CNN's Sciutto on climate change: 'We don’t want to be slowly burned to death'

[mystery-ak]

CNN's Sciutto on climate change: 'We don’t want to be slowly burned to death'
By Joe Concha - 11/28/18 01:24 PM EST

CNN anchor Jim Sciutto issued a stark warning on Wednesday morning against the effects of climate change, stating during a newscast that "we don't want to be slowly burned to death."

“I just want to ask the question for folks at home, folks like us. We got kids. We don’t want to be slowly burned to death on our own planet here," said Sciutto, who served in the Obama State Department prior to coming to CNN. "Is the human race running — in the simplest terms running out of time to take the measures necessary to rein in this rise in global temperatures?"

The question from Sciutto comes following a comprehensive 1,600-page National Climate Assessment released last week that details the damaging effects of global warming on the United States, including on agriculture, infrastructure, human health and the overall economy.

President Trump has pushed back on the report's findings, stating on Monday he "doesn't believe it" and asking, "Whatever happened to global warming?" in a tweet last week as a cold blast hit many parts of the country.

“Brutal and Extended Cold Blast could shatter ALL RECORDS - Whatever happened to Global Warming?” the president tweeted to his more than 55 million followers.

more
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/418714-cnns-sciutto-on-climate-change-we-dont-want-to-be-slowly-burned-to-death

[Oceander]

Don’t worry, little baby; even if the AGW cult is correct about the temperature increase, you won’t burn - unless, of course, you spend too much time at the beach without adequate sunscreen.   But that’s not really germane to the issue. 

[Sanguine]

Don’t worry, little baby; even if the AGW cult is correct about the temperature increase, you won’t burn - unless, of course, you spend too much time at the beach without adequate sunscreen.   But that’s not really germane to the issue.

 

[Smokin Joe]

Don’t worry, little baby; even if the AGW cult is correct about the temperature increase, you won’t burn - unless, of course, you spend too much time at the beach without adequate sunscreen.   But that’s not really germane to the issue.

You never know with Liberals. That 0.8 degrees over the next 150 years just might push them past flash point....

[GtHawk]

You never know with Liberals. That 0.8 degrees over the next 150 years just might push them past flash point....

Damned glasses, I thought I read 'just might push them past flush point', which would be really good too I guess.

[Smokin Joe]

Damned glasses, I thought I read 'just might push them past flush point', which would be really good too I guess.

(Best Scotty from Star Trek voice: "Captain, I dinna think the solids digesters can handle it!"

[goatprairie]

We get back to the warming period of about one thousand years ago when Greenland was settled and they were growing grapes. It lasted for about four hundred years. Then it got real cold again, the settlers went back to Scandinavia (or froze to death), and grapes didn't grow there anymore.
What caused it to get that warm that far north, and why did it get cold again? I sincerely doubt humans driving SUVS and burning fossil fuels had anything to do with it.
But the whole northern hemisphere must have much warmer than now. So why didn't every plant and animal die? Why is there no record of cities on the sea coast flooding from sea water from all the melted ice?

[240B]

We get back to the warming period of about one thousand years ago when Greenland was settled and they were growing grapes. It lasted for about four hundred years. Then it got real cold again, the settlers went back to Scandinavia (or froze to death), and grapes didn't grow there anymore.
What caused it to get that warm that far north, and why did it get cold again? I sincerely doubt humans driving SUVS and burning fossil fuels had anything to do with it.
But the whole northern hemisphere must have much warmer than now. So why didn't every plant and animal die? Why is there no record of cities on the sea coast flooding from sea water from all the melted ice?

Vinland (land of wine)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinland

[truth_seeker]

We get back to the warming period of about one thousand years ago when Greenland was settled and they were growing grapes. It lasted for about four hundred years. Then it got real cold again, the settlers went back to Scandinavia (or froze to death), and grapes didn't grow there anymore.
What caused it to get that warm that far north, and why did it get cold again? I sincerely doubt humans driving SUVS and burning fossil fuels had anything to do with it.
But the whole northern hemisphere must have much warmer than now. So why didn't every plant and animal die? Why is there no record of cities on the sea coast flooding from sea water from all the melted ice?

Thanks for asking an important common sense question:


--What caused the end of the various previous Ice Ages?

[txradioguy]

Don't worry Mr. Sciutto...if the AGW cultists get their way we'll die from lack of a proper pH balance in our blood before we ever burn up...slowly or otherwise.

[Smokin Joe]

We get back to the warming period of about one thousand years ago when Greenland was settled and they were growing grapes. It lasted for about four hundred years. Then it got real cold again, the settlers went back to Scandinavia (or froze to death), and grapes didn't grow there anymore.
What caused it to get that warm that far north, and why did it get cold again? I sincerely doubt humans driving SUVS and burning fossil fuels had anything to do with it.
But the whole northern hemisphere must have much warmer than now. So why didn't every plant and animal die? Why is there no record of cities on the sea coast flooding from sea water from all the melted ice?

Well, there is a record, sorta. You just have to be able to read it. The surface deposits where I grew up in the coastal plain of Maryland (in the tidewater) were the sort of mud found in swamps, complete with the limonite concretions and even preserved mud cracks in the clay. That area, now some 20 ft. above the mean High Tide mark, was once inundated, and for a considerable period. As for cities, nope, none present there, but if the water level was rising in a drowned river valley estuary, I'd have been further inland (especially away from swampy ground and the bugs that brings), and any habitation would have been further inland, too. (absence of advanced technology doesn't translate to stupid, after all).
While some towns and even cities may have been established during the warming period, that is a fairly short time to establish an extensive midden.
There should be beach deposits left from any stable period  near then sea level, just as the beaches of Lake Agassiz were left as sand ridges in the Red River Valley of ND and MN. Inland from those, in the vicinity of any river channel (current or now abandoned) should be habitation sites.

[goatprairie]

Well, there is a record, sorta. You just have to be able to read it. The surface deposits where I grew up in the coastal plain of Maryland (in the tidewater) were the sort of mud found in swamps, complete with the limonite concretions and even preserved mud cracks in the clay. That area, now some 20 ft. above the mean High Tide mark, was once inundated, and for a considerable period. As for cities, nope, none present there, but if the water level was rising in a drowned river valley estuary, I'd have been further inland (especially away from swampy ground and the bugs that brings), and any habitation would have been further inland, too. (absence of advanced technology doesn't translate to stupid, after all).
While some towns and even cities may have been established during the warming period, that is a fairly short time to establish an extensive midden.
There should be beach deposits left from any stable period  near then sea level, just as the beaches of Lake Agassiz were left as sand ridges in the Red River Valley of ND and MN. Inland from those, in the vicinity of any river channel (current or now abandoned) should be habitation sites.

There are numerous settled coastal towns in countries close by like England, The Netherlands  where inundations from sea water surely would have been noticed/recorded during the warming period. Where are those notices/records?

[Smokin Joe]

There are numerous settled coastal towns in countries close by like England, The Netherlands  where inundations from sea water surely would have been noticed/recorded during the warming period. Where are those notices/records?

Those Clovis types didn't write a lot down. (the period I was talking about, written in the sedimets left behind, preceded European habitation in North America, as far as we know.) The best most recent period of warming dates back to the Vikings, and I'm not sure how much was or stayed written down. A lot of seafaring lore is simply passed from master to pupil, and not documented.

There should be records of higher water in places which were occupied, provided such records were kept, and that they survived. Coastal towns are subject to a lot more upheaval from everything to severe weather to invasion and raiders, by virtue of whatever harbor is present.

Otherwise, a careful study of cored undisturbed sediments would reveal periods in which depositional environments changed, indicating inundation, deeper, or shallower water, or even surface exposure (as the layer of mudcracked clay in the banks where I grew up did). That is the record I am referring to.

[goatprairie]

Those Clovis types didn't write a lot down. (the period I was talking about, written in the sedimets left behind, preceded European habitation in North America, as far as we know.) The best most recent period of warming dates back to the Vikings, and I'm not sure how much was or stayed written down. A lot of seafaring lore is simply passed from master to pupil, and not documented.

There should be records of higher water in places which were occupied, provided such records were kept, and that they survived. Coastal towns are subject to a lot more upheaval from everything to severe weather to invasion and raiders, by virtue of whatever harbor is present.

Otherwise, a careful study of cored undisturbed sediments would reveal periods in which depositional environments changed, indicating inundation, deeper, or shallower water, or even surface exposure (as the layer of mudcracked clay in the banks where I grew up did). That is the record I am referring to.

I agree. Nevertheless, they were writing many things down by the end of the warming period around 1300-1350 a.d.
Scientific evidence would be nice, but I would think many people around London, for instance, would have noticed and written about high levels of water inundating buildings, etc. by the Thames.

[Smokin Joe]

I agree. Nevertheless, they were writing many things down by the end of the warming period around 1300-1350 a.d.
Scientific evidence would be nice, but I would think many people around London, for instance, would have noticed and written about high levels of water inundating buildings, etc. by the Thames.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fire_of_London May have wiped out much of the records there, for instance. We're talking an era where the Black death was making its rounds, too, and I'd imagine folks were a little preoccupied with that.

But still, you may well be on to something, and such records may exist in an archive somewhere, but just never have been examined. More likely, if there was a significant lowering of sea level (mirroring any rise), after the warming period, there should be records of harbors needing to be dredged and inlets becoming impassable due to exposed or troublesome shoals which accumulated during the higher water in the warmer era.
Those records may well exist as well, and lower water levels would affect the loading and unloading of cargo, provided they were significant. I doubt any search has been made for them.