The problem with the lack of water is that there is too mauch of it???

[DKW 86 7,441]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070311/D8NPKSRG2.html

Warming Report to Warn of Coming Drought

Mar 10, 7:32 PM (ET)

By SETH BORENSTEIN

Public TV - Search and view environment, green and public video

www.public.tv

WASHINGTON (AP) - The harmful effects of global warming on daily life are already showing up, and within a couple of decades hundreds of millions of people won't have enough water, top scientists will say next month at a meeting in Belgium.

At the same time, tens of millions of others will be flooded out of their homes each year as the Earth reels from rising temperatures and sea levels, according to portions of a draft of an international scientific report obtained by The Associated Press.

Tropical diseases like malaria will spread. By 2050, polar bears will mostly be found in zoos, their habitats gone. Pests like fire ants will thrive.

For a time, food will be plentiful because of the longer growing season in northern regions. But by 2080, hundreds of millions of people could face starvation, according to the report, which is still being revised.

In a true case of Orwellian Double speak, we are told in the same article that millions will die of thirst as they drown from too much water? Do they even listen to what they really say?

How to make salt water drinkable...

Dang, I just solved the world drinking water problems and it isnt even 8AM CDT on a Sunday. I recommend buying GE Stock now and prosper in the future.

[AURaptor 1,126]

It's easier to cry CRISIS than to calmly explain the situation.

[Ranger12 46]

That is like saying there is going to be a food shortage, but in the meantime the wild game population is expected to rise and overtake us all.

[quietfan 233]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070311/D8NPKSRG2.html

Warming Report to Warn of Coming Drought

Mar 10, 7:32 PM (ET)

By SETH BORENSTEIN

Public TV - Search and view environment, green and public video

www.public.tv

WASHINGTON (AP) - The harmful effects of global warming on daily life are already showing up, and within a couple of decades hundreds of millions of people won't have enough water, top scientists will say next month at a meeting in Belgium.

At the same time, tens of millions of others will be flooded out of their homes each year as the Earth reels from rising temperatures and sea levels, according to portions of a draft of an international scientific report obtained by The Associated Press.

Tropical diseases like malaria will spread. By 2050, polar bears will mostly be found in zoos, their habitats gone. Pests like fire ants will thrive.

For a time, food will be plentiful because of the longer growing season in northern regions. But by 2080, hundreds of millions of people could face starvation, according to the report, which is still being revised.

In a true case of Orwellian Double speak, we are told in the same article that millions will die of thirst as they drown from too much water? Do they even listen to what they really say?

How to make salt water drinkable...

Dang, I just solved the world drinking water problems and it isnt even 8AM CDT on a Sunday. I recommend buying GE Stock now and prosper in the future.

Did no one see the two words I've marked in red? The article clearly says we're talking about two different sets of people. Some regions will experience significant drying, and other areas will be dealing with rising sea levels. There's no "double speak" here.

For example: The American grain belt of the central plains (the bread basket of much of the world these days) may suffer a significant crop-reducing decrease in rainfall; meanwhile the delta of Bangla Desh, home to tens of millions and practically at sea level now, will be inundated by a very small increase of sea level, perhaps even a few inches.

[DKW 86 7,441]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070311/D8NPKSRG2.html

Warming Report to Warn of Coming Drought

Mar 10, 7:32 PM (ET)

By SETH BORENSTEIN

Public TV - Search and view environment, green and public video

www.public.tv

WASHINGTON (AP) - The harmful effects of global warming on daily life are already showing up, and within a couple of decades hundreds of millions of people won't have enough water, top scientists will say next month at a meeting in Belgium.

At the same time, tens of millions of others will be flooded out of their homes each year as the Earth reels from rising temperatures and sea levels, according to portions of a draft of an international scientific report obtained by The Associated Press.

Tropical diseases like malaria will spread. By 2050, polar bears will mostly be found in zoos, their habitats gone. Pests like fire ants will thrive.

For a time, food will be plentiful because of the longer growing season in northern regions. But by 2080, hundreds of millions of people could face starvation, according to the report, which is still being revised.

In a true case of Orwellian Double speak, we are told in the same article that millions will die of thirst as they drown from too much water? Do they even listen to what they really say?

How to make salt water drinkable...

Dang, I just solved the world drinking water problems and it isnt even 8AM CDT on a Sunday. I recommend buying GE Stock now and prosper in the future.

Did no one see the two words I've marked in red? The article clearly says we're talking about two different sets of people. Some regions will experience significant drying, and other areas will be dealing with rising sea levels. There's no "double speak" here.

For example: The American grain belt of the central plains (the bread basket of much of the world these days) may suffer a significant crop-reducing decrease in rainfall; meanwhile the delta of Bangla Desh, home to tens of millions and practically at sea level now, will be inundated by a very small increase of sea level, perhaps even a few inches.

Many years ago many regions of the world were covered by glaciers. Many years ago, impenetrable forests covered much of the globe. Many years ago...

Man will adapt, build pipelines, load trucks, etc. We PIPE the water from the east side of the Rockies over the mountains and into LA. We can and will adapt.

This is ALL theory anyway. It is just like the theory out 30 years ago that we were entering a new Ice Age. Things change all the time.

[otterinbham 0]

What the esteemed scientists (who, by the way, are being rebutted by some of the world's most eminent climatologists) fail to mention is that 8,000 years ago, when global temperatures averaged several degrees higher than today, the Sahara desert actually hosted a great deal of vegetation and grazing herds. All you have to do is look at the cave paintings in southern Libya depicting giraffes, hundreds and hundreds of miles from where giraffes range today.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070311/D8NPKSRG2.html

Warming Report to Warn of Coming Drought

Mar 10, 7:32 PM (ET)

By SETH BORENSTEIN

Public TV - Search and view environment, green and public video

www.public.tv

WASHINGTON (AP) - The harmful effects of global warming on daily life are already showing up, and within a couple of decades hundreds of millions of people won't have enough water, top scientists will say next month at a meeting in Belgium.

At the same time, tens of millions of others will be flooded out of their homes each year as the Earth reels from rising temperatures and sea levels, according to portions of a draft of an international scientific report obtained by The Associated Press.

Tropical diseases like malaria will spread. By 2050, polar bears will mostly be found in zoos, their habitats gone. Pests like fire ants will thrive.

For a time, food will be plentiful because of the longer growing season in northern regions. But by 2080, hundreds of millions of people could face starvation, according to the report, which is still being revised.

In a true case of Orwellian Double speak, we are told in the same article that millions will die of thirst as they drown from too much water? Do they even listen to what they really say?

How to make salt water drinkable...

Dang, I just solved the world drinking water problems and it isnt even 8AM CDT on a Sunday. I recommend buying GE Stock now and prosper in the future.

Did no one see the two words I've marked in red? The article clearly says we're talking about two different sets of people. Some regions will experience significant drying, and other areas will be dealing with rising sea levels. There's no "double speak" here.

For example: The American grain belt of the central plains (the bread basket of much of the world these days) may suffer a significant crop-reducing decrease in rainfall; meanwhile the delta of Bangla Desh, home to tens of millions and practically at sea level now, will be inundated by a very small increase of sea level, perhaps even a few inches.

You're not first time poster. Do you really expect folks here to read, think and respond to what is actually written?

[otterinbham 0]

There are several epochs in our recorded history where temperatures were a few degrees higher. Yet the cumulative effect of those periods was greater agricultural production.

But, remember TT that this report is actually in contradiction of the science behind the report. In fact, quite a number of eminent climatologists who were included in this study have objected strenuously that their research was completely ignored in the writing of the report--research that shows no link between CO2 and global warming. In fact, scientists now believe that increased CO2 in the atmosphere actually follows a global warming rather than act as cause. In fact, several early proponents of global warming theories have reversed themselves over the past year or so, stating instead that the warming trend is probably due to increase solar radiation from cyclican patterns of our sun.

So, pretty much, if the chief climatologists are disputing the conclusions of what is a climatology study, how accurate do you really think these shrill findings actually are?

[Boonan 0]

It mentioned people being flooded out of homes by riseing SEA LEVELS. Sea water, last itme I checked, isn't too drinkable.

[Tigermike 3,055]

It mentioned people being flooded out of homes by riseing SEA LEVELS. Sea water, last itme I checked, isn't too drinkable.

Obviously you missed this, How to make salt water drinkable...

[TexasTiger 13,028]

There are several epochs in our recorded history where temperatures were a few degrees higher. Yet the cumulative effect of those periods was greater agricultural production.

But, remember TT that this report is actually in contradiction of the science behind the report. In fact, quite a number of eminent climatologists who were included in this study have objected strenuously that their research was completely ignored in the writing of the report--research that shows no link between CO2 and global warming. In fact, scientists now believe that increased CO2 in the atmosphere actually follows a global warming rather than act as cause. In fact, several early proponents of global warming theories have reversed themselves over the past year or so, stating instead that the warming trend is probably due to increase solar radiation from cyclican patterns of our sun.

So, pretty much, if the chief climatologists are disputing the conclusions of what is a climatology study, how accurate do you really think these shrill findings actually are?

I lack the scientific expertise to speak definitively on this topic, not that that stops most folks here from trying to do so. A couple of thoughts I have are these 1) many studies/communications that I have seen questioning the validity of global warming are funded by the oil and gas industry; 2) the life that is now on this planet out of the balance that was arrived at naturally. That balance may shift from time-to-time from natural reasons. It seems doubtful that man-made emissions and other chemicals/pollutants that are released into the environment won't have a negative impact on the natural balance.

[DKW 86 7,441]

It mentioned people being flooded out of homes by riseing SEA LEVELS. Sea water, last itme I checked, isn't too drinkable.

<speechless as to what to say>

[otterinbham 0]

There are several epochs in our recorded history where temperatures were a few degrees higher. Yet the cumulative effect of those periods was greater agricultural production.

But, remember TT that this report is actually in contradiction of the science behind the report. In fact, quite a number of eminent climatologists who were included in this study have objected strenuously that their research was completely ignored in the writing of the report--research that shows no link between CO2 and global warming. In fact, scientists now believe that increased CO2 in the atmosphere actually follows a global warming rather than act as cause. In fact, several early proponents of global warming theories have reversed themselves over the past year or so, stating instead that the warming trend is probably due to increase solar radiation from cyclican patterns of our sun.

So, pretty much, if the chief climatologists are disputing the conclusions of what is a climatology study, how accurate do you really think these shrill findings actually are?

I lack the scientific expertise to speak definitively on this topic, not that that stops most folks here from trying to do so. A couple of thoughts I have are these 1) many studies/communications that I have seen questioning the validity of global warming are funded by the oil and gas industry; 2) the life that is now on this planet out of the balance that was arrived at naturally. That balance may shift from time-to-time from natural reasons. It seems doubtful that man-made emissions and other chemicals/pollutants that are released into the environment won't have a negative impact on the natural balance.

Yes, well, there's the problem. An automatic assumption that anybody who dares question conventional wisdom is automatically a stooge of Exxon. Never mind that there are literally billions in grant dollars being offered for people who PROVE global warming. So we're not exactly talking about the forces of purity versus the soiled hands of the energy industry.

Tell you what. Read this interesting series of stories through the National Post, the Canadian Magazine.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.h...0bed2f6&k=0

There are plenty of creditable (no, eminent) scientists not on anyone's payroll who are seriously questioning the Global Warming mantra.

[DKW 86 7,441]

There are several epochs in our recorded history where temperatures were a few degrees higher. Yet the cumulative effect of those periods was greater agricultural production.

But, remember TT that this report is actually in contradiction of the science behind the report. In fact, quite a number of eminent climatologists who were included in this study have objected strenuously that their research was completely ignored in the writing of the report--research that shows no link between CO2 and global warming. In fact, scientists now believe that increased CO2 in the atmosphere actually follows a global warming rather than act as cause. In fact, several early proponents of global warming theories have reversed themselves over the past year or so, stating instead that the warming trend is probably due to increase solar radiation from cyclican patterns of our sun.

So, pretty much, if the chief climatologists are disputing the conclusions of what is a climatology study, how accurate do you really think these shrill findings actually are?

I lack the scientific expertise to speak definitively on this topic, not that that stops most folks here from trying to do so. A couple of thoughts I have are these 1) many studies/communications that I have seen questioning the validity of global warming are funded by the oil and gas industry; 2) the life that is now on this planet out of the balance that was arrived at naturally. That balance may shift from time-to-time from natural reasons. It seems doubtful that man-made emissions and other chemicals/pollutants that are released into the environment won't have a negative impact on the natural balance.

Just as you think Tex ALMOST has a new idea, ALMOST sees the light, he just lets you down and goes back to the talking points.

Man made contributions are a small percentage and have been DOWNGRADED as to value in the last few weeks. Even PETA now admits that emissions from a radically larger cattle industry seem to be doing far more damage to the climate. Temp variations over time show us to be in the normal range overall. The polar caps melting on Mars tells us that the problem is not just manmade and not just restricted to this planet.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

There are several epochs in our recorded history where temperatures were a few degrees higher. Yet the cumulative effect of those periods was greater agricultural production.

But, remember TT that this report is actually in contradiction of the science behind the report. In fact, quite a number of eminent climatologists who were included in this study have objected strenuously that their research was completely ignored in the writing of the report--research that shows no link between CO2 and global warming. In fact, scientists now believe that increased CO2 in the atmosphere actually follows a global warming rather than act as cause. In fact, several early proponents of global warming theories have reversed themselves over the past year or so, stating instead that the warming trend is probably due to increase solar radiation from cyclican patterns of our sun.

So, pretty much, if the chief climatologists are disputing the conclusions of what is a climatology study, how accurate do you really think these shrill findings actually are?

I lack the scientific expertise to speak definitively on this topic, not that that stops most folks here from trying to do so. A couple of thoughts I have are these 1) many studies/communications that I have seen questioning the validity of global warming are funded by the oil and gas industry; 2) the life that is now on this planet out of the balance that was arrived at naturally. That balance may shift from time-to-time from natural reasons. It seems doubtful that man-made emissions and other chemicals/pollutants that are released into the environment won't have a negative impact on the natural balance.

Yes, well, there's the problem. An automatic assumption that anybody who dares question conventional wisdom is automatically a stooge of Exxon. Never mind that there are literally billions in grant dollars being offered for people who PROVE global warming. So we're not exactly talking about the forces of purity versus the soiled hands of the energy industry.

Tell you what. Read this interesting series of stories through the National Post, the Canadian Magazine.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.h...0bed2f6&k=0

There are plenty of creditable (no, eminent) scientists not on anyone's payroll who are seriously questioning the Global Warming mantra.

Funny. You are the one who made the automatic assumption. I believe it is prudent to try to glean the motivation of anyone strongly advocating a position, and one does that through scrutiny. I didn't claim to have reached a conclusion based on who is supporting what financially, but it is almost always an important thing to consider. Most studies saying certain foods are good for you are often funded by an association with an economic interest. Doesn't mean that they are wrong or not good science, but I always want to know before I rush out and buy the product.

As I said, I lack the expertise and haven't studied the matter, so I'm not an advocate of either position. So putdowns aren't necessary.

Who are the forces offering billions in grants to prove global warming? I'm interested in that, too.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

There are several epochs in our recorded history where temperatures were a few degrees higher. Yet the cumulative effect of those periods was greater agricultural production.

But, remember TT that this report is actually in contradiction of the science behind the report. In fact, quite a number of eminent climatologists who were included in this study have objected strenuously that their research was completely ignored in the writing of the report--research that shows no link between CO2 and global warming. In fact, scientists now believe that increased CO2 in the atmosphere actually follows a global warming rather than act as cause. In fact, several early proponents of global warming theories have reversed themselves over the past year or so, stating instead that the warming trend is probably due to increase solar radiation from cyclican patterns of our sun.

So, pretty much, if the chief climatologists are disputing the conclusions of what is a climatology study, how accurate do you really think these shrill findings actually are?

I lack the scientific expertise to speak definitively on this topic, not that that stops most folks here from trying to do so. A couple of thoughts I have are these 1) many studies/communications that I have seen questioning the validity of global warming are funded by the oil and gas industry; 2) the life that is now on this planet out of the balance that was arrived at naturally. That balance may shift from time-to-time from natural reasons. It seems doubtful that man-made emissions and other chemicals/pollutants that are released into the environment won't have a negative impact on the natural balance.

Just as you think Tex ALMOST has a new idea, ALMOST sees the light, he just lets you down and goes back to the talking points.

Man made contributions are a small percentage and have been DOWNGRADED as to value in the last few weeks. Even PETA now admits that emissions from a radically larger cattle industry seem to be doing far more damage to the climate. Temp variations over time show us to be in the normal range overall. The polar caps melting on Mars tells us that the problem is not just manmade and not just restricted to this planet.

This post is a great illustration of why there are so few meaningful discussions on this board. This:

the life that is now on this planet out of the balance that was arrived at naturally. That balance may shift from time-to-time from natural reasons. It seems doubtful that man-made emissions and other chemicals/pollutants that are released into the environment won't have a negative impact on the natural balance.

is merely another way of saying whether global warming is manmade or not, I do think pollution has a negative impact on the ecosystem. Is that truly controversial?

I've never taken a position on global warming, per se.

[CCTAU 3,350]

Water, water, every where,

And all the boards did shrink ;

Water, water, every where,

Nor any drop to drink.

[DKW 86 7,441]

Tex sees meaningful and factual discussion as a bad thing... For someone with no opinion on this topic, you sure seem obsessed with it.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

Tex sees meaningful and factual discussion as a bad thing... For someone with no opinion on this topic, you sure seem obsessed with it.

Two more concepts you don't understand...the list is growing.

[DKW 86 7,441]

Tex sees meaningful and factual discussion as a bad thing... For someone with no opinion on this topic, you sure seem obsessed with it.

Two more concepts you don't understand...the list is growing.

Ahhh but you Sir have the non-answer answer in perfect form for the 2008 election I see.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

Never mind that there are literally billions in grant dollars being offered for people who PROVE global warming. So we're not exactly talking about the forces of purity versus the soiled hands of the energy industry.

Who are the forces offering billions in grants to prove global warming? I'm interested in that, too.

Otter, I'm sincerely interested in any information you have about who is funding scientists to prove global warming.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

Never mind that there are literally billions in grant dollars being offered for people who PROVE global warming. So we're not exactly talking about the forces of purity versus the soiled hands of the energy industry.

Who are the forces offering billions in grants to prove global warming? I'm interested in that, too.

Otter, I'm sincerely interested in any information you have about who is funding scientists to prove global warming.

Otter, at this point I guess it is reasonable to take your silence as an admission that you were engaging in a little hyperbole and don't really have this information, fair enough?