by Duluth News Tribune
November 11, 2012 at 6:00 pm in Duluth News Tribune
Yes: Candidates’ silence was politically reckless
Tags: columnists, columns, Editorials, elections, Environment, Opinion, Politics 45 Comments »
This is an issue where some conservatives really show their ignorance, or if it isn’t ignorance it is just refusal to believe the evidence—somewhat like the way they refused to believe Nate Silver’s (and others like him) election projection. Willard was shocked (shocked!) when the results started coming in and he wasn’t going be elected president. The same conservative entertainment complex is lying to the Fox News and the right-wing radio audience about climate change. Climate change is real, but as long as some people on the right remain in their bubble, they will keep believing the people who are lying to them.
Hot debate. What do you think? 32 32
I truly expect that very few people are denying climate change is happening. Geological evidence proves that climate change has been happening since before this planet developed an atmosphere. BTW: Did you notice that “Global Warming” went out of favor by the alarmists right away because the scientific community wouldn’t buy into that term but scientists would agree that climate is always changing so the alarmists switched to using “Climate Change” because scientists would then agree that yes, the climate is changing, as it has been doing for billions of years. What is in question is the degree to which human activity (specifically US citizens) impacts climate change. Citizens of the United States realistically cannot change enough to compensate for all the foolish pollution practices still occuring in the Amazon, India, China and many of the developing third world, not to mention natural occurances such as deep sea methane eruptions and volcanic activity. For the alarmists to blame the US citizens for solely impacting the climate is to overlook the rest of the world which is assinine and therein is why the debate develops.
Hot debate. What do you think? 28 29
Ulysses wrote, “For the alarmists to blame the US citizens for solely impacting the climate is to overlook the rest of the world which is assinine (sic) and therein is why the debate develops.” That is just a silly statement. I challenge Ulysses to back that statement up with an example of an “alarmist” who blames the United States solely for climate change. BTW, I have no problem with the term “global warming.”
Ulysses’s post is nonsensical—it is just a bunch of words thrown together into a paragraph that doesn’t even really address the issue. There is no debate within the scientific community that human activity has affected this change in climate—the peer-reviewed (I repeat, peer-reviewed) studies that support that fact are overwhelming. Today’s global warming deniers might as well deny that the earth orbits the sun as well, because it is almost that silly to still be denying the scientific evidence. Anyone who has access to Google shouldn’t be so uniformed, but I guess they are so committed to their ideology, that they would rather side with liars than the scientists.
The following link is from NASA. (The same people who faked the moon landing)
Hot debate. What do you think? 28 28
I meant to type “uninformed,” but I accidentally typed “uniformed.” I try not to be the type of person who finds a typo or a misspelling and then says, “you misspelled a word so your argument is wrong and you are an idiot.” I try to give people (even people who I disagree with) the benefit of the doubt. I pointed out Ulysses’s misspelling only to show that the mistake was his and not mine. I know a lot really smart folks who really can’t spell all that well.
Hot debate. What do you think? 20 23
And 25 years ago the Chicken Little “the sky is falling” alarmists were crying about Global Cooling. The world was going to freeze over and all life would die. Or are you too young to remember that alarmist cry? Alarmists are always alarmists and need an issue to justify their existence or else they don’t feel worthwhile. You might want to “follow the money” when talking climate change. Al Gore, remember him and his factually inaccurate “An Inconvenient Truth” movie. Well that movie has been debunked and probably should be filed under fiction nowdays, but it served its’ initial purpose. The movie started the cash flow into Al Gores own Carbon Exchange business. He might have been just a little more believeable if he hadn’t gained millions upon millions of dollars from pushing bad facts to further the scare for his profit. Yup, just follow the money and the inconvenient truth becomes clear.
Hot debate. What do you think? 23 26
Not that climate science should be entertaining, but try this series on Youtube (that is an internet site General) Climate Crock of the Week , it was created by a grandson of a Minnesota miner. It will give plenty of clean answers to goofy claims like the ‘little ice age’.
Like or Dislike: 11 15
Oh Ranger, I am so embarrased for you. In your post you deny the existence of the little Ice Age (which did in fact happen, was world-wide and was about 1300 thru the year 1850) and as such really impunes your presumed intelligence. Yes I was wrong on one point: The contemporary ice age scare I was referring to was 38 years ago, approx 1972 to 1975 not the 25 years ago I mentioned and you can Google that any time you want to prove yourself wrong. At the time there were droves of scientists verifying the data and then along with the media climbing on that bandwagon too. So yes the Chicken Littles like you come along each generation and embrace any issue that makes their existence feel worthwhile. Apparently the next batch of Chicken Littles are now trying to drum up support for a new ice age coming at us. The only thing that these scares prove is that climate is indeed changing, as it as for millenia, and that nobody has a crystal ball to really see what is next.
Hot debate. What do you think? 16 14
There were never “droves of scientists” verifying the global cooling theory. It had very little support in the scientific community – the only reason it got any publicity at all was due to a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 40s to the 70s.
The only similarity between global warming and global cooling is that you don’t understand either of them. You might as well be saying that since the flat earth theory was proven wrong, the round earth theory must also be wrong.
Hot debate. What do you think? 16 19
News just in from the Bubble, another Global Warming denier uses the 1970s people were writing about “Global cooling” argument. The anti-science caucus stands and applauds.
Of course, a survey of the literature published in 2008 notes that even back in the 70s, the possibility of global warming dominated the literature, see http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
and there was very little discussion of global cooling.
So, yes, another Bubble Theory that does not actually conform to those darned inconvenient facts. 😉
Hot debate. What do you think? 18 18
Alarmists simply know that if you truly want to make someone act on an issue quickly, you need to make them afraid of it. The only way to make them afraid is to over estimate the effects.
To say that there is no need to take measures to prevent us from having an effect on the climate just because the people trumpeting the problem are alarmists is rather dismissive. It is naive to believe that we could not possibly do enough to affect the planet in a negative manner.
Addressing the issue now is the smart thing to do.
You could bet on climate change never happening, but if you are wrong the consequences could be disastrous.
If you bet on climate change being a real problem, the potential consequences are much less dire.
Like or Dislike: 16 10
I should clarify, by “climate change never happening” I mean “climate change not being affected by humans”.
Like or Dislike: 8 10
I actually lol’d at Vune’s comment! 😀
Like or Dislike: 7 4
Vune and RickM: Your desperation to cling to the alarmists talking points shows through very clearly. Fact: The Global Cooling scare was indeed well publicized and discussed in virtually all major print media at the time. Your vain attempts to re-write history is exactly what proves your ignorance of the facts and thusly invalidates your arguments. I am not dismissing the data that indicates our planet is in a warming period right now but for ignorant alarmists to blame only the Citizens of the United States for the warming further proves the desperation on their part to try to gain traction for their claims. Alarmists should, to become believable, look outside our boarders at the pollution spewed by the developing countries, countries who will basically thumb their noses at alarmists who want those countries to sacrifice their economic growth for the sake of climate change. Alarmists should also look at sunspot activity. The Maunder Minimus was a period of very low sunspot activity which roughly corresponded to the Little Ice Age. We are in a period of high sunspot activity and are you going to try to claim the sun has no effect on this planet?
Like or Dislike: 8 8
The Media and the Scientific Community are two different things. I think you misread my post.
If you want to know why the sun isn’t a major factor in climate change, google “Solar Flares” & “Global Warming.”
None of us are bringing new information to the table here, you included. We’re all just repeating arguments other people have made. The people you call “alarmists” are repeating scientific consensus. You are repeating ideas that were debunked years or decades ago.
Like or Dislike: 12 9
Vune: It is actually quite amusing reading your posts parroting the liberal propaganda and your attempts at misinformation and redirection. You obviously do not realize that Solar Flares and Sunspot Acitvity are two different things, but not much can be expected from someone who only repeats the liberal talking points without actually doing any research. Thanks for the laughs. BTW I did not deny that climate change is happening, I only question the wisdom of us sacrificing our countrys’ economy for the sake of trying to solve a problem being exasperated by human activity in all countries along with geologic and solar influences over which we have no control and is a problem over which we will have an infitessimal effect even with our best efforts.
Like or Dislike: 9 9
Laugh it up. You’re right that I should’ve said sunspots, not solar flares. That doesn’t change anything. Replace one with the other in that google search and you’ll find the same conclusions.
You can snicker all you want about how I’m willing to admit that I’m not a climatologist, but the fact remains that you’re repeating irrelevant, debunked theories.
And you’re putting words in my mouth. I’m not accusing you of denying climate change completely, I’m accusing you of denying that mankind has had any affect on it. Am I wrong in that? Am I putting words in your mouth too?
Like or Dislike: 7 10
Vune: Yes indeed you are either trying to put words into my mouth or you can’t read. Remember what I said “I only question the wisdom of us sacrificing our countrys’ economy for the sake of trying to solve a problem being exasperated by human activity in all countries along with geologic and solar influences over….” . If you can read my post properly you should be able to understand that I AM INDEED admitting that mankind has an influence on the problem of climate change and the current warming trend. BUT it is foolish to the max to think that the United States should bear the burden of changing so dramatically that we offset the influences of the pollution being spewed by all the other countries on this planet plus the naturally occurring events.
Like or Dislike: 5 6
Well, if you read all the posts you’ve been responding to correctly, you’ll see that nobody is saying that the US alone should bear the burden of changing. But we’re in no position to preach to other countries until we get our house in order.
We don’t get to vote on what China does, and we don’t get to vote on the intensity of sunspots. The only thing we can change is our own behavior.
Like or Dislike: 10 5
Ulysses, there is no liberal propaganda in America. You should know better. If there were liberal propaganda, there would be pundits on TV in support of Cuba and Venezuela, talk radio hosts denouncing the waste of fossil fuels, alternative media preaching against managers and landlords, and news media announcing that wealthy capitalists aught to sleep on the streets. Unfortunately, the propaganda in this country is the other way around, and it happens to either coddle to or outright champion your side of the aisle.
Like or Dislike: 3 1
The old General really cannot help himself. Falling back on lame excuses to shiled oneself from responsibility is what a large chunk of the conservative world relies on in a shallow attempt to deflect the real facts. Mountinas of evidence and projections were created in the 1980-90’s and the projections are coming true at an alarming rate. Cause and effect.
We all have a responsibility, but we all have to own up to the science first. All of us, even old Generals.
Hot debate. What do you think? 16 21
It is interesting how the “global warming” folks deride those who note unusually cold weather and then use recent weather phenomena as proof of climate change. Hurricane Sandy–Really? We’ve had many storms that were more powerful. Drought? Remember the 1930’s? It’s only a matter of time before gay marriage is blamed on “global warming.” Global warming, or if you prefer, climate change, has become the buzz word for any phenomenon that happens in nature. We now have an “explanation” for these events, which lessens the anxiety that arises from thinking that some things just happen.
Hot debate. What do you think? 20 15
Some global warming people did indeed posit that Sandy might have been affected by global warming and others were much more measured (in fact, several I saw interviewed on News shows immediately following Sandy noted that global warming may have only played a small part). Part of the problem is that our models have a tougher time integrating related factors. For example, Midwest drought has an indirect effect and how much of that is related to Global Warming? We have had a run of large forest fires in various places around the country, Global Warming is related, but so are our practices on firefighting. Lots of other things relate. An interesting article from National Geographic back in June noted a larger than expected rise of sea levels on the East Coast and predicted that the East Coast would have more flooding problems (see http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/06/120625-sea-level-rise-east-coast-us-science-nature-climate-change/).
In any case, I would be happy to continue to have scientists continue to analyze and give us their best projections, but I also think we should stop trying to deny their work simply because we don’t like their stance.
Like or Dislike: 8 15
If only it were that simple.
Like or Dislike: 13 10
BTW, “Climate Change” is not a replacement term for “Global Warming.” The overall trend continues to be “Global Warming.” Unfortunately, some of the folks who hear this term assume that that means a simple increase of temperatures uniformly across the globe (and some in cold regions even think that is a good idea). But our planet is a very complex system, and overall warmth can translate into a variety of trends including more violent storms (both under warm and cold conditions), droughts, excess rain, etc. So, when talking about the effects of Global Warming we use the term Climate Change, because that accurately reflects what people will experience.
Its simple, Global Warming leads to Climate Change, not uniform warming.
Hot debate. What do you think? 14 17
Too many people cling to the term “Global Warming” and then say “AHA!” once there is a month of below average temperatures, as if that is some kind of proof against climate change.
Those that claim climate change is solely to blame for Sandy are trying to pinhole the issue, trying to make it black or white, left or right, liberal or conservative. In reality, climate change has a whole lot of grey area.
We don’t know exactly what will happen, we can only predict based on past events and there are factors in play now that were not there in the past. We can only guess based on computer models.
The prudent approach would be to err on the side of caution.
Like or Dislike: 12 13
Kind of like the people who see a month of above average temperatures and say “AHA!” and call it global warming? Or is that different?
Like or Dislike: 9 12
Exactly, true scientists do not look at a month of above average temperature and make conclusions. They look for long terms trends and other indications. And its true, the data does not allow for a 100% prediction. But at this point, the probability seems to be very high, and the overall effects seem like a big deal, so people think we should do some reasonable things to try to address the problem (not providing tax breaks for the oil and coal industries would be a good start).
And as to the notion that humans cannot create macroscale changes in the environment, its not a very credible argument. For example, PBS is going to play a two-night special on the Dust Bowl on 11/18 and 11/19 by Ken Burns. Clearly a man made change to the environment. The Hudson river (both the pollution and cleanup), acid rain, etc. Lots of examples.
Like or Dislike: 11 11
DanH & Rick, accd. to MSP Strib meteorologist Paul Douglas we have experienced about 300+ consecutive mths. of worldwide increasing aver. temps. or about 30 yrs. of mthly ww increases in aver. temps. So much for your minimizing of warming trends.
Like or Dislike: 6 11
Actually Rick, my comment was for Denier DanH.
Like or Dislike: 6 8
By most accounts modern day temperatures have been phically recorded for only 138 to 160 years (depending upon what source you look at). Hmmm, by coincidence the first years of that written record period happens to be the years at the end of the Little Ice Age. So if you compare ice age temps to todays temps what do you think you are going to see? Yes temperatures can be roughly extrapolated from geological evidence but that evidence also shows that this planet has been going up and down in temp for about 4.5 billion years, so in light of that thought how long a period is 160 years? .0000000355% of the earths life. Pretty insignificant period of time to be an alarmist over.
Like or Dislike: 11 5
Nope, that is no different. It stems from a complete and utter misunderstanding of the science behind the issue.
Global Warming is an inaccurate term, as the problem is not limited to a warming trend. The earth has many safeguards to balance the overall temperature. If the air temperature increases, the ice caps absorb that heat up and melt, thus lowering the air temperature and preventing it from overheating. That is just one of the methods the planet has to maintain balance. This is the way it has been for thousands and thousands of years.
The problem now is that we have a factor in play that never was in the past, human intervention. Since we only have about 100 years of industry to refer to, the sample size is way too small to be able to determine the actual affect we are having, but all the information we have points in a bad direction.
Think of it this way, you have all your money invested in one stock and it has done well the entire time you have had it. But, you are noticing rumblings of instability and concern among those that study the stock. Are you going to keep your entire life savings in that stock and risk your future, just because you are stubborn?
No, you are going to diversify. You are going to hedge your bets against the potential for this stock to fail.
That is how most people who actually understand the science behind it feel.
Sure, there are idiots on both side of the argument. Those idiots harm the overall credibility of the people who know what they are talking about on both sides.
But that does not change the fact that there is science behind the concern, and we should not ignore the potential for disaster.
Like or Dislike: 9 11
Dorkus, what is attributable to MMGW is the intensity of Sandy not its occourence. That is exactly what scientists predict, i.e., frequencies & intensities of extreme weather will become more pronounced as MMGW progresses. IOW, if you more evaporation due to warmer air you will have more extreme precip. events.
Like or Dislike: 6 9
I understand that.
I said “people that believe that climate change is SOLELY to blame for Sandy”. Meaning that there are people out there that do not understand or explain that climate change likely only increased the intensity, they just say “look, a hurricane in New York, there’s the proof of climate change”.
That kind of short-sighted proof harms the legitimacy of the concern.
Like or Dislike: 10 1
Pro MMGW scientists do believe the Earth was headed into another ice age but qualify that belief with data that show Man made CO2 is canceling out the coming ice age & delaying it indefinitely. We are caught between a rock & a hard place it seems. If we were to mitigate our CO2 production we might be able to hit a happy medium & kill 2 birds with one stone, i.e., slow the ice age onset & yet save the planet from overheating & further mass extinctions.
Ulysseus, you forgot glacierology studies in Antarctica can track CO2 ice content going back as long as Antarctica has had an ice cap & it shows the CO2 content of the atmosphere is @ its highest in 600,000 yrs.
Ulysseus says, “You obviously do not realize that Solar Flares and Sunspot Acitvity are two different things, but not much can be expected from someone who only repeats the liberal talking points without actually doing any research. Thanks for the laughs”.
Increasing Sunspots are warming the Earth. The difference now from previous high Sunspot activity is that the increased incoming Sunlight can’t escape from the Earth’s atmosphere @ the end of the day like it could before there was less CO2 than now trapping it.
Like or Dislike: 6 6
I’m impresses spearman. You are one of the few libs that are willing to aknowlege that the current increased sunspot activity does in fact have a warming effect on the Earth. Yes I agree that atmospheric pollution can have a blanket effect of holding in the heat. One additional point to consider…as atmospheric pollution increases, less and less Sun generated warmth will be able to penetrate (it will be reflected back to space by the pollution particles) and so at some point there is a tipping point at which the Earth will begin to cool thanks to pollution. Incidentally, if you do some research you will discover that increased storm activity is actually beneficial to the planet because rainfall is one of the most effective ways to wash CO2 out of the atmosphere. It is almost like the Earth is trying to heal itself. Also mankind could reduce CO2 by planting a lot more trees and bushes and stop destructive cutting of trees, especially in the rainforests because trees and bushes breath in CO2 and exhale oxygen. Proper management of the renewable resource of trees plus enhancement of that resource by planting more and more is very beneficial to mankind and this planet.
Like or Dislike: 3 6
spearman, just for you edification google this topic:
The Year Without a Summer 1816
Like or Dislike: 4 5
spearman, first line of earlier post should read: I’m impressed spearman. Sorry for the typo, I was truly trying to pay you a complement and either my fingers or my keyboard malfunctioned.
Like or Dislike: 5 5
General, I would like to personally thank you for helping to guarantee the continued demise of one of the major political parties into that of a minor organization who entertains itself with nonscience and cries to return to the social norms of the 1800’s. You are living proof of evolution. Thank you thank you thank you……….
There was only a small fraction over 50% of voters voted for Obama so the reports of the demise of the republican party are premature. It is also interesting to note that the enemies of the republican party claim to articulate what will rescue the party, embracing radical leftist extremism. Embacing the extreme left requirement of non-stop lying is nothing I can accept.
Like or Dislike: 4 3
You’ll note that nobody was proclaiming the death of the Democrat party after their historic losses in 2010. Then again, I always forget which standard we’re working with on any given day.
Like or Dislike: 3 2
An erroneous assumption that change in the climate is necessarily bad doesn’t address the fact that the warming of the Earth since the last ice age has been undeniably beneficial.
Climate Change shouldn’t be an issue because of a potential doomsday scenario. It should be an issue simply because we shouldn’t be squandering non-renewable fuels the way we do and putting so much pollution into the air. Conservatives always have to complicate it more than it needs to be. “Oh, there’s sunspots”, “Oh, there were ice ages before”… there’s always some exception that the right-wing can lean to in order to fulfill their own profit seeking objectives. But it doesn’t need to be that complicated. There’s too much pollution. There’s not enough resources for our economy to go on this way forever. And, as it happens, we also know another planet in our solar system that has fallen victim to the runaway greenhouse affect. That shouldn’t be the main reason against being complete a$$#0!es to the planet, but it is one (of many) talking points.
Like or Dislike: 4 2
The left has dreamed up a doomsday scenario. Actually the left should be salivating over doomsday because they don’t believe we belong here anyway. We are a part of nature they can’t accept.
Like or Dislike: 1 4
Click here to cancel reply.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
To start connecting please log in first.
Topics is proudly provided by the Forum Communications Company