean energy – yes. But substantial amounts of CO2 need to be kept from the atmosphere in every way possible. The general public can realize and understand, it’s a crucial time for mass reductions of CO2. However, as over the past 40 years – rich, powerful corporate interests will likely vehemently object. Look how powerful the 1% were during the last election – but the people were smarter. Facts matter. What’s needed is a massive educational campaign, about what matters – a future.

  32. geezer says:

    “That’s fine with Geezer? Why?”

    Because I don’t piss up rainpipes. You can live your life worrying about the scary, scary future, but it doesn’t mean the rest of us have to.

    As Ben noted, what I’m criticizing here is your tactic of running around with your hair on fire. It not only doesn’t convince people of your point, it actually makes them dig in harder (I’m not going to bother finding the link to the psychological studies that illustrate that because, as I said above, I don’t piss up rainpipes).

    Furthermore, this is a liberal site. The regulars already agree with you. What are proving, that you’re the most easily panicked liberal on the site? Congratulations, you win.

  33. anonymous says:

    Checkmate Geezer.

    Now, here’s a visual that is simple, interesting and worth thinking about.

  34. Steve Newton says:

    Ah, I’m with Geezer on this one. You’re driving everyone nuts, and–besides–volcanoes and Chinese industrial pollution will save us …

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130301123048.htm

  35. geezer says:

    “Here’s a visual that is simple, interesting and worth thinking about.”

    I agree it’s simple, but I disagree that it’s interesting or worth thinking about.

    You keep responding as if I’m denying climate change. I am not. I’m denying that your approach will do anything to stop or even slow it.

    We live in a relatively (relative to human history) free, open and market-based society, which means it is nearly impossible to get people to do things they don’t want to do.

    Clearly we all would be safer if ownership of guns were tightly restricted, but we can’t even get universal background checks — a proposal with 90+ percent public support — passed by Congress without a major fight. Similarly, we could solve two problems (budget and global warming) with higher taxes on carbon fuels. But such solutions don’t even have the support of half the public. Same with processed food and drink — it ruins health, leading to higher medical bills, but you can’t even get governments to tax soda let alone potato chips.

    There is no solution to the problem unless you convince people to sacrifice. And even if you do, even if you get to 90 percent public support, special interests still will make it difficult to get such proposals passed.

    So I eagerly await the details of your campaign to win over large segments of the American public. Personally, I think it best to simply point to things ALREADY HAPPENING to make the case, because that way you’re not asking the American public — roughly half of which has below-average intelligence, remember — to use an imagination many of them lack.

    One more thing: Whether or not you think it matters, most of us will be dead by 2100. The actuarial tables say I’m unlikely to make it past 2035. Given that a large swath of the public thinks of the future only when fantasizing about how to spend that lottery jackpot, I’m not optimistic about them modifying their current behavior because of a threat coming 80 years down the road.

  36. anonymous says:

    Even if volcanoes or sun blocking geo-engineering would slow the warming, as anthropogenic CO2 is being released as usual – CO2 will continue to build up in the atmosphere.

    Researcher Brian Toon, a professor at CU-Boulder, cautioned that in the long run, volcanoes won’t be able to counterbalance global warming.
    “Overall these eruptions are not going to counter the greenhouse effect,” Toon said in a statement. “Emissions of volcanic gases go up and down, helping to cool or heat the planet, while greenhouse gas emissions from human activity just continue to go up.”

    CO2 is rising ocean acidity due to carbon dioxide emissions. Around 40% of human CO2 emitted in the past 200 (industrial revolution) years is now stored in the oceans, increasing acid levels. by a third, as CO2 dissolves to produce carbonic acid.

    Acidification is not the only threat to the oceans. Marine life also faces a threat from rising water temperatures and less dissolved oxygen.

    http://www.alternet.org/story/152636/our_oceans_are_in_dire_shape%2C_but_without_them_all_life_on_land_–_human%2C_plant_and_animal_–_is_totally_screwed?page=0%2C0

  37. klem says:

    “I would invite Imhoff and all his neanderthal colleagues down to Delaware, where up to 11 percent of the state could be swept away by flooding next century…”

    Wow, you said ‘up to’ and ‘could be’ in the same sentence, those are two classic weasel phrases. They reduce your big arrogant statement down to nothing. Perhaps it is you who is the true neanderthal.

    cheers

Switch to our mobile site