http://www.abc.net.au/ mediawatch/ transcripts/ s1869891.htm

It’s a myth perpetrated by sloppy journalism that continues today despite being debunked.

The insurance industry has understood global warming for years.

http://www.nebraska.tv/ Global/ story.asp?S=10658917&nav=menu605_2

In fact you might argue that hope is ultimately based on reality.

The reality is that we are in the process of a tipping action (all though you might not accept this) which is ultimately going to result in a much hostile planet for life here on Earth.

A great extinction was well underway even before the dangers of CC were distilled. Human civilization will not survive even the first rise of 2 – 3 degrees that is in the pipeline.

Hopefully, we will evolve after this event in to a planet and specie more successful at surviving and flourishing.

Without minimizing the problems that will cause for TX, OK, SoCal, etc, at least the water is still on the same continent. After all, the only reason Los Angeles exists as it does is that it gets water from the Colorado and Northern California.

On the other hand, Perth (Western Australia) is a lovely city, but already dry, and is far away from any place that might get more water, and far away from other population centers (1300 miles from Adelaide, 1700 from Melbourne). They already have opened one desalination plant … but such don’t go very far for agriculture.

Its already-minimal water will tend to fall in the Southern Ocean. See Figure 4 of that PNAS article…

Unfortunately, if there’s a first-world metropolitan area that will end up seriously downsizing due to climate change, it may well be Perth.

We humans were probably already causing an extinction event due to habitat loss, and this is adding greatly to it. I know somebody who is heavily involved in open space protection for wildlife. He told me that all that land they set aside to protect wildlife will be useless to most of the wildlife since they will need to move, so they are focusing on migration corridors. Because land this is good for particular species now probably won’t be good for those same species pretty soon.

And lastly, some of our Congress members need to fly in some of those Australian farmers to testify in Congress about that head-in-the-sand attitude. The LA Times article doesn’t seem to have a comments section, but we know that denialists are about to start spouting about alarmism in the LA Times (as well as NG). I wouldn’t be surprised if a few of those farmers were denying it just a few years ago. Nothing like hearing from the recently converted – who have seen how brutal adaptation can be.

Southwest Texas is currently experiencing its worst drought in fifty years. If you thought it was a desert already, you’ve obviously never had produce from the Rio Grande Valley — or, more likely, you did and weren’t aware of it.

I do believe the water wars (speaking proverbially) will start in Texas, not California.

No one here, that I can see, has “scared themselves into a panic.” But some of us are acutely aware of what is happening to the climate and that the best science has consistently underestimated the rate of climate change – so taking the upper bounds of SLR or global temperature or ice-free Arctic is not being “hysterical”. Those of us who understand these things are rightly concerned. We are the “clear-thinking people”.

I’m not sure what the point of this was: “Okay guys ease up a bit, global warming will be terrible for many living species, but it’s not going to extinguish all life.”

So, as long as there’s some algae and a few insects clinging to existence, that’s OK? I wonder, how many species are you happy to see eradicated before you think you’ve done enough of “easing up”?

Stick around, read, follow the science and you may gain the sense of urgency that the rest of us have.

The nasty detail here, of course, is that the US is a greatest consumer of oil and the first or second (depending on whose numbers you believe) emitter of CO2. And in America, there are few things the masses like more than to cook up conspiracy theories or invent other excuses for ignoring the inconvenient messages from experts. This anti-intellectual streak, coupled with a rugged individualism/central government is always wrong or evil mindset, puts many Americans beyond the reach of logic and fact. They’d rather listen to Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck and “be left alone” than listen to James Hansen and the IPCC and (gasp!) the guvmint and have to make “tough choices” (which for the most part aren’t tough at all).

This is why I’ve said repeatedly that there is no such thing as “the one big event that will wake up Americans”. Name it–Houston or Miami or NYC devastated by a cat 5+ storm, Australia devastated by climate chaos, the disappearance of glaciers in some parts of the world leading to drinking water shortages, etc.–and a sizable segment of the US population won’t be concerned about anything other than who won last week’s NASCAR event or the price on the next model of iPod.

Having said all that: Joe, keep it up! Lots of us will keep fighting this fight for the sake of your daughter and my nieces and the middle school kids I’ve presented to and all the others we’ll hand off this planet to in time. But at times it’s hard not to feel like the man trying to smash a boulder with a big pile of glass hammers…

Learning about the consequences of climate change is a very painful process. I don’t see how anyone who takes the time to consider the science and note the empirical evidence can come away complacent. Sure, whether you are a trained scientist or a back-yard gardener like me, the entire potential loss of human civilization is a terrifying prospect, and likely to induce moments of panic and dread.

That doesn’t preclude thoughtful soul-searching and positive action, however. I don’t think anyone would bother to read Joe’s blog or comment if they had utterly given up any shred of hope that we can, at least to a degree, turn this Titanic around.