Global Warming? Irvine becoming shorefront property? read on...

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
ps99472_IHB

ps99472_IHB

New member
<p>Interesting article on yahoo...</p>

<p><a href="http://finance.yahoo.com/real-estate/article/103077/Will-Warming-Curb-the-Appeal-of-Your-Home">http://finance.yahoo.com/real-estate/article/103077/Will-Warming-Curb-the-Appeal-of-Your-Home</a>?</p>

<p>It talks about global warming (or as Bush likes to call it, "Global Climate Change") and how ocean front property can go underwater if drastic measures are not done. It also links to this website</p>

<p><a href="http://www.climateappraisal.com">www.climateappraisal.com</a></p>

<p>which lets you get a free report about your home.. (you have to pay for the better report though). </p>

<p>So maybe those condos on jamboree will become "oceanfront" in 50 years. i should buy some now...</p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>
 
<p>To all concerned, this is most well written and informative blogs I've come across... Thank you. </p>

<p>The posters I've come to know on this and other blogs are generally very bright and insightful, yet I am amazed how many are drinking the Kool-aid when it comes to the topic of global warming. The blinders have been removed concerning real estate, but are still firmly in place in regards to this topic.</p>

<p>First of all, I'm not going to deny the planet is warming. This planet has been going through alternate cycles of warming and cooling for billions of years (think ice ages), and I seriously doubt the cycle has stopped just because we want it to. We are currently coming out of an ice age, which means we are warming up. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. I for one am glad the glacier that carved out the Yosemite Valley melted away, otherwise one of the most beautiful places on earth would still be waiting to be discovered. A warming climate will have a significant impact in various parts of the world. Some places will become a desert, while others will become more temperate. These changes won't happen overnight, they need to be measured on a geologic time scale of thousands, if not millions of years. The point is, all of this has been going on well before humans existed, and will continue well after we are all gone.</p>

<p>What all the talking heads are hoping for is that if they say it enough times, sheeple will believe it. They cannot accurately predict what the weather will be next week, but they can say without a doubt what will happen in the next hundred years (?). A few others things they would have us believe:</p>

<p> </p>
 
<p>Sorry, just found out hitting the tab key is a bad thing...</p>

<p>Others things:</p>

<p>* <em>It's different this time </em>volcanos pump out more CO2 than people, but we'll ignore that.</p>

<p>* <em>Hydrogen fuel cells are the answer </em>Water vapor is the number one greenhouse gas, I see a problem here.</p>

<p>* <em>We can fix it </em>They can't get the A/C in my office building to work right, but cooling the planet - No Problem!</p>

<p>* <em>CO2 levels have never been higher </em>False. There is also no proven correlation between CO2 levels and world wide temperatures. </p>

<p>I could go on, but who am I? The information for forming an intelligent opinion is out there. Research it. We don't blindly accept information handed out by the real estate industry, nor should we accept it from any other organization with an agenda. If you aren't simply parroting something you heard on TV and disagree with me, great, we can have an interesting discussion. If you believe society needs to make changes, ok, but lets honestly discuss what is needed rather than trying to lead me to a predetermined conclusion with a lie. Perhaps sheeple <em>Can't Handle the Truth</em>, but I've come to expect better from the thoughts and minds I see here.</p>
 
Suzanne's Ex,





I thought the global warming discussion was beyond debates about science? I think you may be drinking the kool-aid from those on the far right who do not want to do anything about the problem.





Think about it. Why would 99% of the scientific community conspire to create a nonsense problem? What do they have to gain? The real problem is that reducing our greenhouse gas emissions is going to be expensive, and those business interests which do not want to pay the price, continue to fight the battle. Personally, I don't want to pay the price either, but the cost of ignoring the problem will likely be much, much higher.
 
<p>It's fascinating how many people see such strong parallels between this issue and the housing bubble. Time and time again it seems like a vigorous global warming debate comes up in housing blog forums. I wonder why exactly that is...</p>

<p>Suzanne's Ex, I personaly have looked into the issue some and become a global warming believer. Of course there is a lot of stupid hyperbole about global warmings effects (like Al Gore implying that Manhatten will be underwater within a few decades) but even when you ignore the exaggerations and scare-mongering, there does seem to be <em>something</em> to it.</p>

<p>Remember the first time you saw <a href="http://www.winterspeak.com/uploaded_images/21real.graphic-761533.gif">Shiller's index of real U.S. home prices since 1890</a>? I had a similar "aha" moment when I saw the graph below.


</p>

<p><img alt="" src="http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/images/co2-temp.gif" /></p>

<p>Unless that graph is inaccurate in some way, it seems like it kind of destroys your first and fourth points. It <em>is</em> different this time (CO2 off the charts) and there <em>is</em> a rather striking correlation between CO2 and temp. In 400,000 years of ice samples, C02 fluctuated between approx 200 and 300 PPM. Now it is at 383 and projections say that if we continue business as usual it could get past 500 this century. So whatever is happening (and I admit there is still a lot of doubt about the specifics) it cannot be written off as normal or part of the natural cycles. It is <strong>unprecidented</strong> and even if it ultimately is not disasterous it sure as hell seems to be worth paying attention to.</p>

<p>And oh, landing a man on the moon and returning him safely home is a lot harder than fixing the AC in your office too, but they managed to pull that off once the political will existed.</p>
 
IrvineRenter.....


<em>


Think about it. Why would 99% of the scientific community conspire to create a nonsense problem?





</em>Your information here is quite skewed. In actuality, trust me I know I used to work on global warming projects at GE, for every scientist that says "their is a global warming problem" their is another saying that "their is no scientific evidence showing such."





IMPO I think the reason why their is such a hoopla over Global Warming are from the likes of the left and radical individuals like Al Gore playing on everyone's fears, think about he uses more energy in a month at his TN mansion then you and I do in a yr. The left has always believed bigger govt makes things better and makes them more and more relevant. Have you ever contemplated how much more money it would cost to monitor carbon credits and the likes? Setting different levels of emissions is useless b/c we could never monitor each and every business to ensure they are meeting their obligations right now, for instance look at the governing bodies of publically traded companies and how much fraud takes place.





I believe CO2 emissions are bad for the earth and I believe as the ONLY Super Power on the Earth we should support efforts to reduce these emissions. However it has to be through technology, jointly developed by corporate America and the American Govt. That is why you have companies like GE working on Clean Burning Coal, GM and Toyota working on different Hybrids, or American Universities looking at ways to store and transport Hydrogen....which my alma-mater has found an extremely cool why through aluminum pellates. With advancement in Technology you will never be able to reduce emissions to levels that not only will heed-off global warming but that are sustainable.
 
<p>If we have a worldwide nasty prolonged recession, then everyone will cut back on oil use, taking the bus after their cars are repo'd, piling on the blankets and turning off the heat, and buying less goods, so it'll all be good. Global warming may be out of the headlines as our #1 problem, but it's getting solved.</p>

<p>As the dolphins say, don't worry, be happy </p>
 
<p><em>Why would 99% of the scientific community conspire to create a nonsense problem?</em></p>

<p>Relevance of what they do, articles in the press, government funding.</p>
 
Again, people who believe that the scientific community would conspire together solely for the sake of getting publicity or grant money are the same ones who believe that JFK was shot by 2 or 3 people, or that microwaving food is bad for you.



Scientists are well known to be backstabbing, jealous, and type A competitive sorts who would like nothing more than to upstage each other by proving someone else wrong. You can't get that many scientists to agree on something unless the evidence is bulletproof. Now, I'm not saying bulletproof evidence is never wrong, however, to claim that scientists are doing it as a conspiracy to get more grant money is ridiculous.
 
We are NOT coming out of an ice age. We are going back into one. The peak was about 7000 years ago. Actually this is already the longest interglacial, probably due to human forest burning, which has kept the CO2 level a bit high. The current industrial release is quite a bit more. More CO2 means the planet loses less heat, just like a blanket. For the CO2 we've put out not to increase the temperature by several degrees would require repealing the laws of physics.



An irony of global warming is that in 2000 years or so when this Co2 all gets resorbed our descendents will be very upset that we used up all the fossil carbon, leaving them with no easy way to stop the ice age coming back.
 
<p>The whole global warming climate change garbage that has had the media in a frenzy that past 2 years is just that---garbage. We should all do our part to minimize our impact I agree, but this end of times talk is just nonsense.</p>

<p>Listen people, we live on a freaking giant rock that floats around a giant ball of burning gas 93 million miles away. The giant rock is mostly MOLTEN LAVA which lucky happens to be crusted over the majority of the time. At anytime the sun can have a massive sunstorm and blow out all of our electronics. We are microscopic in universal terms. The California wildfires last year put out the same amount of carbon as ALL the cars in the state of california emit in ONE year! Do you know what the number one cause of pollution is in CA? It's cow poop. That's right, not people or cars. Cow farts.</p>

<p>I think we should all watch our consumption, and start to recycle everything we can. There simply is no reason why we don't recycle more than we do right now. So much is wasted. But spending millions and millions of tax-payer dollars to try and stop global climate change is a sin, and reveals how ego-centric people are. A large kraktoa like volcanic eruption can occur tomorrow and throw us into another ice age.</p>
 
LM



Don't forget about the Massive Super Tsunami from the Canary Islands in Africa that could wipe out the entire eastern US seaboard.
 
<p>HAHA.</p>

<p>I watched shows about that. The island is divided down the center by an enormous faultline. Scientists believe it is one strong earthquake/volcanic eruption away from splitting. The western half of the island would collapse into the sea, displacing billions of tons of sea water. They estimated the size of the tsunami that would hit the east coast of the US to be over 1,000 feet high. </p>

<p>Eeewwwww....</p>
 
<p>IR, I know you're old enough to remember when scientists, media, and governments were warning about a new Ice Age back in the 70's. Well, they were either wrong then, or they are wrong now, but it can't be both. The change in view alone should be setting your bullshit detector off like a siren.</p>

<p>The current concensus of scientists is that the Earth's temperature is rising. Based on cherry-picked sets of data, they extrapolate a conclusion after running that data through a series of models. The first problem with that approach is that they don't have a long enough timeline of samples, measurements, or recordings to get more then a very generalized trendline so they bootstrap their results with core samples of ice, earth, and fossil records. The second problem is that they don't have enough computing power to set up a statistical universe that can provide anything more than vague results. GIGO still applies, regardless of one's intentions.</p>

<p>Is the globe warming? Maybe. Does it mean the end of life on this planet or just the human race? I doubt either of those results will occur. I'm not recommending we find ways to reduce smog, prevent pollution, save the rivers, etc. But to deny that the planet's climate may be changing independent of any actions we may or may not take, or to insist that we are the ONLY cause, seems naive. With clearly documented changes being recorded by natural events that have a proven global effect on weather, events that dwarf the total pollution from of all mankind's existence, and with a MSM that operates on a "If it bleeds, it leads" paradigm, and with a strong suspicion that we aren't as smart as we think we are, I am going to skip running around like Chicken Little and focus on not dumping oil in Salmon streams. Call me when they have to add more landfill to Balboa Island and maybe then I'll believe the sea levels are rising.</p>
 
Science is not an opinion - it is fact. Yes, there is some uncertainty but we should not pretend to have a good understanding of all the complexities that are involved with climate change to flat out deny the human impact. I'd rather listen to the scientific consensus than the few who believe it is a conspiracy.
 
Nude, scientists were not warning of an imminent ice age in the '70s. The view then was that we were sinking back into an ice age and should be there in a few thousand more years. Human-induced CO2 emissions were thought to possibly offset or override this for a few centuries. Time magazine (alert - not the Nobel committee!) published an article on this in the 70's and a there's a lot of wishful thinking that that was a scientific consensus by people who really, really want to pretend blankets don't make you warmer for selfish ideological or financial reasons. But it was just a speculative article by a not-particularly well-informed science writer. Nothing more.



Since then we've gotten a lot more data. The data is NOT cherry-picked. Not at all. Exxon and such set up astroturf sites to raise objections like "heat islands" when they were actually addressed and resolved before the data was even collected. They have a lot of money depending on people realizing what's going on as late as possible.



I don't understand the idea that "it's OK, there will still be a human race". Yes, there will be. There would have been one if communism had taken over the globe too. But if Greenland and West Antartica melt - which they did partly in the last interglacial, which we're already likely to surpass in temps - a LOT of wonderful things, and just ordinary habitations for billions of people, will be destroyed. For starters, New Orleans, Miami, Houston, D.C., Venice, London, St. Petersburg, Shanghai, Bangkok, Calcutta, Mumbai, the Netherlands, Bangladesh, the Nile Delta, the Mekong Delta, EVERY port on the planet, most coastal airports, virtually every coastal resort, and on and on forever. What are people proposing to do with the billions of refugees? A lot of people object to a few million immigrants in the US now - how do you feel about a hundred million Bangladeshis? (India sure won't have room for them) Do people not care about the destruction of innumerable cities across the globe full of history and beauty?
 
<p>Actually termites produce more noxious harmful gasses than cow farts, tho the cow farts are in there, doing their part!</p>

<p>My scientist hub tells me global warming is for real, and nearly all scientists agree.</p>

<p>Not all big changes to the earth happen slowly, at least by geologic standards.</p>
 
<p>Re : <em>Why would 99% of the scientific community conspire to create a nonsense problem?</em></p>

<p>The question should be</p>

<p>Why would a politician with ties to oil companies have an incentive to make the public believe it is a nonsense problem? What financial incentive could there be to deny global warming might be occuring?</p>

<p>Hmm... </p>

<p>Just too cynical after reading "The China Study" (<a href="http://www.amazon.com/China-Study-Comprehensive-Nutrition-Implications/dp/1932100660/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201285666&sr=8-1">http://www.amazon.com/China-Study-Comprehensive-Nutrition-Implications/dp/1932100660/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201285666&sr=8-1</a>) and the accounts of how the food & drug industry set dietary guidelines. Makes me suspect this goes on in all kinds of "scientific" fields ...</p>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top