Ski areas face big challenges in globally warmer world, study says
By Bill Scanlon, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published December 15, 2008 at 10:28 a.m.
Updated December 15, 2008 at 11:36 a.m.
Photo by Agence Zoom/Getty
Sarka Zahrobska of Cze takes 1st place as she skis during the Women's Slalom in Aspen, Colorado.
Colorado's ski areas will have to carve runs higher up the mountains and triple their snowmaking if they are to co-exist with global warming over the coming decades, a new study says.
That extra snowmaking will require a lot more water at a time when it is very expensive to buy senior water rights, says the study presented today to the American Geophysical Union conference in San Francisco. And it would have to come from a distance away, because any diversion close by would harm wildlife habitats.
Gondolas will have to be revamped — to take skiers from skimpy snow at the bottom of the mountain high up to where there is a permanent snowpack.
Aspen Mountain's snowpack line — the elevation at which winter-season snowpack can be assured — will be 2,400 vertical feet higher up by the end of the century.
"Ski resort operators are really scrambling," co-author Mark Williams, a geography professor at the University of Colorado, said. "The bottom line is that in order to survive, these ski areas will need to find the necessary water wherever they can and hold it in storage to satisfy future snowmaking needs."
One sliver of good news is that Aspen Mountain looks like it will fare quite a bit better than Park City, Utah, which could have no snowpack at all at its base by the end of the century.
Williams and co-author Brian Lazar of Boulder took detailed looks at Aspen Mountain and Park City, but said their findings on Aspen would apply to most ski areas in Colorado, as well.
The length of the ski seasons will be squeezed on the fall and spring shoulders, because of delayed snowpack and early melting seasons, the paper said.
More winter precipitation will come in the form of rain.
The problem of needing so much extra water for snowmaking is complicated, but potentially solvable, said Williams and Lazar, who is with Stratus Consulting Inc. of Boulder.
Colorado ski resorts should take a lesson from the Alps, where some resorts have built pumping stations from high-elevation lakes to reuse the water.
They are moving water from basin to basin over long distances and storing it at high elevations to meet future snowmaking needs.
Ski areas in the Rockies could generate their own hydropower by pumping water into and out of narrow, deep artificial lakes and small dams. Both would be be lined with plastic to cut down on evaporation during summers.
"It would be a win-win situation," Williams said. "The ski areas could recover some of their costs incurred from purchasing expensive water rights," as well as provide their own hydropower to help run the resorts.
The authors painted a future scenario for the two ski areas — for the years 2030, 2075 and 2100. And they looked at three projections — optimistic, in which there is an immediate reduction in CO2 emissions worldwide; mid-line, in which the reduction comes a little slower; and business-as-usual, in which there is no reduction in total emissions.
Unhappily, the past five years, total worldwide carbon-dioxide emissions have exceeded even the pessimistic business-as-usual models.
The business-as-usual scenario will cause average temperatures to rise by about 4 degrees in Aspen by the time today's toddlers have graduated from college, Williams said.
The new study was sponsored by Aspen Mountain and the Park City Mountain Resort said Lazar. Two nonprofits — the Aspen Global Change Institute and the Park City Foundation — are working with the ski areas to better understand environmental climate change.
"Ski industry officials know that warming is real, and that small changes in climate have substantial effects on ski areas," said Williams, also a fellow at CU-Boulder's Institute of Arctic and Alpine research.
One sliver of good news for Colorado is that its resorts likely won't suffer as dramatically as Park City in Utah, which likely will no snowpack at its base by 2100.
Smaller ski areas in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Oregon, Washington and California's Sierra Nevada, could be forced out of business in the coming decades as air temperatures continue to warm, they said.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
December 15, 2008
10:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Michael writes:
Regardless of where you stand on the issue of global warming(true or biggest hype since Bigfoot and/or man-made or not) I do find it amusing that this article appears today on the coldest day of the 2008-09 winter season so far - and we are technically a week away from the winter solistice.
Also, could they not include a link to this study so people could read it for themselves?
December 15, 2008
10:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Miseslover writes:
GREAT TIMING on this story.
Why is it so hard for global warming zealots to admit that they have no idea what is going on, why it is going on, and what might be causing it?
Any moron could say that if the planet gets warmer, there will be less room for skiing. You don't have to have a degree or even conduct a study to determine that. But having a report with the pretence of future knowledge is absurd. These are probably the same people that projected the 90s boom to last forever.
December 15, 2008
10:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
MattGuyver_007 writes:
Timely report as we set record cold temperatures across the country today. I just read another study which claims we are actually heading towards a global cooling / micro ice-age.
December 15, 2008
10:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Scott writes:
Matt,
Gotta link to the study that you are referencing? I like to keep a "file" of them.
Thanks,
Scott
December 15, 2008
11:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
MattGuyver_007 writes:
Bobbydigi and others compelled to soothsay,
Uneducated, eh? You are naive and blinded by your 'feel good' conversations instead of scientific fact. So 100 years of accurate meteorological records combined with a couple of Al Gore speeches and other greenpeace crap and suddenly you're the voice of reason.
Wrong, changing wind patterns causes the ice caps to melt. As they melt, the moving water corrodes at the remaining ice, speeding up the process. In the past, people have thought the melting of the polar ice caps was due to "global warming". As the ice caps are growing again, we now see that global warming is not the cause and actually a natural cycle in itself.
December 15, 2008
11:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
danirobi writes:
Globally warmer world? IT'S -13 IN DENVER RIGHT NOW!!!! Global Warming? HA!
December 15, 2008
11:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
MattGuyver_007 writes:
Scott,
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/...
December 15, 2008
11:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
Scott writes:
Hey bobbydigital! This is from some of the "idiot" and "uneducated" masses: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cf...
Yet more "idiot" and "uneducated": http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/edi...
Really a pity when over 400 "idiots" and "uneducated" send a report to the U.S. Senate. Not to mention the "idiot" and "uneducated" that write for the Boston Globe!
You had better grap a napkin and wipe the foam from your mouth!
Scott
December 15, 2008
11:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
Scott writes:
Thanks Matt!
Scott
December 15, 2008
11:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
Elwood writes:
Move the Ski industry to the Alaskan or Canadian Rockies. In 25 years when the warming/cooling cycle has reversed itself, and the alarmists are crying about heading towards an ice-age, they can move the ski industy back here.
December 15, 2008
11:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
inLimbo writes:
Bobbydigital, you are the perfect representation of the arrogance and superiority exhibited by most die-hard believers in man-made global warming. According to you anyone who disagrees with the theory of man-made global warming is an uneducated idiot, to use your terms. What a stupid remark on your part.
If you leave your “faith” aside and look at this issue without preconceptions or bias you will find that the science behind anthropogenic global warming is still quite in question. The media and politicians act like it isn’t, but it is, and a simple search in Google on the subject can prove that out. Before you attack others on the subject perhaps you should alleviate your own ignorance on the issue so you don’t look so silly in calling others names.
December 15, 2008
11:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
The jury is still out on global warming, whether "educated" by bobbydigital's lights or not. We know that CO2 is increasing and average temperatures ought to increase, regardless of today's record cold. The real question is whether we are yet competent to describe the phenomenon, let alone make prescriptions.
But, to make *specific* forecasts like the one reported here is simply silly. The authors' linkage of future Rocky Mountain snow levels with CO2 emissions policy scenarios is truly pseudo science - speculative theology rather than verifiable science.
Global climate models predict ranges of annual average temperatures, they do not predict seasonal future weather and they cannot predict regional climate or future weather. To attempt to extrapolate this level of specificity from a general model is no better than consulting a horoscope or reading the entrails of a goat.
December 15, 2008
noon
Suggest removal
HopiMedicineMan writes:
Googling "global cooling" renders some interesting results.
December 15, 2008
12:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
hikingartist writes:
Michael, Scott, Matt: I would believe the state of the earth before I believe your "data & studies". You see, there are these things called "satellites" that orbit the earth and take pictures of the planet. So while you exchange "data" and "studies" in a world removed from the environment, the glaciers are in fact disappearing and ice caps are receeding.
These same satellites have confirmed that the earth is round and not flat, but I suspect you could provide some "data" to prove otherwise.
December 15, 2008
12:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
ILoveChipotle writes:
hikingartist - don't "satellites" provide "data" for you to make this "conclusion"?
December 15, 2008
12:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Scott writes:
O.K. hikingartist, how about THIS satellite data?
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/comm...
So where is a link to YOUR satellite data?
Scott
December 15, 2008
12:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
MattGuyver_007 writes:
Hikingartist, take your condescending attitude and easel elsewhere; chump.
December 15, 2008
12:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Michael writes:
Scott - Nice link. Thanks. The silence is deafening.
December 15, 2008
12:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
LOUIE writes:
With all the snow that kept them open long past normal closing last year, with all the snow dumped just recently in the past few days, with more on the way according to the weatherman, global warming is the last thing the slopes have had to worry about. The bad economy is knocking a hole in their bottom line for sure. Maybe Al Gore could be kind enough to come out and experence the global warming first hand and enjoy the over abundance of snow and cold weather we are enjoying because of it! Not that Mt St Helens and other natural elements that blanketed my car with ash here in Denver haven't affected the weather, I think it more a natural cycle and Al Gore doesn't factor these recent volcanic and other natural occuring events in his equation. The earth goes through cycles, Ice Age to today, what caused the climate changes is beyond Al's ability to know for sure. Industrial age of the last 100 years wasn't around when the Ice from the Ice Age receded, but it sure sounds good coming from Al!
December 15, 2008
12:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
jonnyrotten writes:
bobbydig says:
"Any idiot that does not believe in global warming has to be uneducated"
An uneducated idiot like say Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology?
Are you really so full of yourself to think that you "know" the truth about global climate change and anyone who might dare to have another opinion is somehow an uneducated idiot?
FYI try doing a little research (other than watching Al Gore movies) before you start name calling.
December 15, 2008
12:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
LOUIE writes:
I do believe some people are educated beyond their intelligence. If Jimmy Carter can get a Noble Peace Prize for creating an peace agreement between Egypt and Israel, all the while leaving hundreds of Americans at the mercy of Iran for hundreds of days as hostages, I think anything is possible in this day an age.
December 15, 2008
1:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
JluvDC writes:
30 years ago we were all supposed to be preparing to enter a new ice age....so forgive me if I refuse to buy into all the hype about global warming.
That said, it is important to take care of our planet and if this new theory is what motivates people to do it then so be it. But people who don't jump on the global warming bandwagon aren't uneducated idiots...we're skeptics because...well 30 years ago we were supposed to be preparing to enter a new ice age.....
December 15, 2008
1:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Newenergycommie writes:
Someone hasn't been playing attention. It is not called Global Warming because that is too specific a term. It is called Climate Change. Climate Change, a nice non specific term, can cause any number of problems:
Warmer temps but only for already warm places,
Cooler temps but only for already cold places,
Dryer climate but only for already dry area,
Wetter climate but only areas that are already wet.
But rest assumed it will never provide a beneficial change. It seems almost god-like it is ability to smite the unbelievers. It almost sounds like a religion.
December 15, 2008
1:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
tjpatriot writes:
Meanwhile back at the ranch... Didn't I hear the weatherman predicting another foot or so for the mountains in the next day or two?
35 years ago, if you were skiing around Christmastime, chances are you were using your "rock" skis.
Personally, I prefer it being a little warm versus a little cold, but this is just too sweet to see these stories at a time when record cold prevails. Painful as it is, it's worth the extra utility bill.
December 15, 2008
1:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Michael writes:
I do love these two statements from bobbydigital and believe they are very revealing about many who are rabid believers in AGW.
1. "Any idiot that does not believe in global warming has to be uneducated." What this really means is that if you do not believe in what AlGore and the AGW disciples are preaching, you are a blasphemous nonbeliever. It has nothing to do with education and everything to with indoctrination and conversion.
2. "It is the easiest thing to prove." - Really? To whom and by whom? As a Christian I know there is no way I can "prove" that God exists. It is all about faith. The belief in AGW has taken on the same approach. They toss out anecdotal and fringe evidence but they cannot wrap it up with proof. It is more faith than science, and God help you if you not believe!
December 15, 2008
1:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
inLimbo writes:
Hikingartist’s comment is exactly what I ran into a couple of weeks back while discussing this issue on another website. The guy I was arguing with kept calling me a flat-earther…as if my skepticism regarding man-made global warming was the equivalent to believing the earth is flat. I could never get this guy to understand that my skepticism is based on scientific data offered by prominent people in the field. All I got were snide comments or dismissal of my scientific cites because they “have an agenda” (that one killed me…I guess the global warming crowd is agenda free). It appears that that guy and hikingartist are cut from the same cloth. How frustrating it must be to go through life thinking you are smarter and superior to everyone else…I actually feel sorry for those of that type.
December 15, 2008
2:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
twifoi09 writes:
OMG. Do all of you "non-believers" in Climate Change really believe what you are saying, or do you just work as lobbyists for industry interests that benefit from lack of regulations protecting the environment? I find your arguments against Climate Change amusing. The FACTS are that the vast majority of reputable scientists believe that Global Climate Change is fact. Please refer to http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1011
If you are going to ignore or argue against the findings of The US National Academy of Science (and what is your educational and scientific background for doing so?), then I find it plausible that you will try to discredit me any my "opinions". Just don't expect me to waste any more of my time responding to your brand of disinformation.
December 15, 2008
2:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Newenergycommie writes:
Aren't millions without power back east? I wonder how long it would take a 100% renewable power grid to recover from a little ice storm? I can see it now, solar panels at best under several inches of ice at best or crushed by accumulated ice at worst. Wind turbine blades snapping like twigs or rendered usless because of imbalance due to ice load. A coal, gas or nuclear plant would keep on making power regardless of weather. Once the transmission is back the power comes back. Not so with Al Gore's vision of the future. What will this brave new world bring?
December 15, 2008
2:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
twifoi09 writes:
Hey RMN. On what basis did you remove my last posting? Because I dared to post the following link that states that the US National Academy of Sciences states "unequivocably" that Global Climate Change is NOT a hoax.
http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1011
Read the comments above. What I said was not near as "defamatory" as what the "non-believers" in Climate Change say about those of us who simply speak the truth about what Science today knows as FACT. These people are calling your (RMN) article untrue. Maybe you should remove all of their comments instead.
December 15, 2008
2:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Scott writes:
Now THAT'S a web site without any bias, Environmental Defense Fund. GAG, BARF!
Scott
December 15, 2008
2:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Michael writes:
Hank - Excellent point. I would like the AGW believers to respond to that. If the climate change that you predict and are so invested in does come to pass with impacts on humans being quick to arrive in the coming years, just how smart is it to start to eliminate time-tested, works under any conditions, massive supplies avialable, 93% of our power grid runs on it, and affordable coal, natural gas, and nuclear power? What the hell are we going to do if your dire predictions come true and we are left with energy supplies that are unproven, weather-reliant, expensive, and unable to meet the demands of 300 million people?
December 15, 2008
2:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Debunkin8tor writes:
Twitfoi09: Um, your last posting was NOT removed. And CAPITALIZING words does not make them more persuasive. And "daring" to post conventional wisdom is not daring at all. Being a scientist who goes against the conventional wisdom by pointing out facts inconsistent with theories, which many respected scientists have, is.
December 15, 2008
2:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
krvus writes:
Hey twifoi09;
Nice rant. LOL
December 15, 2008
2:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
LOUIE writes:
Hey, TWIFOI09, don't insult the censors, we like staying on his good side; not all of us are as smart and polite as you and he beats us up regularly just to stay in practice! :>)
December 15, 2008
2:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
LOUIE writes:
Besides it's like Pulp Fiction; Mr Boggert only likes to be @#*% by Mrs. Boggert!
December 15, 2008
2:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
twifoi09:
Eighty years ago the National Academy Sciences "unequivocably" supported eugenics. See link:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/...
If the NAS is the infallible authority that you cite, do you yourself support eugenics?
If the NAS has learned from its mistakes and is now immune to such scientific fads, can you tell us when the miracle occured?
Or, is it that you and the NAS agree on this topic and you cite it out of convenience?
December 15, 2008
2:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
krvus writes:
Hey Louie,
You forgot to add sun activity to your list earlier. We are in the midst of sun activity so spectacular that it also has an effect on our cilmate just as the ash from volcanoes that you speak of....
December 15, 2008
2:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Marshdale writes:
You nay sayers may have a point, but the ski areas are listening to the scientists. I only think it is fair to say that the ski areas put more creedence in what the scientists say than what we laymen say for a reason. The scientists know more than we do!!!!
December 15, 2008
2:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
LOUIE writes:
KRVUS, volcanic activity under the ocean, in Alaska and many other places globally have been quite active in this century. I don't think science really can say what the earth cycles are. Holes in the ozone over the poles? Raytheon has been ripping the ozone with microwaves since the late 50's. It was the precursor to HAARP. It sits in Alaska near Goose Bay. Government denies operating it, but do you know for sure? Russia also was trying to pioneer this technology. I believe there are other HAARP site globally.
December 15, 2008
3:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Elwood writes:
The ski areas are looking for grants and bail-outs and are citing Global Warming as the reason they need them, not poor planning and overpayment to executives.
December 15, 2008
3:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
Marshdale,
You're right, the ski areas are prudent to conduct "what if" studies. The prospect of climate change is too serious for them to ignore. I would humbly submit that THIS study is a waste of money.
The problem lies in the application of the three scenarios. What this means in practice is that three different CO2 levels, guesstimates by the authors as to future CO2 emissions according to future policy decisions, are used as parameters in a global climate model (GCM - also known as a general circulation model). The GCM generates average temperature predictions for the target years. The authors then extrapolate future weather from these average temperature predictions.
Because there are opportunities for errors to creep into the calculations at all three steps, it is inevitable that errors will propagate throughout the model. This is true of any essentially statistical scientific or economic numeric model, which is why confidence intervals are so important.
What sets this model apart for particular scorn is that the third step attempts to produce specific information from generalized model results. (The purported power of GCMs is that global data reveals trends that are hidden by the noise of specific, local data.) These authors are attempting to make whipped cream from powdered non-fat milk.
December 15, 2008
3:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
PaleoConservative writes:
Debunkin8tor writes:
"Twitfoi09: Um, your last posting was NOT removed."
We're supposed to accept "scientific" evidence from somebody [Twitfoi09] who doesn't know how to refresh his browser!
December 15, 2008
4:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
jonyutah writes:
For the non-believers why don't we just look at the avg global temperature over the past 100 plus years and then you tell me we aren't seeing a warming trend. See when you put this data against the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere you have a very close correlation. If I'm a betting man I would say let's see what happens if we reduce CO2 output.
So for the flat earthers please explain the fact that temperatures have been rising since the 1950s?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ins...
December 15, 2008
4:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
JluvDC writes:
jonyutah, the problem with looking at the avg global temperature for the last 100-150 years is that 100-150 years is a tiny spec in the life of this planet. It is reckless to say that 100 years worth of data is significant enough to determine anything in terms of whether or not a warming trend is something to be concerned about. Like I said earlier, 30 years ago scientists were predicting that we were entering a new ice age. And as to the ice caps receding...well we've only had satellite data for those regions for 50 years tops! We don't know that this doesn't happen regularly. What we do know is that there have been times on this planet where it was too hot for life, too cold for life, and lots of places in between. Its going to cycle whatever we do. BUT we should still make efforts to take care of the earth and not pollute. Just try not to get worked up into a panic over something that may actually be quite normal.
December 15, 2008
4:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
jonyutah writes:
JluvDC - so you completely discount the CO2 rise with temperature rise. When graphed next to each other it sure seems like a direct correlation. Is that an incredible coincidence? I think not.
I agree that global temperatures will cycle regardless, however, the overwhelming evidence... scientific evidence, points towards man as being a large contributor to the warming. In fact there is no peer reviewed study that says anything besides that man is the major contributor - I would challenge you one that does.
December 15, 2008
5 p.m.
Suggest removal
JluvDC writes:
No, I don't discount the correlation between CO2 rise with temperature rise, but I think that their is too much focus on that which ignores things like sun activity and other things that also might contribute to temperature rise. I don't have time at the moment to look up studies, but I will try to before this thread poofs :)
December 15, 2008
5:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
and that brings us back to that pesky place we always get to with the Deniers....peer review and dissent vs. debate.
the conspiracy theories about global warming being a hoax simply don't pass the smell test as my 8th grade science teacher used to say.
December 15, 2008
5:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
1104 writes:
The 1970's "cooling" is a myth. Please read the following from a recent Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.
The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus.
A paper in the September issue of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society takes a closer look at the myth of the 1970s cooling scientific consensus. According to the paper, climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s.
The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prize–winning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists and modelers grappled with the measurement of changes in carbon dioxide and atmospheric gases, and the changes in climate that might result.
Meanwhile, geologists and paleoclimate researchers tried to understand when Earth slipped into and out of ice ages, and why. An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming.
A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists’ thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth’s climate on
human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise
of modern climate science now rests.
See http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?r...
0477&volume=89&issue=9
or
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?r...
December 15, 2008
5:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
gary writes:
Well wake up and smell the roses jay.
Show us the proof that global warming is caused by man.
What melted off the ice age in the first place.....man burning his fires?
There have been, will be, continued global warming cycles and cooling cycles. Not caused by man, nor controlled by man.
How about the North and South Poles are moving and causing weather change.
Give that a study or two.
December 15, 2008
5:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
jjez writes:
I suggest they invest in boat docks & water skis, at least in Utah. Because when all the ice melts, the water levels are going to rise. No more California or Florida. I'll have to find some nice land somewhere up high and build a fort to keep out all the people moving here because of higher sea levels. In all seriousness, those of us here in our beloved U.S of A can rant and rave and disagree about climate change but we aren't going to be able to do anything about it. We have some of the toughest emissions controls of anywhere in the world. Get China and India to start putting emissions controls on their cars and factories and power plants and THEN maybe there will be some reversal to the amount of carbon and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. But until something can be done about them, there isn't much use in arguing over it!
December 15, 2008
6:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
jonyutah writes:
jjez - what a great argument. let's just stick our head in the sand and not worry about it. other countries are worse than we are. sad... sad... sad...
the thing is as the most powerful country in the world we set an example and we have set a horrible example of the last 8 years - pulling out of the kyoto protocol and pretty much having this administration edit NASA and EPA scientists conclusions to fit their view of how "things really are".
Wake up - science and facts are back.
December 15, 2008
6:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
jonyutah writes:
Gary - you're what people call a ditto head. You regurgitate crap that is fed to you w/o actually researching anything yourself.
Show you the proof that global warming is man made - freaking laughable. Are you wearing your tin hat now?
Sorry, I just get pissed when people spew crap they've just been fed w/o actually looking anything up themselves.
December 15, 2008
7:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
ManginoTorreta writes:
Looks like the Gore Effect has extended its reach to newspapers stories.
"Wake up - science and facts are back."
That science is freezing all over your windshield right now.
December 15, 2008
7:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
jonyutah writes:
Ahh ManginoTorreta - simple minds... simple minds. I suppose ignorance is bliss - isn't it.
December 15, 2008
7:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
ManginoTorreta writes:
"I suppose ignorance is bliss - isn't it."
You seem to have perfected the practice. No go scrape that global warming off your car, it will save you time in the morning.
December 16, 2008
5:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Reason writes:
"Show you the proof that global warming is man made - freaking laughable. Are you wearing your tin hat now?
Sorry, I just get pissed when people spew crap they've just been fed w/o actually looking anything up themselves."
You do know that the burden of proof is typically on the one making the positive assertion, right?
December 16, 2008
7:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
FCZ writes:
"In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct.
Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish."
- Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day 1970