Forget Al Gore's measly 20-foot sea level rise from "An Inconvenient Truth." That's small potatoes compared to the kind of catastrophe Meredith Vieira was talking about last night. Kicking off NBC's Global Alarmism Green Week during the halftime of Sunday Night Football, Vieira raised the spectre of the seas rising . . . 200 feet! Al imagined much of Manhattan under water, but if Meredith's scenario comes true, we're near to talking Manhattan, Kansas By The Sea! [H/t reader Mick L.]
Just one little problem: Meredith's talk of 200 feet exaggerates the increase predicted by scientists by . . . literally hundreds of times.
BOB COSTAS: Where are Matt, Al and Ann this go-around?
MEREDITH VIEIRA: Matt [Lauer] is in Belize, he's off the coast at a place called the Blue Hole. It is the home to some of the most exotic marine life in the world, and all sorts of beautiful coral reefs and they're all being threatened because the water temperatures are rising.
Al [Roker] on the other hand is in Iceland looking at the glaciers which store most of our fresh water. And if they were to melt, the oceans could rise at least 200 feet.
And our intrepid reporter Ann Curry, well she is climbing Mount Kilimanjaro as I speak. She hopes to reach the summit by Friday. The snows of Mount Kilimanjaro are rapidly melting, and that is threatening the people of Tanzania.
Now, it is apparently true that a melting of all the world's glaciers could result in a sea-level rise on the order Vieira mentioned. But by citing the statistic in the context of Green Week, viewers are misled into thinking that man-made factors are threatening such an outcome. Nothing could be further from the truth.
As per the United States Geological Survey:
Climate-related sea-level changes of the last century are very minor compared with the large changes in sea level that occur as climate oscillates between the cold and warm intervals that are part of the Earth's natural cycle of long-term climate change.
The same article mentions that "global sea level was about 125 meters below today's sea level at the last glacial maximum about 20,000 years ago." Virtually none of that rise, of course, can be attributable to man.
So by just how much was Vieira off? According to this study by scientists at the University of Colorado, originally published in Science Express, the "acceleration of glacier melt may cause 0.1 to 0.25 meter of additional sea-level rise by 2100." That translates to a rise of somewhere between 3.9 and 9.82 inches.
In other words, Vieira's 200 feet rise is 244-610 times greater than what scientists predict over the foreseeable future. But hey, what's an exaggeration of a few hundred times among friends, when it's all in the good cause of being green?
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Pathetic...
November 17, 2008 - 08:09 ET by unkeeafI watched this embarrassing display live. I've said this more times than I can count, but these people are really devoid of shame or ethics of any kind.
If she honestly believes what she said, she is either woefully uninformed or clinically stupid. On the other hand, if she knows what she said was wrong, she is beneath contempt and should be fired for cause.
Of course, we know that will never happen because her misleading commentary fits the script.
MSM = PR firm for the Democrat Party
unk... I also say this
November 17, 2008 - 11:38 ET by bigtimerunk...
I also say this bullshite live too as I was just getting settled into another room to watch the second half of the game, it was absolutely outrageous...
I hate to say this, it may just about kill me, but I may just quit watching football or anything else on the channel, I have more than had my fill of these absolute, cram it down the nations throat, agenda filled LIES...
When is enough going to be enough for the masses in this country?!
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Hate to say it...
November 17, 2008 - 12:05 ET by unkeeafThe masses are too stupid to have had enough. I wrote a commentary on my blog nearly a year ago about the danger of our ignorant electorate. We need no further proof of that than what happened two weeks ago.
Here's a link to that article if your interested. Love to hear your thoughts:
http://usaconservati...
MSM = PR firm for the Democrat Party
I will agree that stupid is
November 17, 2008 - 12:29 ET by dscottI will agree that stupid is as stupid does, however, one can not always blame the decider. The decider makes the decision based on the information at hand and POV. If the information at hand is defective, the decision will probably be defective as well.
Let's look at the flip side of your argument, who flooded the airwaves with Britney's self absorption and insisted showing the pop-tarts? That would be the MSM. So the viewer had a choice to in their daily information habits to either turn off their normal viewing because of the crap the MSM was flooding the airwaves or the viewer would suffer through it while waiting for something better to come along. The good news is the MSM performed a self inflicted wound in terms of viewership since even with all the hundreds of millions of dollars Obama spent to get elected, the MSM ratings did not increase! It should have increased during this period and it didn't. In other words, were it not for the election season, the actual viewership would have dropped significantly. Now that election season is over, the MSM is looking at a down hill slide they can do nothing about given the business model (Dem propaganda outlet) they have chosen.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
We're gonna some looong snorkels
November 17, 2008 - 08:13 ET by SickofLibsI just hope we can hold out until Jan. 20, aka the Day The Oceans Will Start To Recede.
LOL: early clubhouse leader
November 17, 2008 - 08:22 ET by Mark FinkelsteinLOL: early clubhouse leader for Line 'O The Day!
I will hold NBC
November 17, 2008 - 08:28 ET by Nortonalecresponsible for at least 100 feet of the 200 foot rise in sea level. What kind of carbon footprint are Matt and co. producing by flying to these remote locations in order to tell us how man is killing the planet? What stones these people have!
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever."~David St. Hubbins
Actually, Obama said the
November 17, 2008 - 08:48 ET by motherbeltActually, Obama said the moment he accepted the nomination was the moment: he said we would look back and remember that
this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and the planet began to heal
Already he's not living up to his promises.
Hey MB: thanks for peeing on
November 17, 2008 - 09:09 ET by SickofLibsHey MB: thanks for peeing on my parade! Mark nominates me for Line 'O The Day and you go and blow it for me! ;-)
Anyway, this will be my last post of the week; I'm leaving today for Eastern Europe where I will be volunteering for VowelAid in Mrcine, Mreznica and Mrkopalj.
I also saw this live, and
November 17, 2008 - 08:33 ET by JohnMI also saw this live, and couldn't believe how loaded her remarks were with unsubstantiated assertions and hyperbole.
She never explained anything about the alleged threat to "the people of Tanzania", nor the source of her numbers.
She also utterly failed to report on the recent UK study that cites erroneous GISS numbers (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2008/11/16/uk-paper-notes-surreal-scientific-blunder-global-temps-measurement-us-me), nor the scientific inquiry into impact on our climate of the sudden decline of sun spots. (Some scientists are actually warning of an impending Ice Age!)
Viera is eye candy for a network in trouble, and there's little credibility in either.
WOW this is great
November 17, 2008 - 08:32 ET by cocodrieWE'll be able to watch Hussein the Devine walk out of the white house, across the water to the forum for all the senators to kiss his whatever. How come Algore ain't building a boat if we're getting all this water?
Nah....it'll be more like
November 17, 2008 - 08:55 ET by motherbeltNah....it'll be more like this
Sorry...the video is no longer available; it was the Ten Commandments scene of Moses parting the waters.
Good morming MB
November 17, 2008 - 09:00 ET by cocodrieAnd if Moses doesn't look like Charlton Heston I am going to be disappointed.
Just what is the perfect temperature for those people....?
November 17, 2008 - 08:42 ET by superconAre we all to freeze in an August blizzard before they are happy.I sort of like it when it's warm.You can't win with them.Either we are all to drown from the glaciers melting or we will have our cities bulldozed down by an approaching glacier.
Liberals have changed their
November 17, 2008 - 08:52 ET by motherbeltLiberals have changed their tune; now it's not about "global warming" it's about "climate change."
You have to understand that the climate of earth has been the same for millions of years, and only recently has begun to "change."
\sarc off
And liberals think that they can "fine-tune" climate so that it's not too hot, not too cold, just enough rain, (but no damaging storms) etc.
Just like they think they can fine-tune the economy.
The inability of liberals to
November 17, 2008 - 09:10 ET by cocodrieThe inability of liberals to fine tune keeps them out of NASCAR.
Well, if they are depending on NASA/Hansen data
November 17, 2008 - 08:57 ET by IgnatzJFahrquarthen I'm sure it's correct.
As posted on Drudge
"All generalizations are false, including this one.” Mark Twain
NASA/Hansen
November 17, 2008 - 09:33 ET by danboTo make matter worse. Much of GISS' "Global Warming" has been from the stations in Russia and in winter. Anthony also started looking at the stations there. The new question. How much of this warming is a result of the old Soviet Unions, "district heating" or teleheating system.
Also interesting. US version 1999 and 2008. Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
Just wait in 10 years all
November 17, 2008 - 09:08 ET by taterJust wait in 10 years all the talk in the media will be global cooling and those nasty glaciers will be our downfall. If we don't get any sunspots going that could be the case.
www.theholyrosary.org
"There is no problem, I tell you, no matter how difficult it is, that we can not resolve by the prayer of the Holy Rosary." -Sister Lucia
It seems we've cycled from
November 17, 2008 - 09:38 ET by danboIt seems we've cycled from warming to cooling. And the media will be way behind. They probably won't notice the cooling until well into the colling period. Just about when we beging the next warming period.
Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
The Media: Senses & Science
November 17, 2008 - 09:09 ET by ConScottWhen our so-called journalists begin green-zoning, time speeds up for them. The opposite of an athelete in the zone, this adjustment of perception is developed from endless hours of watching ice cubes melt.
Unplug the fridge and leave the freezer door open and you'll quickly understand the scientific methodology. The research is certainly verified by tightly-edited disaster films and looped Al Gore outtakes.
They have no shame. They have no brains...
November 17, 2008 - 09:14 ET by ThalpyThey have no shame. They have no brains. If we pay any attention to Vieira as she lectures us on science, we have only ourselves to blame.
Last time they pulled this
November 17, 2008 - 09:32 ET by walkLast time they pulled this stunt, they allowed viewers to email in questions. The obvious (and one they were prepared for) was if they were so worried about GW why were they flying their entire staff to the ends of the world just to make a statement? Answer from Matt Lauer: "We bought carbon credits." What an absolute joke. The hypocirsy is suffocating.
I continue to be mystified
November 17, 2008 - 09:33 ET by NL207I continue to be mystified at the rationale used by the MSM and even some scientists being used to report this issue. These people have gone beyond merely reporting extreme probabilities to the broadcast of utter falsehoods.
The truth of sea level rise is less than 1 meter over the next century and most probably around 18 inches. This can be gleaned direcctly from the IPCC 4AR.
Actually NL the truth is
November 17, 2008 - 09:55 ET by dscottActually NL the truth is the ocean level has dropped! The trend since 2006 has been NEGATIVE. The website reporting on sealevel stopped issuing updates a couple of months ago with the following reason:
Due to an interruption/delay in the Jason-1 data processing, the sea level time series on this website will not be updated until further notice. We anticipate this problem will be corrected by the end of the 2008, at which time a complete time series spanning this gap will be available. We apologize for any inconvenience that this may cause for our users. For further information, please see: Jason 1 Info.
See the graphic on below the lame excuse they gave.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
As I recall. Morner
November 17, 2008 - 10:16 ET by danboAs I recall. Morner complained that the satellite measurements were being "adjusted" by an outside factor. There was a "correction" factor that was based on an observed reading with a sea level guage. The problem was that the guage was in a subsiding area.
Morner quipped, that if the sea levels were real. Holland has stopped sinking and begun to rise. They must really be going down.
What's Length of Day doing? Speeding up?
Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
Sea level has decreased by a
November 17, 2008 - 11:11 ET by NL207Sea level has decreased by a miniscule amount over the last 5 years. The remainder of the century still has 92 years to go. The past century saw a sea level increase of 12 inches with periods of rise and fall corresponding to warming and cooling. There is no reason to believe the next century will be greatly different.
So, it's stable
November 17, 2008 - 12:52 ET by CobraManSo, what you're saying is that sea levels are actually stable with no large increases, and no large decreases, over the last 100 years.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
Essentially correct.
November 17, 2008 - 13:10 ET by NL207Essentially correct. There has been a steady upward trend going back to 1800. It has been about 150 mm per century since then according to this reference.
The IPCC says it will be between 0.1 to 0.9 meters in the next century. Since their minimum case has been the actual warming case for the last 20 years, we can gues that experience might repeat itself here. The next century will see an increase at the low end of teh IPCC range. My guess, based on what I know about glacial melt rates is that it won't be more than 18" [ 450mm ] and probably be more like the last half of the 20th century which would put the rise at close to 200 mm.
Have you forgotten the hydro cycle?
November 17, 2008 - 13:20 ET by CobraManHave you forgotten about the hydrological cycle? As the atmosphere warms up, the evaporation rate of seawater increase, thus lowering sea levels. Se my other post about the effects that this increased evaporation will produce. Once again, the sea levels will pretty much remain stable, just as they have for millions of years.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
Sea levels have only been
November 17, 2008 - 14:18 ET by NL207Sea levels have only been stable over the last 50 million years if you can call variations with a range of 150-200 meters stable. This is the normal variability when all geologic events are considered. The last 2.5 million years have been marked by depressing glaciations. 45 million years ago witnessed the eocene. It containss an impressive warming event, PETM.
Read my exception
November 17, 2008 - 15:17 ET by CobraManRead my exception. The only time sea levels have changed dramatically is during periodic glaciation, known as the Ice Ages. This change is due to the fact that the land trapped the ice and water and that water did NOT return to the seas. That's a basic principle behind hydrodynamics.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
Don't forget Plate Tectonics
November 17, 2008 - 15:23 ET by CobraManThen there's the effects of Plate tectonics. Now only do continents move, they also rise and fall, bobbing up and down like corks. These factors contribute to the APPEARANCE of shifting sea levels, but that appearance is an illusion, the seas themselves have remained relativity stable, whit the exceptions of the various Ice Ages which I have previously noted.
Add to the above, the effects of erosion, especially shoreline erosion. Al these factor can affect the APPEARANCE of prehistoric sea levels. We don't actually know what the true sea levels were.
There's far more to determining prehistoric sea levels than measuring the apparent shorelines in the past.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
I should add..
November 17, 2008 - 13:28 ET by CobraManI should add that there is an exception to sea level stability, and that occurs during periods of extreme climate changes, especially extreme cooling like what occurred during the Ice Ages. You can blame the continents for that, as it is the land that traps the water and ice and stops it from entering the seas and thus creating stability.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
Then again they voted for Obama.
November 17, 2008 - 09:46 ET by CrashDoes anyone remember the ice in the glass of water experiment taught in fourth grade science where the water level drops as the ice melts?
To Crash
November 17, 2008 - 09:56 ET by littlemissmuffinYes, I remember that experiment. Ice is less dense than water, so the water level drops as the ice melts. Well, DUH!
"If we conservatives moved to those seven non-existent States, the government couldn’t find us and tax us to death!"
But.......
November 17, 2008 - 10:05 ET by ConScottIf you place that same ice cube on your BlackBerry keyboard will it not melt and possibly destroy the PDA?
I don't know what 4th grade
November 17, 2008 - 11:06 ET by NL207I don't know what 4th grade you attended, but they obviously knew nothing about Archimedes' Principle and they taught you something that is wrong.
The ice displaces its own weight in water. As the ice melts, the water level remains the same. Why? because although the ice is less dense than the water, part of it sticks up out of the water. When it melts, the resulting water occupies exactly the same volume as the water it formerly displaced. The total volume of the water-ice assembly goes down as the ice melts, but the water level remains constant.
ice cubes, icebergs and glaciers
November 17, 2008 - 12:04 ET by mom_roxNL is right about the water level remaining the same. Only if the ice cubes were forcefully submerged (therefore not floating in equilibrium) would the water level decrease.
Remember that Vieira was talking about the glaciers melting, not just the icebergs.
The Axis of Taxes: Obama, Pelosi and Reid (source unknown)
Where does the glacier's water come form?
November 17, 2008 - 13:06 ET by CobraMan"Remember that Vieira was talking about the glaciers melting, not just the icebergs"
And where does the glacier's water come from? Most of it comes from evaporated seawater, which condenses in higher elevations and falls as rain or snow. That moisture evaporation LOWERS sea levels, correct?
As the atmosphere warms up, the more that seawater evaporates, as the air itself can support higher water vapor levels as temperatures increase. Therefor, as the atmosphere warms up, sea levels will become lower in direct proportion to the warmer air temperatures, as will glacier themselves as most of the water lost from glaciers is due to evaporation and not run off. This will have the effect of rendering sea levels pretty much stable over the short term and the long term.
It's only the level of fresh water sources like river, lakes, and streams, that will be greatly effected by a warmer, or cooler, climate. The warmer the climate becomes, the greater the levels of fresh water sources as rainfall, the predominate source for fresh water, will increase in direct proportion to the levels of atmospheric moisture.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
just curious
November 17, 2008 - 14:44 ET by mom_rox- caveat: This is not my area of expertise, and I'm too lazy to look this up -
How does the water level decrease due to evaporation relate to the water level increase due to the increase in the water temperature?
The Axis of Taxes: Obama, Pelosi and Reid (source unknown)
Shifting rain patterns and elevation changes
November 17, 2008 - 15:35 ET by CobraManI may not have explained the principle very well. It's due to shifting rain patterns and increasing elevations that occurs over land masses. As more moisture evaporates from the seas, more of that moisture laden air will travel over the land.. Since land is not level, the air currents induced by that uneven land tends to drive the air masses into the upper atmosphere (think of the effect that mountains have on rainfall patterns). The moisture contained within those air masses then condenses and falls onto the land as rain or snow.
Being a solid and not a liquid, the land has a tendency to trap that increased snow and rain, As that water accumulates on the land, it correspondingly increases the levels of fresh water.
If the landmasses were not there, the resulting sea levels would remain relatively the same. You may see a small decrease in sea levels, but that's about it as all rain and snow would fall back onto the seas, replenishing their levels.
I hope that better explains it for you
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
As for the ratio to expansion versus evaporation...
November 17, 2008 - 16:00 ET by CobraManAs for the ratio to expansion versus evaporation, I'm not sure, off hand, what the ratios are, but i do know that water vapor expand1600 times greater than liquid water, it occupies 1600 times more volume for any given measure of mass than liquid water does.
Then there's the effect of all that air moisture on air density, and mass. As the levels of moisture increase, the mass of that air increases as well. That increased mass will press down upon the liquid water in greater pressures (lower air pressure increases sea levels.) I don't think it exactly balances out, but any increase in one or the other will tend to counter balance each other, but only if you remove the effects of land masses like continents from the equations.
On Edit: Also, don't forget about the cooling effect of evaporation. Evaporation draws heat away from the liquid. As that liquid cools due to evaporation, it should reverse the effects of temperature expansion until an equilibrium is achieved.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
ask a "simple" question ;)
November 17, 2008 - 21:33 ET by mom_roxSeriously, CobraMan, thank you for the insights. Not long after I asked my question, I realized that there was not a "simple" answer - too many variables. (Well, perhaps there would be in a controlled closed system.)
Your answers make me appreciate even more the complexity that climatologists deal with in "attempting" to create climate models. There are too many variables and interactions that cannot be modeled correctly.
The Axis of Taxes: Obama, Pelosi and Reid (source unknown)
CobraMan, you have no idea
November 17, 2008 - 22:43 ET by meteor79CobraMan, you have no idea what you are talking about. For starters, moist air is actually LESS dense than dry air. Basic stuff... Was this a joke?
Correct me if I'm wrong
November 17, 2008 - 23:12 ET by RESTLESS 1but don't most thunderstorms occur with low pressure systems? Seems to me that moist, humid air is associated with low pressure, and is therefore less dense.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
The libs know the issue is
November 17, 2008 - 09:48 ET by dscottThe libs know the issue is failing, they can't continue to claim the need to spend trillions when the economy is going in the tank. So you have two choices, exagerate the claims even further to see if the sheeple will do as you say or move on to the next ploy. Never mind the actual data which shows the trend of the last decade is negative not positive despite the continuing increase of CO2. It was never about the data to begin with, like all lib assertions it was based upon the agenda. Their agenda can be served just as well with a recession or economic downturn using bailouts as with AGW to control CO2, the agenda is the central control of the economy - Socialism. A tanked economy means a loss of freedom for individuals as government is looked to for answers instead of individuals using initiative, i.e. exercising choices. The point of AGW was to tank the economy, nothing more. Ironically, the mortgage meltdown did more to further their agenda than AGW, the run up in gasoline prices due to the drilling ban was the finishing touch.
Look for Obama to absurdly insist on his plan to kill off the coal industry, raise energy prices by 5 fold and all the while claim green jobs will be created from everyone building wind generators and solar panels. Obama and his supporters will get rich from these investments and the rest of us will muddle through cutting back to live with a reduced standard of living. The lower your standard of living, the more control government can exert over you as they get you to believe you are the victim and they they government is you knight in shining armor. The more government issues regulations to mircomanage your activities, the more handouts you get, the more infantile-dependent you become. Welcome to the Nanny State where all your necessities of life are already decided by the government, and you will do as you are told otherwise you will be punished for not acting responsibly.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
I Turned Green
November 17, 2008 - 10:07 ET by CellaThis started for me yesterday with those nuts, Costas and company, turning off the lights in the studio while they were doing football analysis. They were "going green". My stomach turned, I turned green and couldn't believe the whole thing.
It's bad enough that they have added Olbermann to their football panel. That's enough to make you sick.
Vieira told Costas that they would go "to the ends of the earth" for their beliefs on saving energy.
Give me a break. I have a counteroffer. Stay home like the rest of us are doing.
Don't try to orchestrate your little trip around the world into something grand. You and your Today team are inconsequential piddling small potatoes who could be thrown into a pot with some onions for a nice stew. Add some fava beans and a nice Chiati and this might work out.
Bwaaaaaahahahhahaha! Oh,
November 17, 2008 - 10:10 ET by HockeyKidBwaaaaaahahahhahaha! Oh, my sides hurt! Stop it, Meredith, stop it!
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Hold it! Hold it! Hold It?
November 17, 2008 - 10:11 ET by JWFWaterworld was right? Someone owes Kevin Costner a big apology right now.
K. I am buying all the cigarettes I can, and a BIG FRIGGIN TANKER. And some new fake eyes. And a bunch of jet skis.
I am gonna run the show and you guys are all gonna work for me.
Hey! Hey! Hey! Do you wanna live down in the oil storage tank? Ok. Shut up and get to work!
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
»→ Smokers
November 17, 2008 - 10:29 ET by Cool ArrowWe were chatting about this just last night.
Dennis Hopper with his devotion to Exxon Valdez captain Joseph Hazelwood.
And it's soooooo ironic this comes out on the same weekend they're announcing the installation of a Urine-to-Drinking water filter on the Space Station.
Start Packing or Shut Up
November 17, 2008 - 10:15 ET by dboI trust Meredith will lead by example and immediately move to a new location that is at least 201 feet above sea level.
»→ Me-Vi
November 17, 2008 - 10:30 ET by Cool ArrowI was chatting with the gang and watching the Game last night when this smiling doom & gloom piece was excreted through my TV.
After this, the broadcasters told us all about turning off appliances and buying lightbulbs.
Then Dallas returned and turned the lights out on the Redskins.
maybe
November 17, 2008 - 12:19 ET by katainkentMs Viera should return to the HowStuffWorks website and read the entire article.
member of the Conservative Independant Witness Protection Program since Nov. 5, 2008
This is great news!!!
November 17, 2008 - 13:01 ET by RESTLESS 1I'll fianlly have some property right on the Gulf of Mexico. Maybe some rich land developer will offer me millions for my property so they can build on the water.
If anyone needs me, I'll be in the back yard on an inner tube waiting for the Gulf to arrive. :)
"This liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
I sincelely doubt that there
November 17, 2008 - 16:31 ET by Tim the EnchanterI sincelely doubt that there is enough land-based ice to make the oceans rise 200 feet if it all melted (floating, or sea-based ice, if melted, would not change the sea level). These people need a basic physics course, but even that is probably beyond their comprehension level.
I've been wondering what to
November 17, 2008 - 16:49 ET by Clear thinkerI've been wondering what to do for my next venture, and this has given me a brilliant idea. Time to invest in Floaties!
American Communist Education - Special Edition
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
And the waters shall rise
November 18, 2008 - 06:23 ET by ampul manOh, stop your complaining and look on the bright side.
When the waters rise, the NBC (and the others) studio will be taken out--then we won't have to listen to pea-brain Viera et al.