How climate change is already affecting us

If you have tried to purchase a vacation home on Galveston Island in recent years, you may have discovered the crazy new insurance rules that are changing the real estate game. If the property you are purchasing did not survive Ike undamaged, you may find that your insurance bill rivals the cost of your mortgage.

That’s because most of the island is uninsurable on the private market. It turns out that insurance companies are too stupid to understand what every Tea Partier instinctively knows – that global warming is a hoax. Thanks to a century of rising sea levels behind us and accelerating sea level rise ahead of us, insurance rates even with substantial intervention by the State of Texas are skyrocketing.

Portions of Galveston unprotected by the seawall were already projected to be underwater in coming decades based on estimates issued a few years ago. News this week about the Antarctic ice sheet is going to further darken the picture. You may not believe in climate change, but if you believe in homeowners insurance and you want to own coastal property, a warming planet is already affecting your bank account and those impacts are going to grow more severe very soon.

The State of Texas effectively nationalized homeowners insurance for coastal residents several years ago under the umbrella of the old Texas Windstorm Insurance Association. Socialism appears to be bad for everyone except those who want to own vacation homes. That agency is functionally insolvent. Instead of funding claims through premiums and investments, it must fund claims through bond issues. The state-run “insurance” that coastal residents depend on is funded collectively and backed by the state. Private insurers will not deliver coverage at anything approaching an affordable level.

How much longer will the state’s taxpayers and insurance holders continue to subsidize coastal development that ignores climate change and rising sea levels? The science on the question is unsettled.

Chris Ladd is a Texan living in the Chicago area. He has been involved in grassroots Republican politics for most of his life. He was a Republican precinct committeeman in suburban Chicago until he resigned from the party and his position after the 2016 Republican Convention. He can be reached at gopliferchicago at gmail dot com.

Tagged with: , , , , , ,
Posted in Climate Change
168 comments on “How climate change is already affecting us
  1. I was wondering if you ever thought of changing the page layout of your site?

    Its very well written; I love what youve got to say.
    But maybe you could a little more in the way of content
    so people could connect with it better. Youve got an awful lot of text for only having one or 2 pictures.

    Maybe you could space it out better?

  2. Tuttabella says:

    I was just reading an article by George Will about the consequences of the War on Poverty, which Lifer has also wriiten about, and I was thinking that Lifer is the better writer, does a better job of expressing similar ideas, and/or takes a more thoughtful approach to the topic.

    Seriously, I would think that paid journalists eventually run out of things to say, or submit articles just to fulfull a commitment.

  3. Chris, you seem to be conflating relative rise in sea level due to subsidence with absolute sea level rise due to melting of continental ice caps. The two are not the same, and while the former is eating our lunch on the Gulf Coast, the effects of the latter are barely measurable (at least to date).

    Subsidence all along the Gulf Coast is a natural phenomenon. We inhabit a passive continental margin; there are no tectonic forces to speak of at work. Sediments deposited throughout the Quaternary are slowly compacting in the subsurface; this leads to natural subsidence. Although we have problems with subsidence here, the problem is far more serious along the Louisiana coast.

    In times past beach country along the Texas Gulf Coast was replenished by long shore drift from the Mississippi delta. (As buried sediments are compacted, new sediment is introduced by longshore drift, maintaining a delicate stasis in relative sea level.) However, extensive human management of the Mississippi river (thank you, Army Corps of Engineers) has resulted in a situation where sediments that were formerly deposited all throughout the Mississippi Delta are now dumped directly into the Mississippi Canyon, and end up as abyssal turbidite deposits on the Mississippi fan. No more sediment replenishment for the Gulf Coast via longshore drift. Bummer.

    We have in effect traded seasonal flooding in the Mississippi river basin for inexorable subsidence throughout the Gulf Coast. I leave it to you to discern which is more problematic. In any event, sea level rise associated with global warming has next to nothing to do with the problem.

    BTW, efforts are afoot to replenish Mississippi sediment supply by better managing the river. If you want to help, rather than just kvetch, see Restoring the Mississippi delta will benefit the Texas Gulf Coast, too.

  4. rightonrush says:

    🎣 Gone Fishing 🎣 Ya’ll have a great weekend.

  5. tuttabellamia says:

    Turtles wrote: “The impact of climate change will disheartening for those wanting vacation homes I am more worried about how our nation’s bread basket is being affected.”
    I just noticed this post of Turtle’s, which should serve as a reminder that Galveston has its full-time residents. It’s not just for vacation homes.

    • Turtles Run says:

      Yes, but they can move but our nation’s food production land cannot.

      • Tuttabella says:

        True, but it’s more of a hardship to move when it’s your only residence, as opposed to your vacation home.

      • DanMan says:

        we have so much food we burn it in our cars

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Most beach homes are year rounder’s. Turtles hasn’t a clue. Plus, DanMan said it best. We grow so much food we send it oversea’s and burn it a fuel.

  6. DanMan says:

    hey rucas, how’s the climate in Chicago today?

  7. way2gosassy says:

    Does anyone here remember gas rationing, blackouts and 3 Mile Island? How about 2 recessions in 1 decade? It reminded me of a time when Republican policies were developed with the protection of the public in mind. Renewable energy programs started as an answer to the oil embargo by OPEC in the early 1970’s by Republicans.

    • CaptSternn says:

      I was only a kid back then, but I do remember it. The U.S, oil industry really stepped up and started producing. But then Carter and the democrats came along and put a windfall profit tax on them because they were making too much money in their eyes. The industry crashed after that.

      It is coming back now in spite of the effortsd of Obama and democrats.

      • way2gosassy says:

        Wrong, the crash occurred because of a glut of oil on the market due to overproduction causing prices to drop like a rock.

      • DanMan says:

        OPEC jacking with output on the international market Way.

    • DanMan says:

      I’m reminded of the kid in the back of the crowd jumping up, waving frantically “Hey!! what about me!!!”

      way to go Way2go

    • CaptSternn says:

      Good link, what the alarmists don;t want anybody to know.

      • DanMan says:

        I like how Steyn takes Mann’s partner Gibson’s data and converts the temperatures to Fahrenheit from Celsius and reduces the climate temperature impacts by 50%. Then converts them again to Kelvin and the data reveals 1% changes.

        And the comparison of Penn St. glossing over Sandusky the same way they glossed over Mann is spot on.

    • kabuzz61 says:

      When it became a political football, they sold out for the most part.

    • Owl of Bellaire says:

      Why, look! It’s the whining of a Canadian-born American political commentator, who left school at age 18 to work as a disk-jockey and then music/film critic, and who often fills in for Rush Limbaugh on that steadily declining radio show.

      And why is he whining? Because he’s on the so-far-losing end of a defamation lawsuit brought by professional scientist Michael Mann (AB UC Berkeley, applied mathematics and physics (with honors); MS & MPhil Yale, physics; PhD Yale, geology and geophysics; full professor at the University of Virginia and then Pennsylvania State University, where he was made a “distinguished professor”, an honor restricted to fewer than 10% of full professors in the faculty). Oh, Mann’s dissertation won Yale’s prize for “an outstanding dissertation in the earth science”. His research has won awards from the Institute for Scientific Information, NOAA, the Association of American Geographers, the American Geophysical Union, the European Geosciences Union, and the National Center for Science Education. He was named by *Scientific American* magazine as one of fifty “leading visionaries in science and technology”.

      Mann’s lawsuit is against those who publicly accused him of “deception” and “engaging in data manipulation”, that he was “the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data”, and that his research presentations are “fraudulent”.

      You’re betting on the wrong horse, Sternn.

      • DanMan says:

        if you read the article the trial hasn’t started and Steyn is eager to get Mann in court and beat him like he beat Canada’s free speech police. I’m glad we have such warriors on our side.

        sez Steyn, “Mann’s Climate Cult depends on credulous rubes and fawning groupies, and he’s running low.”

        and since the article is dated today, you can tell Mark Steyn is really afraid of Michael Mann.

      • fiftyohm says:

        The “Political Correctness Police” and those who support them up here are truly a disgusting lot. They objected to Steyn’s article in Macleans entitled, “The Future Belongs to Islam”. I’d suggest anyone wishing to have an informed opinion on the topic read it.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        This has nothing to do with “political correctness”.

        It has to do with deciding that maybe the word of a high-school graduate with a background in music criticism is not actually worth all that much compared to the work of a professional scientist with multiple degrees and awards, whose research is supported by some 97% of the scientific community.

        But modern conservatives *do* seem to support people based on what is convenient rather than on what is correct. Sometimes that ends up biting them in the behind, as with the Bundy case and so many others. That’s what you get when your view of reality is based on confirming your own prejudices rather than on appreciating the real world.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Telling that Owl cannot address the claims made, he can only attack the source. Looks like Steyn is onto something.

      • DanMan says:

        Ms Owl is no doubt distressed by the 67% increase in temps since she woke up this morning.

        Chillax Owl, convert it to Fahrenheit and its only 32%.

        Funny thing is I’m wearing the same short sleeve shirt I left the house in.

      • Crogged says:

        The lack of fear from Steyn may stem from a good homeowners insurance policy. I don’t think there’s a ‘political correctness’ angle to this lawsuit, it’s not a reach for a scientist to believe the words he ‘molested and tortured data’ are defamatory because his work is peer reviewed.

      • fiftyohm says:

        Owl- I was commenting on the Political Correctness Police in Canada. But-

        Notwithstanding Steyn’s educational credentials, he’s done pretty well for himself at the art of rhetoric, not just as indicated from book sales, but accolades from the likes of Hitchens and Amis. (There are a couple of intellectual lightweights, for ya.) Not bad for a high school dropout, I’d say. Frankly, after some string of career accomplishments, formal education from years ago is irrelevant. Agree with Steyn or don’t. But criticizing the substance of his message based strictly his formal education is really the last resort of a snob.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Twice this week we see the liberals elitist snobbery come out. Earlier it came from GG now owly. And yet he doesn’t prescribe the same limits on his expertise on GW. How about that?

      • fiftyohm says:

        Buzz- Snobbery is no monopoly of the Left. Sometimes we all say things that either just come out wrong, or are interpreted by others differently than what we intended. I’m certain I’ve written stuff that might have sounded snobby – but I don’t think I’m a snob, and I don’t think Owl is either. We’ve ‘known’ each other long enough to know that was not in insult.

        Now you do too.

      • DanMan says:

        hmmm, maybe the anger just makes her seem snobby but perhaps its just anger

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        If Steyn is as stupid as Sternn (which is fun to say), then there’s every chance he can write glittering political commentary full of just the right talking points to be gobbled up by the conservative hoi polloi, and which need never be checked against actual reality (as political commentary, whether from the left or right, never seems to be).

        Scientists, however, deal with an entirely different world: that of objective reality and scientific review. If they say something wrong, they *are* found wanting by any of legions of eager disagreers (which is also fun to say). And so to be compared to Jerry Sandusky and charged with widespread falsehood by someone with no relevant education, either formal or autonomous, who gleefully inhabits a world where apparently words mean nothing and are merely used for entertainment, seems very much grounds for a defamation suit.

        And that suit is going very well so far, by the way, even in its earliest stages. I look forward to Steyn and any institution which hosts him going the way of the White Power and Christian Identity movements after the Southern Poverty Law Center got through with them.

  8. John Galt says:

    The resort to hysteria and apocalyptic warnings has been a tactical mistake on behalf of primarily environmental groups trying to combat global warming. These are easy to mock but even for those taking them seriously, the problem seems so dire that dealing with it would be impossible. Unfortunately, they have found allies in some scientists who like the limelight and are willing to endorse worst-case scenarios. This makes it easy to dismiss their claims as exaggerations or assign other selfish motives to them. High profile, but scientifically minor, misconduct like the East Anglia study, reinforce this perception in those who want to find reasons to disbelieve. In contrast, the two articles in “Science” (one of the two most prestigious journals) this week on the Thwaites glacier were sober and methodical even if the reporting about them was occasionally not. Climate scientists would be better served in concentrating on publishing unimpeachable science and developing solidly grounded and achievable policy prescriptions.

    • CaptSternn says:

      making progress, John. The problem with the people that believe in AGW are all Chicken Littles. And their usual solution only applies to the leading economies and paying off poor countries with money confiscate from those leading economies. But, even as the alarmists have admitted, the climate will keep warming even if we stopped all human activity and emissions.

      In other news,

      Get used to it, nature is not static and never has been.

      • John Galt says:

        Bullshit. First, nature changes over hundreds, thousands and millions of year, not a couple of decades. The change seen now is either because we’re better at measuring it in the present than in the past or some other effect. Nobody has proposed a natural cause for these rapid changes backed by evidence. But we are belching 30+ billion tons per year (and yes, that is the right number) of CO2 into the atmosphere, so that might be a cause. For some sense of scale, 30 billion tons of pure CO2 would cover the state of Texas to a depth of about 8 feet. Per year.

        I also did not claim that scientists should not warn of consequences, just that they should do so with solid science and achievable policy prescriptions, rather than hysterical doomsday scenarios. The Antarctic glacier collapse is a case in point. The data solidly supports this conclusion and the consequence is an eventual 3-4 foot rise in sea levels as a result of this alone over the next 100+ years. Their (unspoken) conclusion is that Miami better start building some seawalls. That aspects of change are already in motion and unlikely to reverse is not a reason to act to head off other currently preventable changes.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Nature can change faster than that, like the glaciers over North America melting, coming from the MWP to the LIA and now we are coming out of the LIA. There is no solid science backing AGW just as there was no solid science claiming the glaciers would once again cover North America by the year 2000.

        Other scientists have put the amount of CO2 emissions from human activity at a tenth of what you claim. Even Owl’s link doesn’t back your claim.

      • objv says:

        JG: Are you planning on trading in your Beamer in for a Prius plug-in hybrid anytime soon? Just curious. At what point do we all start making changes in our behavior to account for our convictions on climate change.

        I plan on buying a more fuel efficient car in the future. My husband’s old BMW car is garaged for the most part and he rides his motorcycle to work. (I, personally, am more concerned about pollution in general.)

      • CaptSternn says:

        There is another sdtory on the Chronicle today as well, Texas is in the worst drought in 500 years. So what were humans doing 500 years ago to cause the drought, John?

      • John Galt says:

        Nope, not planning on trading in either of our cars (both of which get crappy gas mileage, at least the way I drive them) on hybrids, though I expect I will own some sort of hybrid/electric at some point. My wife and I drive less than 10,000 miles per year total and we are very aggressive with energy efficiency at home. I’ve contemplated solar panels in the roof, but am not ready for that yet. This causes us no undue burden, saves us some money, and uses much less energy than the average American. It’s not hard unless you absolutely refuse to change in any way your behavior, even if changing would have measurable benefits to you today.

      • fiftyohm says:

        Well, for one thing, I’m not “sure” of anything related to the economy or the climate. Nor should anyone else be, regardless of their profession. In the case of the debt, (a substantially simpler problem, I think), any recovery of the world’s major economies beyond that of ours, has the potential of being very bad news, for all the reasons I’ve opined.

        To the climate, the time frames to which you refer are very short. Now, to be fair, huge damage could be caused to human society in a period pretty much undetectable in the fossil record. My observations were only to suggest that the planetary feedback mechanisms must be either very weak, or have a very long time constant (or phase lag), to allow the magnitude of change we seem to be observing. These factors are not well addressed in the literature.

        I have also opined that efforts by the West to reduce our output of CO2 are entirely futile, absent some sort of global buy-in that is not on anyone’s horizon. I make no qualification on that point. I also think there’s a hole in our understanding of planetary feedback mechanisms regarding CO2 concentrations big enough to drive about a thousand nuclear power plants through.

      • John Galt says:

        I don’t disagree that we lack a full understanding of the interplay between human emissions, global CO2 pools and temperature, but I will suggest that absolutely nothing in the data today is reassuring. Nothing says we can continue to pollute with impunity. Maybe we can, maybe the planet’s ecosystem is more resilient to our ability to support 7 billion people than is apparent, but the downside is pretty ugly. I think the balance of the data supports some hard thinking about how we can pollute less. I’m not generally accused of being an optimist, but I think we can do so without even a modest reduction in our standard of living and, in doing so, we can provide an example, technology, and a moral compass for other countries. Why do I think this?

        The energy intensity of our economy has dropped by more than 50% in the last 40 years. As renewable sources continue to grow, this means that the units of fossil fuels burned per unit of GDP is plummeting. Every single thing you use today does more with less energy than it did a few years ago.

        My house is one of these. Last month I used 1,000 kWh for a 4,000 sq.ft. house. It cost $100 and our electric bill has never exceeded $250. We have programmed thermostats, a lot of CFLs, and energy efficient appliances, but we do not scrimp. We just replaced old windows and expect an even greater savings. We live exactly how we want and pay less for it.

        I think CAFE standards are a terrible way to improve gas mileage, but did you ever think you’d see commercials for heavy duty pickups advertising their fuel economy? And that it would be in the 20s? Some people may not like electric cars, but Elon Musk cannot make them fast enough.

        Pollution controls to deal with sulfur emissions responsible for acid rain were going to kill our economy 25 years ago, except they didn’t. Gradually raising carbon taxes won’t kill us either.

        China has real motivation to reduce their own pollution and energy intensity (and they are doing it), since they are slowly buying Australia while facing protests from their own people, and nothing focuses Chinese leaders’ minds like popular protests. India will go broke if they don’t.

        There are so many other reasons, but the bottom line is that I think common sense policies designed by scientists and engineers, rather than French foreign ministers, can get us where we need to go without much change in living standards. And, keep in mind, our living standards are going to change, whether that means smaller cars or evacuating New Orleans.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        I had all new insulation installed in my attic. Replace the soffits to get better air flow through the attic. Had a radiant barrier applied. Installed an attic zippered envelope. New double pane windows and French doors in the back. My other two doors were installed a few years ago and are solid wood. High efficiency A/C, dishwasher and washer have been installed. Our savings over the last year have been tremendous.

        Again, I will echo Tutt’s sentiment. We should all do what we can do in our little world.

      • CaptSternn says:

        This brings up one basic issue that the alarmists either refuse to accept, don’t understand or just use outright lies, that if somebody doesn’t buy into AGW we want to pollute like China and have no regulations. That if we are not all-out socialists, we want anarchy. Or as Lifer put it, if we don’t buy into AGW we deny that the climate ever changes.

        This is just not the case at all. I love nature, have been a hunter, a Boy Scout, gone on vacations with my parents, do what I can to keep my energy use low at home and many other things. I want to preserve nature and keep it clean.

        There are reasonable regulations, then there are unreasonable regulations, then there are proposals of the alarmists like the Kyoto Treaty. That treaty really sums up the whole alarmist agenda.

      • John Galt says:

        Interesting you should make that comparison, Sternn, because there are plenty of people out there who are interested and motivated in doing small things, like Kabuzz posted, that conserve energy. Not everyone who thinks AGW is a problem wants us to go back to the 1700s.

      • fiftyohm says:

        Since we’re comparing our carbon footprints, here’s mine:

        The Houston house thermostat is now set to 87 degrees. We heat the house up here primarily with wood (deadfall) from our own land. We drive the Jeep less than 10K miles a year, and get around (mostly) up here on a motorcycle that gets ~50 MPG. Our outboard is a 5 HP 4-stroke Honda. We never gratuitously leave lights on. We wear long sleeves in the winter, and shorts in the summer. Is any of this hard? Not really, save for the wood splitting, (which Mrs. Ohm has taken a fancy to!)

        Why do we live as we do? Because we hate to waste money. It’s by and large economic thing. And that’s what I’ve been talking about…

        Yes, the energy intensity of our economy has fallen substantially. Our energy usage as a nation continues to drop, even in the face of increasing production and an improving standard of living. And mercy, mercy me! All of his has happened without a “Carbon Tax”! This has occurred without much, (and in spite of some), government regulation, taxation of other meddling in the market. How is this possible?

        Efficient markets hate waste. (That is, after all, why we call them efficient.) Markets behave in much the same manner as those of us who use less energy than the average bear. We’re ‘cheap’. So are markets. To paraphrase a neoclassic movie, “Markets find a way.”

        So – you wanna be ‘green’? Like Tutt and so many others here, be cheap. Don’t waste stuff. Turn the lights off. Avoid unnecessary driving. Repair rather than replace, if possible. But most of all, mind your own business. Don’t preach. Keep your hands out of others pockets. And if you’re a smelly, bicycle-riding, Birkenstock-wearing, do-nothing, Greenie activist-type please just shut the hell up. You are unnecessary.

      • DanMan says:

        I echo the comments of making our house cheap to operate. Built in the 50’s and upgraded to modern efficiencies. Here’s a little tip that my serve some well. You can get a mini-split high efficiency a/c unit that can run on 120 or 240 with minimal wattage that depending on size will cool from 600sf to 1,500sf for between $700 to $1,100. I bought one of the smaller ones that had all the components pre-charged with Freon and installed it myself for under $800 total.

        Next time we lose power for 16 days like what happened with Ike we’ll be ready. And the little things aren’t much noisier than a ceiling fan. We still have a high efficiency 5-ton when needed but it typically is set to run for only a few hours in the early evening during the summer. Once we retreat to the bedroom suite in the back that little unit takes over.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Sternn whines, “[T]he alarmists… use outright lies, that if somebody doesn’t buy into AGW we want to pollute like China and have no regulations. That if we are not all-out socialists, we want anarchy. Or as Lifer put it, if we don’t buy into AGW we deny that the climate ever changes.”

        Would that be something like claiming that anyone opposed to you hates liberty and the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution?

        Gosh, Sternn. Perhaps what’s sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander.

        Why don’t you serve as a model for the civility you apparently desire by not flinging outrageous lies at others, first?

      • DanMan says:

        The Scowl of Bellaire is very grumpy today isn’t she? Must be the beautiful climate. I mean weather.

    • DanMan says:

      ackkk!! rucas!!!11!! one’s getting away!

    • fiftyohm says:

      JG- Stability in natural systems requires feedback. This is because of variability in both sources and sinks of constituent materials. For example, were I to increase my salt consumption by say, 10%, I would observe substantially less than a 10% change in my body’s sodium concentration, let alone a continuous increase in concentration. As you are intimately aware, biochemical examples of this type are virtually endless. Virtually all stable physical systems contain similar mechanisms.

      For any system to be stable over long periods of time, the feedback mechanism must have a capacity higher than the variability of the sources and sinks. In the case4 of the atmosphere, we understand to a reasonable degree the sources and sinks of CO2. We also have reasonable data on the stability of its concentration. This indicates that the system, insofar as the feedback mechanism is concerned, must be fairly robust.

      Here is the conjecture, understanding full well neither of us are atmospheric scientists: It strikes me that given the calculated influx of CO2 from anthropic sources, the amount of CO2 involved in the natural cycle, and the variance of natural sources and sinks, the conclusion that substantial planetary warming as a result of human CO2 contributions alone suggests a very weak feedback mechanism. The conclusion pretty much requires an assumption that the planetary climate has been in very tenuous balance since well before the time of man. This conjecture is at adds with the observation above suggesting robust feedback.

      The two conclusions cannot be simultaneously true.

      • DanMan says:

        yeah, what he said

      • CaptSternn says:

        Dan, that is my sentiment as well. But it is because Fifty makes an argument that I agree with, that makes sense to me.

        And that is what this whole “climate change” issue comes down to, finding arguments and scientists and numbersn that make sense to the side one takes. There is no solid proof that human activity is causing or accelerating or “influencing” climate change. If there was, there would be no argument about it, just a discussion over what to do about it.

        The claim that there is a “concensus” is bogus since we doubters of AGW can find plenty of scientists that disagree with AGW. The numbers that John claims are shown to be wrong even by those that support the idea of AGW. Then, as the left often claims and complains about the Koch brothers, follow the money.

        They attack scientists that are skilled enough to find private sector jobs, we attack those that are unskilled enough but pandering enough to get government grants from the UN (yes, that was a biased statement, and true).

        If the alarmists had solid proof, they would present it and the argument would be over. They don’t and they can’t and it isn’t.

      • John Galt says:

        Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased 25% in a few decades. The rate of this increase has steepened in the last 20 years. This suggests that environmental sinks may be becoming saturated. What might those be? The oceans are a good starting point and they are becoming more acidic, only by 0.1-0.2 pH units, but this is consistent with absorption of CO2. You’re right that I am not an atmospheric scientist, but I am a biologist and am familiar with the robustness of natural systems. They can absorb an awful lot, until they can’t.

        Evidence is that the climate has always been in flux and it always will be. We are not going to denude the earth of life. But we have built a fairly complex society that is perhaps not as robust as we think. A comet ended 200 million years of reptiles by lowering the temperature by a few degrees. I’d rather not put ourselves to the opposite test. We’d probably pass, but not before the expenditure of more treasure than it would cost to largely abate the problem to begin with.

        I believe you have commented on the potential hard landing of our budgetary and debt issues. Surely a hard landing is conceivable here. If you think the signs are that we are on that path with debt, despite the utter lack of macroeconomic evidence to support it (given that US interest rates are essentially 0), how could you think that we are not on that path for climate change, given the substantial amount of evidence in temperatures, CO2 levels, ocean acidity, ice melt?

      • fiftyohm says:

        JG- Sorry. See above. I posted in the wrong spot, as has become the norm…

      • Crogged says:

        Fitty, this is well thought out, but let’s look at some premises here. For one you posit, ‘stable over long periods of time’. How long is long, there are periods of extreme climate change even in recent history. There was a momentary great cooling back in the 19th century after the eruption of Krakatoa put reflective volcanic ash in the atmosphere. In addition there was the extinction event I linked to previously when it was thought the sea surface temperature went as high as 104 degrees. Again, the how of such event could have been another similar volcanic event (the massive caldera in Siberia) but other conjecture went to the proliferation of a methane producing bacteria. And why wouldn’t it follow that the CO2 mechanism has been a tenuous balance, given that not every cool down or heating can be explained by relative levels of CO2?

      • fiftyohm says:

        Hey crogged- There are indeed other atmospheric constituents that affect planetary temperatures. But the past to which I was in reference was much more recent than any of the ‘big five’ extinction events. We have no good way to estimate with any accuracy atmospheric CO2 from periods that long ago. The CO2 debate is centered around data from the last few million years or so. The entire conception of AGW is that humans are, by perturbing (slightly) the carbon cycle, screwing up the planetary climate that has been stable for millennia. Without that assertion, there really is no ‘debate’..

        As you know, I’m somewhat agnostic on the subject. I’m just asking questions that my decidedly non-expert mind comes up with.

  9. rightonrush says:

    Speaking of Galveston, I still cannot understand why they located a bio terrorism lab on the island.

    Welcome to Galveston National Laboratory

    “Within this state-of-the-art facility, an extraordinary group of scientists are engaged in efforts to translate research ideas into products aimed at controlling emerging infectious diseases and defending our society against bioterrorism. The GNL is a national resource that complements and enhances UTMB’s decades of prominence in biomedical research – as well as provides a world renowned resource for training researchers in infectious diseases.

    As one of two National Biocontainment Laboratories constructed with funding awarded in October 2003 by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases/National Institutes of Health (NIAID/NIH), the GNL provides much needed research space and specialized research capabilities to develop therapies, vaccines, and diagnostic tests for naturally occurring emerging diseases such as SARS, West Nile encephalitis and avian influenza – as well as for microbes that might be employed by terrorists. Products likely to emerge from research and investigations within the GNL include novel diagnostic assays, improved therapeutics and treatment models, and preventative measures such as vaccines.”

    • kabuzz61 says:

      Self destruct mechanism’s within the lab.

    • John Galt says:

      Why was it built there? Political connections and influence combined with legitimate expertise by UTMB scientists in the worst “Hot Zone” infectious agents. As I understand it, safety protocols require that work in the BSL-4 (the highest containment level) stop whenever a hurricane enters the Gulf. The lab is well above ground and has its own power supply. I have been told, though I’m not sure if it’s true, that a prolonged power disruption (measured in minutes, not days) will trigger activation of a modified sprinkler system that will flood the lab with bleach, which kills everything.

  10. kabuzz61 says:

    I owned a beach house in Bolivar. Fortunately for my wife and I we sold the year before Ike hit. My beach friends thought I was nuts to sell, but as all the beach owners know, it is a very risky investment. Now to point out Chris’ errors.

    Only homeowners that carry a mortgage are made to provide insurance. All the homes paid for (and there are many) do not carry wind and storm or flood, they would rather take out a low interest loan if needed. Secondly, my flood and storm policy cost me $2200.00 per month. Hardly a give-a-way not counting that I never used it. Thirdly, the Gulf Coast eroded because the Army Corp of Engineers did not finish their work in the late fifties. They dredged out Rollover Pass to raise saline levels in the intra coastal waterway. They were also supposed to put in dykes angled out on the ocean side so Rollover doesn’t act like a funnel with the currents. The Mississippi river silt runs our way and with it the currents. (thus the brown water) So since the 50’s, the beaches have been slowly eroding. A super storm just accelerates the process. So, I guess in this case human’s are responsible to the erosion.

    As far as human’s causing some or most of the global warming, I just don’t see it. Chris, you need a new shtick.

    • DanMan says:

      awesome timing Kabuzz. A buddy of mine’s family beach house on Bolivar had about two steps left after Ike. He bought out everybody’s interest (such that it was) and a neighbor’s lot and quickly built a new one. Now the regulators are limiting new development where the old places were and he’s sitting pretty with a nice view.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        I know DanMan. Just dumb luck.

        I have some family and friends that had lost it all. One of which was a year rounder, which means that was their primary home. Between insurances and the State of Texas wanting to by the owners out, they made out pretty good with the money.

        Thank God I took many video’s of my time there. When I bought the property I owned from Hwy 87 to the beach. 100’X300′. When I sold it was 100’X200′. Mother natures a bitch.

    • gstahl says:

      How can you say that one hundred plus years of constant pollution (Think industrial revolution for one) and urbanification and unprecedented population growth wouldn’t have a massive impact on the environment?

      • CaptSternn says:

        Now we are back to this, the climate changes, humans exist, therefore humans are responsible for the climate change. But in reality we are miniscule and irrelevant.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        “But in reality we are miniscule and irrelevant.”

        Now who’s projecting?

      • DanMan says:

        oh my! the irony is magnanimous

  11. Juarez says:

    Chris, At this point, don’t you think it’s dishonest to say that Tea-Partiers/rightwingers/etc. don’t believe in global warming/climate change? The debate is over how much of the cause is anthropogenic, and how much is natural; as well as what, if anything, we can do about it.

    Even your liberal faithful on this blog understand how this debate should be framed.

    If you’re going to mock Tea-Partiers, at least be accurate in your assessment of their stance on an issue.

    • kabuzz61 says:

      He can’t help himself taking cheap shots. It’s his character.

    • Crogged says:

      So a US Senator saying that NONE of it is anthropogenic means what?

      • Juarez says:

        Crogged: It means that he believes climate change is not caused by humans. It doesn’t mean that he doesn’t believe the climate is changing. So let the debate begin there. Is it us or nature?

        But Chris is saying that Tea-Partiers/rightwingers don’t believe the climate is changing. Why can’t people see the difference?

      • CaptSternn says:

        “Why can’t people see the difference?”

        They can, but it doesn’t fit in with their agenda.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        The debate seems to be over not so much whether it’s humans OR nature, but to what degree each contributes.

        We seem to agree that humans don’t CONTROL climate change, but INFLUENCE it, but the debate is over the DEGREE of influence humans have.

        I would agree in general that humans “influence” climate change and should curtail some activities in their own corner of the world, but I question the depiction of global warming reaching crisis status.

        I tend to be skeptical of media hype, in which certain trendy topics garner a lot of attention. It used to be about the ozone layer and acid rain. Now global warming and wealth inequality are all the rage.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        “We seem to agree that humans don’t CONTROL climate change, but INFLUENCE it.”

        Your cretinous boyfriend seems to deny even that.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Actually, Owl, he does agree humans influence climate change, just not to a significant degree. That’s where you guys differ. From his 9:01 post from this morning:

        Our “influence” on it was summed up quite well by HT, as in having all the people of China urinate into the ocean influences sea levels. Yes, it does, but not in any real or serious amount.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        So, if a gorgeous woman dressed provocatively brushed by Sternn at a party, but he failed to give her even a cursory glance, we would say she had “influenced” him?

        I think you’re simply doing violence to the word in an attempt to defend him.

      • CaptSternn says:

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        I’m generally on Owl’s side of things, but even I don’t know what that comment means.

        Plus, we all know Tutt and Stern are unlikely to be at many parties.

        Certainly, the degree of influence is the issue, with the closely related issue of whether we can actually do much about it.

        While certainly no climatologist, I’m willing to get at least a little bit concerned about some small-ish degrees of influence. We talk about the relatively small percentage of gases that are greenhouse gases and the small changes in this temperature versus that temperature.

        I don’t think anyone is arguing that humans push the effects from A all the way to Z and the world blows up.

        However, if really bad things start happening when we go from A to K, and the Earth’s normal climate changes only get us to J and K once every few millions years, I’m willing to explore what we can do to keep human activity from nudging us a couple letters closer K and having those bad things happen more often.

        Would those things be cost prohibitive or even remotely possible in a global economic environment? That is a very good question.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Or how about – If a gorgeous woman dressed provocatively at a party pees in Dan’s swimming pool and there’s no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?

      • DanMan says:

        depends on whether she is in the water or on the deck

      • objv says:

        Tutt: I feel I can answer your question since I am a gorgeous woman, who has dressed provocatively at parties, and I will confess to having peed in the ocean (but never a swimming pool). I can assuredly tell you that a woman peeing in water makes no discernible sound whether or not anyone else is around. 🙂

        That said, I would never brush provocatively against Cap or go pee-pee in Dan’s pool.

        (Yes, the cat is back.)

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Sigh. If you “influence” something, you have a measurable effect. “Influence peddlers” aren’t supposed to get money in order to accomplish nothing.

        All the pee in China (so to speak) won’t make a meaningful difference in the level of the oceans. So there is no “influence” there.

        As I said, Tuttabella is doing violence to the word in an attempt to justify Sternn’s know-nothingism.

      • DanMan says:

        owls yakking up casings make a heck of a racket though…see what I mean?

      • objv says:

        Owl: I decided to look up the word influence. Influence does not necessarily have to be measurable.

        “the power or capacity of causing an effect in indirect or intangible ways”

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Ironically, what with all the talk of peeing into bodies of water (all the pee in China — good one, Owl), the word “influence” originates from “flow in,” “influx,” etc.

        I vehemently deny doing “violence” to any words. Influence is still influence, no matter how minor.

      • CaptSternn says:

        OV, you know those on the left like to make up their own definitions on the fly. Facts and reality have no place in their world.

      • objv says:

        Tutabella: You have been a good influence on me.

        Dan: What is the proper etiquette for when Owl passes pellets? A simple “Gesundheit” doesn’t seem near enough.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Thanks, OV. The “influence” is mutual. But where is the cat?

        Speaking of words and violence, I once took an online IQ test and was labeled a “word warrior.”

      • DanMan says:

        not sure objv, it’s like when a dem cleans his ear and eats the treasure in public. I just look the other way.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        objv, if something causes an effect, then it must be measurable, yes? Otherwise how can you tell there *was* an effect?

        Honestly, sometimes you guys are so eager to bring the snark that you leave your brains behind.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        OV, according to the definition you posted, it’s the influence that is immeasurable, not the effect.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        We are arguing over whether the EFFECT or RESULT is measurable, not the cause or influence.

      • objv says:

        Owl wrote: Sigh. If you “influence” something, you have a measurable effect. “Influence peddlers” aren’t supposed to get money in order to accomplish nothing.

        Tutt and Owl, the definition I posted was only one of several possible meanings in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Since influence is is often used in a social context, the effect of influence is often difficult or impossible to measure.

        Take my example of Tutt being a good influence on me. How is that measurable?

        Influence plays a part in peer pressure, fashion, art, opinion, identification and internalization, and compliance. Since the term is so often used to describe a psychological effect, measurement is problematic, difficult or not possible at all.

        When using the word “influence,” it is not necessary for either the effect or the actual influence to be measurable. Of course, in many instances influence or its effect can be measured – and, yes, Tutt that is what we are discussing here. 🙂

      • Tuttabella says:

        OV, I would think in this case, since we are talking about climate change, the influence and effect are PHYSICAL and should therefore be measurable.

        Now, I consider something to be measurable even if it is minor or almost nonexistent. I guess the question would be — is the effect (or influence) SIGNIFICANT?

      • DanMan says:

        Tutt, are you actually demanding quantifiable data? like facts? to measure climate impacts?

        Perish the concept. There are legions of scientists working at the IPCC that only allow peer reviewed projections based on…continued funding.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Actually, Dan, I would say that in this instance I am engaged in word parsing. 🙂

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Dan, since you bring up funding, is it measurable?

      • DanMan says:

        yeah, it’s about infinity to the power of infinity so far but I hear they’re getting closer to confirming their conclusions so there’s that

  12. Turtles Run says:

    The impact of climate change will disheartening for those wanting vacation homes I am more worried about how our nation’s bread basket is being affected. Soil erosion from the dramatic shifts from drought and heavy rains is eroding the top soil levels in Iowa.

    Soil erosion rates in the state of Iowa are depleting faster than can be replaced. Despite claims (made by our tea sipping friends) that a longer warming season will benefit farmers, in the long run farmland needs winters to replenish itself. Increased soil erosion and decreased soil replenishment times is not a good combination.

    • DanMan says:

      did the rucas posse get an e-mail telling you to denigrate a philosophy last night? You guys are hilarious with your rote denunciations of responsible governance.

    • rightonrush says:

      We practice no-til farming on the farm in Ky. Saves the soil from being eroded and keeps the moisture in.

    • way2gosassy says:

      One of the reasons we decided to move to Tennessee was because the combination of our homeowners insurance and property taxes are more than my principal and interest payments. My insurance premiums skyrocket after every storm that hits anywhere on the Gulf coast whether I have any damage or not.

  13. DanMan says:

    Easy solution to your insurance angst. Get the g’ment out of it.

    Used to be FEMA provided low interest loans to rebuild. That encouraged responsibility. Now FEMA provides jackpots to people in flood zones by subsidizing their insurance. There are people in the Cypress Creek watershed here that have remodeled several times with FEMA’s assistance.

    You shaking your fist at the sky over Tea Party minded folk is so Harry Reid.

    • Crogged says:

      And it’s the lobby of welfare moms with vacation homes which prevents this from happening.

    • Crogged says:

      Did I say ‘welfare mothers’– I meant ‘real estate developers, Texas homeowners and vacation property owners’, which couldn’t possibly include any responsible Tea Party carrying members-could it?

  14. CaptSternn says:

    Again, the climate changes. It is always changing. Nature is not static. Maybe these people that claim climate change is controlled by human activity, those that believe nature should be static, also refuse to believe in evolution? It basically amounts to the same thing. Human beings simply cannot control the weather or the global climate. Our “influence” on it was summed up quite well by HT, as in having all the people of China urinate into the ocean influences sea levels. Yes, it does, but not in any real or serious amount.

    People building houses on the beach should either not be insured, or pay enough in premiums for insurance companies to remain profitable. The state shouldn’t be involved at all.

    • Turtles Run says:

      Cappy – As you have been told before numerous times. No one is claiming that humans control the planet’s climate. We do however are influencing it. Influence does not mean the same thing as control. But I guess when right wingers cannot argue against the actual evidence before them it is easier to make up falsehoods and argue against those.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Yes, we influence it about as much as HT’s exaple. Did you even read what I posted? Other than that, you haven’t come up with any “actual evidence”.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        There’s plenty of evidence. You’ve had it pointed out to you, both specifically and in general. You just refuse to read it or believe it, because you’ve already made your mind up to believe what you *want* to believe, and can’t imagine disrupting your shallow intellectual comfort by actually having to change your mind and admit there’s a problem.

      • CaptSternn says:

        You’re projecting, Owl. But please, show us some of this evidence … other than the claim that the climate changes, humans exist, therefore humans cause it.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        I’m not going to take the time to engage in a Lost Cause with you, Sternn. The information is out there, in abundant amounts and formats.

        Read some science. Open your mind. Learn some logic. Overcome your prejudices.

        Oh, fine. Here’s an introduction to the topic, from a long-respected scientific institution:

      • CaptSternn says:

        Ok Owl, I looked at your link. Even if we go by those numbers, the amount of CO2 released by humans, somewhere atound 5 billion tons per year currently, it still pales in comparison to the over 200 billion tons that nature releases per year. CO2 is also a minor greenhouse gas as water vapor makes up 95% or more of the greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Human contribution in miniscule, like peeing into the ocean “influencing” sea levels. Try reading some science.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Maybe Tutt needs to continue reading the articles to you after your endurance peters out.

        Third paragraph of :

        “Human beings are causing the release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere at rates much faster than the earth can cycle them. Fossil fuels – oil, coal, natural gas, and their derivatives – were formed through the compression of organic (once living) material for millions of years, yet billions of tons of these fuels are now being burned per year. The CO2 expelled into the atmosphere through these activities will remain in the atmosphere on the order of decades to centuries. This means that the CO2 emitted today will likely be affecting the climate for generations.”

      • CaptSternn says:

        And the amount we contribute pales compared to what nature contributes. CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, Owl. What part of the science of that do you not grasp?

      • CaptSternn says:

        By the way, Owl, you just completely debunked John Galt’s claim of 30 billion tons per year. Maybe you guys should get on a conference call and get your “facts” straight before shreeding each others arguments?

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Maybe if I quote *just* the first sentence of that paragraph, it won’t look so scary and you’ll actually read it:

        “Human beings are causing the release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere at rates much faster than the earth can cycle them.”

        Let’s pretend you’re a box-packer; you could probably just about handle that. Let’s assume, for laughs, that you’re an *amazing* box-packer, and can pack 100 boxes per hour while going flat-out for an entire business day.

        Now let’s assume that I start giving you an extra box every hour. That’s really not much, right? I’m giving you 101 boxes every hour instead of 100. But you were already going flat-out, so all you can pack is 100 boxes per hour, not 101. At the end of the workday there are eight extra boxes sitting on your counter. At the end of the work week there are 40. After a month there are 150-160. And after a year you’ve got a couple thousand extra boxes sitting around that you haven’t been able to handle.

        Now, we can’t fire the natural mechanism of the carbon cycle. Scientists have thought about “helping” them with efforts like “carbon sequestration”, but it’s both experimental and expensive.

        Wouldn’t it be easier if I just stopped loading you up with that extra box in the first place?

      • CaptSternn says:

        Meanwhile nature is throwing a billion boxes in per hour. Is that simple enough for you now?

      • CaptSternn says:

        Oh, and don’t exhale. That would be throwing more at the system than nature can handle according to your “logic”.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        You’re right, Sternn: that figure is less than JohnGalt’s statement of 30 billion tons per year. However, multiple other sites (see, unlike you, I do research!) corroborate a figure of 24-30 billion tons of CO2 worldwide, which leads me to suspect that Woods Hole has merely done a sloppy job and written “humans” when they should have written “humans in the U.S.”, because then the math works out (see, unlike you, I think!).

        5.5 billion tons of CO2 per year out of 30 or so is about 18%; and, sure enough, people in the U.S. do indeed emit about 1/6 of the world’s excess CO2 output while making up only about 1/22 of the world’s population. Do you see why we might be the objects of some scorn?

      • CaptSternn says:

        In other words, the alarmists can’t get their “facts” straight. Just come up with whatever sounds good at the moment.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Sternn, I understand that your idiocy, rather than being congenital, is self-caused. So you really can try better.

        The issue is not the RELATIVE AMOUNTS. The question is the EXCESS which the natural carbon cycle cannot handle.

        The world has had animals running around and breathing for eons, and plants transpiring before the animals arrived. It’s had rivers and oceans and lakes evaporating for even longer than that. What it hasn’t had is human burning billions of tons of carbon sequestered from millions of years ago all in the course of a mere century or two. The cycle can’t handle the EXCESS.

        That’s why I told the story of the box-packer, and of how a small excess can start adding up into a large problem.

        Are you deliberately misunderstanding my story, or are you really that much of a cretin?

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Sternn, I don’t know why I wasted time on you. You’re an ass.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Termits alone have more of an impact that all of human activity. We are really insignificant in the grand scheme of things. All this al;armism is nothing mkore than a wealth redistribution scam. Follow the money.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        And that’s the line pushed by the conservative id (which is not short for “idiot” but might as well be, in this case). “Someone is trying to get my stuff!”

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        “As you can see in Figure 1, natural land and ocean carbon remains roughly in balance and have done so for a long time – and we know this because we can measure historic levels of CO2 in the atmosphere both directly (in ice cores) and indirectly (through proxies).

        “But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).

        “Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.”

      • John Galt says:

        Sternn, you clearly have not one shred of a clue about science. Why don’t you just say, “I don’t believe it” and leave it at that.

        The link Owl posted gave the release of CO2 as “8.7 billion tons of carbon per year” in 2008. CO2 is two atoms of oxygen and one of carbon and its molecular mass is 44 daltons, of which 12 (or 27%) is carbon. 8.7 billion tons is 27% of, yes, you guessed it, 32 billion tons. So this number and the one I gave are perfectly in agreement, which is not surprising, since I actually know some science.

        Water vapor is an important part of the greenhouse effect, but the amount of water vapor in the air is generally proportional to temperature. Warming that results from other emissions, like CO2, results in more water vapor, which then induces further warming. It becomes a positive feedback cycle. In this case, the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations by 25% in only 50 years plays an important role and there are no natural processes beyond volcanic eruptions (which have not been particularly active in the last half century) to cause a change this large and this quick.

      • CaptSternn says:

        I see the numbers are all over the place again. No, the climate is warming becuase we just came of of the Little Ice Age back in the late 1800s. Wonder if we will get as warm as the Medieval Warm Period that existed before it cooled and went into the Little Ice Age?

      • John Galt says:

        We’re well past the medieval warm period temps, Sternn. From the baseline before the MWP, it took 400 years for the temperature to rise 0.3°C, maxing out between 1000-1100 AD. Then is gradually declined over 600 years by about 0.7°C. It has subsequently came back to the baseline, but over the last 50 years has increased by almost 1.0°C. So we’re well above the MWP temps now. You can hope this is a temporary anomaly, but there’s not really any precedent in climate science for this large a change this quickly.

      • CaptSternn says:

        I highly doubt those number you are claiming, John. Especially considering how much effort the alarmists have put into trying to erase the MWP.

      • DanMan says:

        isn’t it funny how the rucas posse can do math til the cows come home when it comes to junk science but don’t believe any numbers when it comes to budgets and spending?

      • John Galt says:

        Doubt them all you like, Sternn.

        Isn’t it funny how conservatives can do math til the cows come home when it comes to budgets and spending but don’t believe any numbers when it comes to science?

      • Crogged says:

        The only evidence we have regarding reading budget numbers indicate you also don’t want to understand those ………..

    • desperado says:

      Stern is a true environmentalist. I can tell by the recycled comments.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Now THAT was clever.

      • Turtles Run says:

        Desp – please know I just ruined my keyboard by spitting up my hot chocolate (no coffee for me) all over it from laffing so hard.

      • DanMan says:

        your low threshold for amusement is reflected in the depth of your comments Turtlehead

      • Turtles Run says:

        Coming from you that is a compliment.

      • CaptSternn says:

        It was kind of clever, could also apply to Lifer’s entries.

      • Tuttabella says:

        I always appreciate a good turn of phrase.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Saw it in the book “One Thousand One Liners”.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        A recycled one-liner? Is there no originality left in the world?

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        “Is there no originality left in the world?”

        I’m pretty sure I’ve heard that complaint before.

      • DanMan says:

        Will of you climate chaos peddlers tell us what we did to wake up to 49 degrees in Houston this morning? Whatever it was we need to do more. That record goes back to 1890.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Weather is at a different scale, and far more chaotic, than climate.


      • CaptSternn says:

        That’s what people tried to tell Al Gore and the rest of the alarmists, Owl.

      • DanMan says:

        Okay, so weather is more chaotic than climate, yet we adapt to the dramatic changes in weather every day. Why can’t we adapt to the climate?

        In my case, I am actually having to heat my pool to cope with this wonderfully cool weather. The mist rising off it this morning was beautiful!

      • tuttabellamia says:


      • DanMan says:

        wonder why he didn’t answer? prolly rummaging through wiki or scienceskeptic looking for something to say

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Dan — Because I’ve used up my daily allotment of time-wasting on asinine twits who don’t accept evidence anyway.

      • DanMan says:

        ran up against reality again did you?

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Would that would happen to you more often.

      • DanMan says:

        Since I live there I guess you’re inviting me to get outside of it like you are.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 455 other subscribers
%d bloggers like this: