Posted 3 months, 3 days ago in 
Loading ...
Congratulations to NPR on KPRN, April 15, in their debate on global warming with a teenage-high-school girl who denies that it is basically a manmade phenomenon as decided upon by a consensus of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It took raw courage for NPR to actually stand up to the mainstream media unquestionably accepting this consensus viewpoint versus that of this misinformed young lady.
We all need to commend NPR in its bold move to show that there are actually deniers among us, such as her.
I would only like to add that NPR could probably have made its report just a bit more credible by including the opinions on the issue by other deniers such as S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Physics, Princeton, who delivered a lecture at Hillsdale College in Michigan on June 30, 2007 entitled, “Global warming: Manmade or Natural?” NPR could even build a real foundation of credibility for itself by having true one-on-one debates on this issue. Let’s have true debates and begin with one between Al Gore and Fred Singer instead of biased reports which pit little high-school students against the UN IPCC.
JOE AAENG
Fruita
57 Responses to “NPR’s debate on global warming”
Posted April 22nd, 2008 at 2:22 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I predict a hot discussion about this letter, no pun intended!
Here is a PBS interview with Dr. Singer …
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/singer.html
Hopefully people who feel passionate about his issue one way or the other will do their own research, consider the sources, etc.
MY favorite part of the interview I cited is Dr. Singer’s last answer.
“Let’s face it. People like warmer climates. There’s a good reason why much of the U.S. population is moving into the Sun Belt, and not just people who are retiring.”
So you see, no problem! Who doesn’t love a beach party?! Break out the roasted pigs and the tanning oil!
Posted April 22nd, 2008 at 3:43 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I want to thank ashugger for providing the link to the PBS interview with Dr. Singer. After reading it, I am more convinced now than I was before that we donn’t really know whether the climate change, that may or not be occuring,is sufficiently significant to warrant the unbelievable cost associated with tryig to fix a problem that may or may not be happenig. I believe the answer to the following question is the most important of the interview:
NPR—–”Some say we don’t have the time for that, and that it would be prudent, since this is at least a plausible scenario, that we do something about it now, because as you said, these measurements are very difficult to take. You need to do it over a long period of time and very accurately. It might take fifteen, twenty, twenty-five years. Should we do nothing until that point?”
Singer—” Well, the question is what you mean by “doing” something. I’m not a great believer in buying insurance if the risks are small and the premiums are high. Nobody in his right mind would do that. But this is the case here. We’re being asked to buy an insurance policy against a risk that is very small, if at all, and pay a very heavy premium. We’re being asked to reduce energy use, not just by a few percent but, according to the Kyoto Protocol, by about 35 percent within ten years. That means giving up one-third of all energy use, using one-third less electricity, throwing out one-third of all cars perhaps. It would be a huge dislocation of our economy, and it would hit people very hard, particularly people who can least afford it.
For what? All the Kyoto Protocol would do is to slightly reduce the current rate of increase of carbon dioxide. And in fact, the UN Science Advisory Group has published their results. And they clearly show that the Kyoto Protocol would reduce, if it went into effect and were punctiliously observed by all of the countries that have to observe it–by the year 2050, –about 50 years from now–it would reduce the calculated temperature increase by .05 degrees Centigrade. That amount is not even measurable. So this is what you are being asked to buy.”
Posted April 22nd, 2008 at 3:59 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Fred Singer, surely not the same guy who “denies” that second-hand smoke can cause cancer, or the same guy who believes that the moon orbiting Mars is…wait for it…artificial? Or the same guy who openly admitted receiving money from Exxon? The same guy who sits on boards of conservative “think tanks” that are funded by oil companies? The same Fred Singer that has degrees in electrical engineering and physics, not climatology or meteorology? The same Fred Singer who has not published a peer-reviewed article about global warming, ever!? Oh, and is it the same NIPCC whose “report” was ridiculed by climate scientists from NASA, Princeton, and Stanford U as “fabricated nonsense?”
Do your own research, consider the sources, etc.
Posted April 22nd, 2008 at 4:28 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Same guy I think, but he’d say his detractors are all in an academic conspiracy because they want grant money … he claims that in academia/scientific research circles, to question climate change is career suicide.
My conspiracy theories and money-following point more to Exxon, but hey what do I know … do ya think THEY have any money, power, or influence, poor little company like that?
Posted April 22nd, 2008 at 5:00 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
His ‘detractors’ are real scientists who see his ’science’ for what it is–junk. He is getting paid to put out junk science to cloud the issue so we stretch our incredible inefficiency a few more years down the road, thus bringing more profit to Exxon and the rest.
Posted April 22nd, 2008 at 5:25 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I don’t know where I stand on Global Warming, honestly; I think there are changes happening, but I’m not convinced yet that whether it’s man-made or part of a natural cycle. Either way, it’s serious, and I think we should be doing all we can to minimize our contribution to it.
A UN group (think of all the great works the UN has accomplished), a ex-politician, a guy who’s taking Exxon’s money, and a 15-year-old girl? We can’t find greater minds than this to debate the issue??
Posted April 22nd, 2008 at 6:17 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
You nailed it in Post#3, toaaronuu. Just follow the money trail and it’s relatively easy to discount the messages from handsomely-paid naysayers.
Poor souls, like letter-writer Joe: still conflicted (or just grossly mis- or under-informed) about several thousand years’ worth of worldwide empirical data (collected from instruments, tree rings, soils, ice cores, aerial photos, and so on), and the overwhelming mountains of scientifically-agreed upon studies, models, etc. - all which paint a seriously grim climate future.
As if science is somehow the same as politics - two sides to the story? Unfortunately, Joe, science is very 1-sided and reliant on facts & evidence.
Perhaps it’s easier to understand if you strip away the climate-weirdness aspect, and look at what’s currently occuring, today in the world….crude oil at $119/barrel today (fact: it was $12/barrel just 10 years ago), food riots & crises over supply, wealthy Japan running out of butter & wheat & other food stocks, $2 trillion wasted in Iraq so far, USA economy spiraling further down the rathole, Hillary threatening to obliterate Iran…whoa…I need to stop.
Are you recognizing how all these crises are converging fairly quickly? Should we be taking some actions; say, enacting “no-regrets” policies (things we should be doing anyway, regardless of climate) to get thru this? Things like stabilizing population, saving farmlands, protecting fisheries, eradicating poverty, developing new sources of energy that don’t require US miltary muscle, revamping all transportation systems, etc etc.?? Or should we continue the debate with 15-year-olds and Exxon charlatans?
Now, go ahead and toss Peak Oil & Climate Change into the equation (or fire)….how quick (and high) can you jump? Sure hope you’re able to grow your own food & have a plentiful of clean water. Perilous times require bold, dramatic responses. Sadly, the US response is continued foot dragging (and knee-bending) rather than critical thinking and real action.
Posted April 22nd, 2008 at 6:26 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I am a thoroughly convinced global warming believer. but how can this discussion be complete without the real authority? Willis is missing!
Posted April 22nd, 2008 at 8:46 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Give me a break!
If you are a non-expert, you have no standing for claiming that the world’s climate scientists are all wrong. If you can’t tell the difference between a climate scientist and someone who pushes misleading petitions (i.e.: Leipzig Declaration and Oregon Petition), then you are a non-expert.
If you don’t understand the physics and chemistry of radiatively active gases, albedo, photosynthesis and stable isotopes, then you are a non-expert.
Whether or not a scientific hypothesis is supported is something that is decided in scientific meetings and in peer-reviewed journals. If you have to go to the mainstream media, then you are not doing science.
AND, every graduate student knows that the route to fame is to show that your elders are wrong. Thus, there is ample motivation for every scientist to show that global warming is a hoax. The fact that actual scientists keep finding data that supports, rather than refutes, the hypothesis is a pretty strong indication that global warming is real and caused (at least in part) by humans.
(If you want to argue about how much climate will change or what will be the economic consequences or how much can we slow it down, then there is ample disagreement among the experts. However, the experts are agreed that CO2 is increasing, CO2 will lead to warming (this has been known for over 100 years), and that the new CO2 in the atmosphere is from burning fossil fuels. The experts might be wrong (it might warm faster! or slower) but YOU have no standing to claim you know more than the experts.)
Posted April 22nd, 2008 at 9:37 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I’m confident that Willis was in his easy chair enjoying tonight’s PBS broadcast on NOVA - “Car of the Future”. Alternative vehicle technology….maybe offering some hope for our auto addiction.
(It’ll be online tomorrow in case you missed it)
Posted April 22nd, 2008 at 10:01 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I once got chewed out by a Nova Scotian couple because I had optimistic words about renewable energy (I’d invited them from the next campsite over for a glass of wine).
They howled about the threat of unsightly solar panels and insisted that fossil fuel use was far preferable to the “horrors” of solar, wind, or anything of the like.
Ironically they were avid cyclists touring many world renowned mountain bike routes; this is how we crossed paths on Canyonland’s White Rim Trail.
It is a strange, strange world.
Posted April 23rd, 2008 at 7:09 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
From a genius that doesn’t keep track?
“Nigel_Spumoni
Posted April 22nd, 2008 at 9:37 pm PM This User Report this comment
I’m confident that Willis was in his easy chair enjoying tonight’s PBS broadcast on NOVA - “Car of the Future”. Alternative vehicle technology….maybe offering some hope for our auto addiction.
(It’ll be online tomorrow in case you missed it)”
Sorry, my wheelchair was not produced by the Barcalounger corp.
Occasionally I will view one of the BBC comedy shows on PBS, and my wife enjoys watch Bob Ross, but that pretty much sums up what I watch on the indoctrination channel.
For those truly interested in my thoughts on this subject;
“manmade phenomenon as decided upon by a consensus of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel”
Consensus have never been proven as FACT, only accepted as fact by people looking to gain in some fashion.
algore is certainly getting rich off another liberal theory.
Currently the icecaps are thicker than in quite a few years, but that’s because a warmer planet makes it colder.
Posted April 23rd, 2008 at 7:58 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I do wonder if a good number of people deny man-made climate change simply because they hate Al Gore so very, very much.
Posted April 23rd, 2008 at 8:01 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
This was e-mailed to me this morning. I thought it fit well into the current debate.
Time Fights Carbon Emissions; Military Fights Evil
By Dennis Prager
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
The state of the liberal mind is on display on this week’s cover of Time magazine.
The already notorious cover takes the iconic photograph of U.S. Marines planting the American flag on Iwo Jima and substitutes a tree for the flag. Why Time’s editors did this explains much about contemporary liberalism.
The first thing it explains is that liberals, not to mention the left as a whole, stopped fighting evil during the Vietnam War. As I wrote in my last column, whereas liberals had led the fight against Nazism before and during World War II, and against Communism after the War, the liberal will to fight Communism, the greatest organized evil of the post-War world, collapsed during the Vietnam War. The Vietnam War did to American liberals what World War I did to most Europeans — it rendered them anti-war rather than anti-evil.
That is why liberals have gone AWOL in the fight against Islamic totalitarianism. As during the post-Vietnam Cold War, when liberals fought anti-Communists much more than they fought Communists, they fight anti-Islamists much more than they fight Islamists. Thus, Democrats routinely dismiss the Bush administration’s talk about the threat of Islamic terror as “scare tactics.”
But — and this is a primary reason for Time’s cover — liberals know that they have largely opted out of the fight against Islamists; their only passion on this matter is abandoning the war against Islamists in Iraq. But like nearly all people who believe in a cause, they know that they have to fight some evil — after all, the world really seems threatened by something. So they have channeled their desire to fight threats to the world to fighting an enemy that will not hurt them or their loved ones — man-made carbon dioxide emissions.
It is much easier to fight global warming than to fight human evil. You will be celebrated at Time, Newsweek, The New York Times, the BBC and throughout the media world, no one will threaten your life, there are huge grants available to scientists and others who fight real or exaggerated environmental problems, and you may even receive an Academy Award and the Nobel Peace Prize. Individuals who fight Islamists get fatwas.
The Time cover is cheap heroism. It is a liberal attempt to depict as equally heroic those who fight carbon emissions and those who fought Japanese fascists and Nazis.
Second, for much of the left, the cover reflects the primacy of environmental concerns over moral concerns. For example, the left seemed never to care about the millions of Africans who continued to die from malaria largely because of the environmentalists’ worldwide ban on the use of DDT as pesticide. The same holds true for another leftwing environmentalist fantasy. Changing corn into biofuels is causing a surge in food prices throughout the world. The European Union continues this policy despite warnings even from some environmentalists that food shortages, starvation and food riots are imminent. But human suffering is not as significant as environmental degradation.
Third, the left is far more internationalist — global, if you will — in its orientation than national. As the Time article states, “Going green: What could be redder, whiter and bluer than that?” Whereas, for most Americans patriotism remains red, white and blue, for much of the left it is green.
Fourth, the further left you go, the more inclined you are to hysteria. From the threat of DDT to the threat of heterosexual AIDS in America to that mass killer secondhand smoke, the left believes and spreads threats that, unlike the threat of Islamic terror, really are “scare tactics.”
Years from now, Time’s cover will be regarded as another silly media-induced fear. But, as with Time’s 1974 article warning its readers about “another ice age” and its many articles on the threat of heterosexual AIDS in America, Time will just let public amnesia deal with credibility problems. Until then, however, one fact remains: Today, conservatives fight evil and liberals fight carbon emissions. That’s what this week’s cover of Time is about.
Dennis Prager is a radio show host, contributing columnist for Townhall.com, and author of 4 books including Happiness Is a Serious Problem: A Human Nature Repair Manual.
Posted April 23rd, 2008 at 8:41 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Then there is another irrational fear … fear of the mythical army of evil liberals.
So as long as we are sharing quotations …
“What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label “Liberal?” If by “Liberal” they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer’s dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of “Liberal.” But if by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.”
…
I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a superstate. I see no magic in tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this administration as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them…”
- John F. Kennedy, September 14, 1960
Posted April 23rd, 2008 at 8:53 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
If liberals today were in the mold of JFK, they would be called centrists. Unfortunately, they are more in the mold of McGovern, Kerry, and Obama. And they are soft on defense, soft on individual responsibiliy, and hard on the taxpayer. And that is why a liberal, in the current mold, has never been elected to the White House, and the reason that in the current environment, where a Democratic victory should be a sure thing, it isn’t.
Posted April 23rd, 2008 at 8:57 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Dennis Prager is just another neo-con windbag. He sees only in back and white, good and evil, just the mindset that has got us into our current mess.
Posted April 23rd, 2008 at 9:12 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
There’s some truth to your assessment of politicians who call themselves liberals. Just like the current occupant calling himself a conservative.
All of the above completely insult the noble, traditional meanings of either political philosophy.
But among the “common man” I don’t think we give one another enough credit. Most people I know who identify themselves as liberals are so in the JFK spirit, and my conservative friends are more of the Jeffersonian mindset.
However in the blogosphere we all point and scream at one another as if everyone on one “side” was Jerry Falwell and everyone on the other “side” was Jane Fonda.
And that just aint true.
Posted April 23rd, 2008 at 9:31 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
ash, if the Democrats were to nominate someone like JFK, strong on defense, and a tax cutter, they would win, in a landslide. In the current election, the closest one to JFK’s philosophy, is, in my opinion. John McCain.
Posted April 23rd, 2008 at 9:32 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
ashhugger,
Thank you for that clear, concise, and important comment. Note that it is zealots who routinely try to make everyone else fit into a “mold”. It speaks volumes about them.
Posted April 23rd, 2008 at 9:42 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
A sampling of today’s headlines from around the world, not likely printed in the Sentinel:
“New Arctic sea ice is now so perilously thin on average that it melts under the sunshine of clear summer skies it once could survive, American researchers conclude in a study published today.”
“Pennies a day. That’s all it would cost the United States to significantly reduce the emission of gases that contribute to global warming. What’s more, the cost to businesses, families, and overall economic growth would be minimal, according to a new study released this week.”
“Rice prices have scaled fresh heights in Asian trade amid concern that export bans by key producers will hit supply. The global food crisis is a “silent tsunami” with an extra 100 million people facing poverty, the UN said. This is the new face of hunger - the millions of people who were not in the urgent hunger category six months ago, but now are.”
“The leaders of Bolivia and Peru have attacked the use of biofuels, saying they have made food too expensive for the poor. Speaking at the United Nations, the Bolivian president, Evo Morales, said the increased use of farmland for fuel crops was causing a “tremendous increase” in food prices.”
**MEANWHILE HERE AT HOME, WHILE THE UNITED STATES FILES ITS NAILS:**
“Well into the lame-duck stage of his presidency, with his duties at the White House increasingly minimal, Bush found time to put in an appearance on the popular game show ‘Deal or No Deal’. Bush, who according to a Gallup poll today became the most unpopular president in recorded US history.”
Posted April 23rd, 2008 at 10:18 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Looking at much of the political discourse I don’t see much “conservatism” at all, in particular by those even labeling themselves such. What most of them truly are, are “reactionaries.” They want to “return to the future.” Perhaps it is because they neither know nor understand the past and therefore have no perspective of the present, perhaps emotionally they feel that “it was simpler or easier then”, or it may even be that they do not have the courage to face either the present or the future. Only the individual can answer that for him/herself.
Paying close attention to the public discourse, it is also clear that far too many do not really know what words mean, at least political terms. Far too many have been redefined with emotion and value judgemnts. The products are what I like to call “designer definitions.” Under such conditions communication is impossible. They are actually speaking different languages.
That, however, is not the biggest problem. What is, and what is a clear indicator that the terms are emotional, is that the individual is unable to “let go” of that definition, even when pointed out to her/him. By way of example, I will relate a fairly recent experience.
In a one-on-one conversation, the other party used the word “fascism.” Recognizing the danger of miscommunication, I asked him what he meant by the term and, when he replied, I knew that he had no concept whatever of the real meaning of the term. I offered to provide him with several books on the subject, he accepted and I provided him with them.
Several weeks later, I inquired if he had read them, or at least those sections which dealt with that movement. Sadly, he had not, and handed the books back to me unopened. That disturbed me, not because I was personally offended, but because he apparently considered it unimportant to inform himself or he did not “want to know” as he would then have had to change his mind about things.
That is what I see in much of what passes for the “public discourse”, especially in the area of politics. Far too many use terms that they really do not understand, only “believing” that they do, and even when that is pointed out to them, they either refuse or are unable to accept anything new. Any attempt to change their mind is like sewing seed on a piece of granite.
On another occasion I spent my time and effort attempting to illustrate that the terms “liberal” and “conservative” are not opposites. They are not even on the same plane in the area of political thought. The opposite of liberalism is not conservatism, it is totalitarianism. The opposite of conservatism is not liberalism, it is radicalism. Therefore one could say that the terms “liberal” and “totalitarianism” exist on the intellectual plane while “conservatism” and “radicalism” apply in the execution or “how to” level.
Needless to say, my definitions held for approximately two(2) weeks, then many returned to their old ways, and resumed misusing the words, that without any refutation as to whether I was in error. When looking at such behavior, I know that those who reverted back still did not understand and for them I merely felt sad for them.
Another classic example of one who clearly has his own “definitions” is a columnist formerly with another newspaper, and who is now with the Daily Sentinel. It is none other than Rick Wagner and, being an attorney, he should know that words and terms have specific meanings. Yet, in many of his articles it is obvious that, while he may know “of” things, what is all to frequently lacking is an understanding of concepts or ideas to which he refers and attempts to use in his articles. Two specific ones are “true believers” and, pretentiousness upon pretentiousness, Immanuel Kant’s “categorical imperitave” (that to which he refers, but does not explain). When looking at such, what this individual sees is an “attempt to impress”, and not one to either communicate or convince.
As I have gone on too long, and have no wish to impose myself further on the individuals time, permit me to close with the following observation. If one is to discuss a subject, any subject, one should at the very least make an effort to first learn it, and not merely know “of it.”
Posted April 23rd, 2008 at 10:32 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mr. Laitres from Delta has spoken of many things.
Here’s the topic of this thread.
NPR’s debate on global warming
“As I have gone on too long, and have no wish to impose myself further on the individuals time, permit me to close with the following observation. If one is to discuss a subject, any subject, one should at the very least make an effort to first learn it, and not merely know “of it.””
Yes you did go on quite long, and totally OFF TOPIC.
Your last sentence is good advice. Try it sometime.
Posted April 23rd, 2008 at 10:51 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
To be fair I first steered the conversation off topic in response to the Dennis Prager article.
I found RLaitres’ observation about speaking different languages, very poignant.
Anyway I’ll take it back to Dennis Prager and back to the topic (somewhat) here:
Prager calls corn ethanol “another leftwing environmentalist fantasy.” This is ridiculous. The greatest proponents of corn ethanol have been the likes of Monsanto, ADM, and congressmen (of both parties) from corn belt states. Anyone who studies environmental protection and sustainable food systems has known for decades that the attempt to corn into fuel is a losing proposition. Commercial corn production is chemically intensive and depletes the soil. We have already dedicated too much acreage to corn for turning it to meat, but at least in the past farmers would rotate corn fields with soybeans (to be used for the same purpose, animal feed) but the soil would be healthier and less synthetic fertilizer would have to be used because of the crop rotation. Now as a farmer who is just trying to survive and suddenly they see the answer, grow corn and as much of it as possible … when opportunity knocks, who wouldn’t do the same? I do not blame the farmers.
Posted April 23rd, 2008 at 11:12 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Agreed, ethanol is only a politically motivated payoff to the power brokers that deal with the produce after it leaves the farm.
Having said that, i have some Ash Trees planted several years ago that are not doing as well as hoped for.
Would you mind coming aver and giving each one a big hug? It might make them feel wanted and loved.
Posted April 23rd, 2008 at 11:20 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sure, no problem! You should hug them too, and tell them they are beautiful
Posted April 23rd, 2008 at 11:43 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
One of the headlines that Nigel may have missed was this one in the New York Times: “Europe Turns to Coal Again, Raising Alarms on Climate”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/world/europe/23coal.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Perhaps Nigel should send the members of the European Union the study which he quoted: “Pennies a day. That’s all it would cost the United States to significantly reduce the emission of gases that contribute to global warming. What’s more, the cost to businesses, families, and overall economic growth would be minimal, according to a new study released this week.”
Nigel, did you see the study about buying the Brooklyn Bridge for $5?
Posted April 23rd, 2008 at 12:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I watered them the other day. The lady down the road had her binoculars out and called to tell me to use the garden hose next time.
I don’t know what difference it would make, but maybe next time I’ll try the hose idea.
Posted April 23rd, 2008 at 2:39 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Back to the original letter, and Joe’s call for debates on the issue. There is no debate. That is why there aren’t any on tv or anywhere else. “Deniers” are against science, the scientific method, and logic, OR they are getting paid to create doubt and confusion. What I can’t get over is the foolish notion that it is going to cost us a gazillion dollars to do anything about it. What happened to the very conservative notion of ‘waste not, want not?’ Burning fossil fuels for energy is fabulously inefficient. Increasing efficiency is what we have to do. Why have regressives decided that is suddenly such a bad thing? Please tell me how increasing efficiency is going to harm America.
As for the next favorite argument, “Al Gore is getting rich…,” well, if you are so smart and know how he’s getting rich, then why don’t you do it too? Suddenly against free markets and capitalism?
Posted April 23rd, 2008 at 2:52 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
What’s a “regressive”? “Why have regressives “.
Is that a name for infinitely smarter than you because they have honest answers while all you have is tired, worn out political rhetoric?
Apparently, according to the original letter writer, there is at least one 15 year old girl with more going on in her head than you have in yours.
“, “Al Gore is getting rich…,” well, if you are so smart and know how he’s getting rich, then why don’t you do it too? Suddenly against free markets and capitalism?’
You deny that algore is getting extremely rich from playing the global warming gig? you need to pay attention to what he does and what he says, as well as how he gets around burning tons of jet A everytime he leaves the house.
I still have my “carbon credits” for sale.
As a true believer in global warming, I want to know why you haven’t purchased them yet?
Don’t care enough to put your money where your mouth is? Why not?
All blow and now show?
sorry, I forgot, honesty and integrity are not part of the left wing whacko makeup.
I apologize for offending you for your being what you are.
Posted April 23rd, 2008 at 2:57 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Why are you against efficiency? And if Gore is getting rich, so what? Answers, please.
Posted April 23rd, 2008 at 3:09 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Now, who said I was against “efficiency”?
Since algore is only in it for the money, why are you preaching for his cause?
How do you stand to gain?
Are you aware that in his movie, some of the ice files were styrofoam, and some segments were from old documentaries and taken out of context?
Does deliberate fraud bother you?
Why won’t you buy my carbon credits?
Answers please.
Posted April 23rd, 2008 at 3:44 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ah, the Troll speaks from under the bridge, once again offering nothing but background noise as Rome burns. What the *#&@ does Al Gore’s checking account have to do with food shortages, dwindling oil supplies, resource wars, and documented climate weirdness?
How do YOU stand to gain? Other than, say, the hope of saving civilization and perhaps staying alive for a few more years, and offering some prospect of a liveable furture for out kids? Is that enough? Can you apply any other moral rationalization?
Studied up yet on the climate projections for the arid west, or is that all lumped in the “deliberate fraud” category also? Figured out what to drink when the snows don’t come to the Mesa? Bet you’ll be the first in line for some of that Federal-Government-provided bottled water when the time comes, real soon.
Posted April 23rd, 2008 at 3:51 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Burning fossil fuels for energy is fabulously inefficient. Increasing efficiency is what we have to do.?????????????—————-So,please, divulge your secret as to which is the more efficient method for generating power if it’s not fossil fuels? Better yet, why don’t you patent the method and sell the rights to every power generator in the world who will pay you handsomely for your discovery. You might also read today’s New York times where you will find how European nations are getting ready to increase power generation using coal. Your services, sir, will be in high demand!
Posted April 23rd, 2008 at 4:00 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
And then we hear from the ultra not too intelligent one who can find no facts to rely on so he resorts to name calling, pretend cursing “- *#&@ -”, and to what end?
Yep, done “studied up on the climate projections”, and guess what?
They’re as accurate as your average 5 day forecast.
“- Figured out what to drink when the snows don’t come to the Mesa? -”
Let me know when that happens. It won’t be in your lifetime, nor your childrens, nor any of the next 40 or so generations.
With the actual data from the kyoto protocol, there will be a reduction in temperatures of 0.05 degrees Celsius over the next 42 years.
Why do you feel the need to try to scare people on what ifs, when there is no factual, scientific research to support your false predictions?
But, I still have some carbon credits for you to purchase.
Put your money where your mouth is little buddy.
Who lit Rome this time?
Care to make an effort at conversing as an intelligent adult next time?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Posted April 23rd, 2008 at 4:08 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I don’t care about Al Gore. At all. Your clever diversionary tactic was as predictable as it was useless, willis, as usual.
Bullshifrog, your post makes no sense. If we increase efficiency, we burn less fuel. No secrets there. If we burn less fuel, we save money. No secrets there. If we burn less fuel, we depend less on foreign energy sources. Again, no secrets. This isn’t the liberal vs. conservative thing you want it to be. Science and common sense prevail, again.
Posted April 23rd, 2008 at 4:18 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
If we increase efficiency we save fuel. Why of course. But what you wrote was that burning fossil fuels for energy was fabulosuly inefficient. That implies that you think there is a more efficient method of producing energy than burning fossil fuels. If you want to say nuclear, then that would be a good answer. But if all you are saying is that we should be more efficient in the use of fossil fuels then let me suggest to you that the rising peice of that fuel will force everyone to be more efficient.
Posted April 23rd, 2008 at 4:38 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“That implies that you think there is a more efficient method of producing energy than burning fossil fuels.” Yes, nuclear is good, surely you can think of others? Also, increased efficiency in our vehicles, homes, offices, factories, etc., is more what I was getting at. Whatever source the energy comes from, increased efficiency is good for us. Big Oil and evidently willis don’t want us to get more bang out of our ‘go juice’, resulting in bunk science and diversions from the real issue. The number from the Kyoto Protocol .05 degrees celsius includes reversing the present trend, so it may look small, but we have to start somewhere.
Posted April 23rd, 2008 at 5:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well, nuclear is a more efficient way of producing electricity and maybe you will support McCain who is the only candidate talking about it. As for efficiency measures, you can be sure that any for profit business has, and will continue to, do whatever possible to reduce energy comsumption. It increases profits. Big oil is not stopping anyone from doing that. And if you want to reduce oil imports, then you should support drilling in Anwar. There is over 8 billion barrels of oil recoverable there. At a projected daily production rate of 1.6 million barrels, we could replace every gallon imported from Saudi Arabia. And there is a lot more oil to be recovered offshore to dispplace even more of our imports. So yes, increase efficiency, go nuclear to replace coal, increase oil drilling in this country while we come up with an electric car battery that will do away with most oil consumption in this country.
Posted April 23rd, 2008 at 5:08 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Many individuals, when attempting to engage in discussion, will follow the entire thread, and recognize that it is not always “limited” to the beginning point, that it may veer off into points that need addressing, in particular when they have been used to buttress a position. Those who read an entire string, from an initial post (or letter in this case) will recognize which response applies to which prior post. Others will not, instead using the opportunity to come up with what they believe to be clever “zingers”, or a game of “tag.” Such individuals are all to easily identifiable and in their posts, all too often display little but an inability to think comprehensively.
Posted April 23rd, 2008 at 5:21 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
In one of the above posts, one individual advocates drilling in Anwar. What is all too often forgotten in such a scenario is that wherever one drills, there is no guarantee that such oil will remain in this country, much as the gas and oil extracted from exploration and drilling in Colorado will not remain or be consumed in Colorado. In fact, most of it will not. That is why we are seeing pipelines built. It may come from this area, but it will not be consumed here. Rather, it will be transported (and in some cases merely “sold” to some other location and then repurchased), but never moved, that for the sole objective of raising prices and “adding on” false “transportation” charges.
Posted April 23rd, 2008 at 5:35 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
The oil being produced in Alaska now, comes to the continental US. As to the natural gas produced in Colorado, there is no way it could all be consumed in the state. The reason there is so much drilling taking place here is because there is now a means to transport it out of state. Just as oil produced in other states is piped into Colorado.
Posted April 23rd, 2008 at 5:42 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sorry, that was a misstatement. The oil from Alaska is now piped to a ship terminal. Having said that, there is no reason that those ships cannot be made to off load on our own coast.
Posted April 23rd, 2008 at 5:56 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
93% of Alaskan North Slope crude stays in the USA, thru the AK pipepine to Valdez and shipped to refineries in CA & WA. The remaining 7% goes to China, Japan & S. Korea.
Posted April 23rd, 2008 at 6:00 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
While nuclear power can and should have its place, I just don’t understand what Republicans seem to have against solar, wind, etc. which are much cleaner and safer. McCain for one just never seem to mention these. When McCain is asked about alternative energy he talks about nuclear, maybe hydrogen cell technologies and that seems to be it.
Posted April 23rd, 2008 at 6:00 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Thanks Nigel. I am sure that if drilling in Anwar hinged on having that oil stay in the US, that could be mandated.
Posted April 23rd, 2008 at 6:19 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
But - know that Alaska North Slope oil production peaked in 1988, and by 1998 had fallen by nearly 40% (API). Max was about 1.5 million barrels/day in 1988….and ailing Prudhoe Bay alone can only produce about 400,000 barrels/day right now. Sunny California alone requires more than 1 million barels/day just for transportation needs.
Posted April 23rd, 2008 at 6:36 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Nuclear energy doesn’t even have a seat at the table - if only we would wake up and stop lying to ourselves about TRUE costs and externalities, such as requiring utilities:
-To absorb the costs of nuclear waste disposal
-To decommission plants when worn out
-To insure reactors against possible accidents and terrorist attacks
Bottom line: building new nuclear plants in a competitive electricity market (one that includes wind, solar, geothermal, ocean energy, etc.) is simply not economical.
Posted April 23rd, 2008 at 6:37 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Based on what I read in a government report, the Anwar field would produce at 1.6 million barrels per day for 20 years. That is supposed to be a conservative estimate.
Posted April 23rd, 2008 at 6:41 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
300,000 bbl/day to MAYBE 1.5 million bbl/day MAX are the real numbers (+ some natural gas to boot). So, what to do - stick it in the pipeline to only feed Cailfonia’s daily car addiction? Or, leave it in the ground so we have some backup?
Posted April 23rd, 2008 at 6:46 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oh - and some facts for Willis (way back in Post #34) on the original topic of this thread. You know, skewed data collected with biased, complex instruments like thermometers & weather balloons. Mull it over while enjoying your TV dinner:
1. Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.74°C (plus or minus 0.18°C) since the late-19th century, and the linear trend for the past 50 years of 0.13°C (plus or minus 0.03°C) per decade is nearly twice that for the past 100 years. The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S. and parts of the North Atlantic) have, in fact, cooled slightly over the last century. The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70°N. Lastly, seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1995. (NOAA)
2. Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2007 tied with 1998 for Earth’s second warmest year in a century. (NASA)
3. Global mean sea level has been rising at an average rate of 1.7 mm/year (plus or minus 0.5mm) over the past 100 years, which is significantly larger than the rate averaged over the last several thousand years. (NOAA)
4. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are greater than 380 ppmv and increasing at a rate of 1.9 ppm yr-1 since 2000. The global concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today far exceeds the natural range over the last 650,000 years of 180 to 300 ppmv. According to the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), by the end of the 21st century, we could expect to see carbon dioxide concentrations of anywhere from 490 to 1260 ppm (75-350% above the pre-industrial concentration). (NOAA)
Posted April 23rd, 2008 at 6:49 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
It can go from California to anywhere in the country where it can be processed. We have a big pipeline system in the continental US. It takes a number of years to get production started. We need it now. I would also be in favor of raising gasoline taxes, over time, to reach European levels. That would reduce consumption.
Posted April 23rd, 2008 at 7:03 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Now you’re talking my language, bullishfrog. Do youself a favor and read “Plan B 3.0 - Mobilizing to Save Civilization” (by Lester Brown). Download free online as a .PDF. Chock full of grim statistics & viable solutions, such as this tasty morsel on gas taxes:
“For a gasoline tax, the most detailed analysis available of
indirect costs is found in The Real Price of Gasoline by the
International Center for Technology Assessment. The many
indirect costs to society—including climate change, oil industry
tax breaks, oil supply protection, oil industry subsidies, and
treatment of auto exhaust-related respiratory illnesses—total
around $12 per gallon ($3.17 per liter), slightly more than the
cost to society of smoking a pack of cigarettes. If this external
or social cost is added to the roughly $3 per gallon average price
of gas in the United States in early 2007, gas would cost $15 a
gallon. These are real costs. Someone bears them. If not us, our
children. Now that these costs have been calculated, they can be
used to set tax rates on gasoline, just as the CDC analysis is
being used to raise taxes on cigarettes.”
Posted April 23rd, 2008 at 7:28 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Now, that’s the way to have an intelligent dialog on this medium. As long as all non-profane, non-threatening letters to the Sentinel are published in this space they should be limited to this kind of comments/dialog instead of a free-for-all entertainment gotcha contest. You are all to be congratulated, or most all of you.
Posted April 23rd, 2008 at 9:13 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Awwww, golly gee…
One of the three stooges came up with;
“Nigel_Spumoni
Posted April 23rd, 2008 at 6:46 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oh - and some facts for Willis (way back in Post #34) on the original topic of this thread. You know, skewed data collected with biased, complex instruments like thermometers & weather balloons.”
So, stop using skewed data.
Use real, scientifically collected data that even the lesser descendants of apes can understand.
My data is accurate. Stop lying to bolster your argument and act like an adult.
Posted April 24th, 2008 at 8:52 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Yes, with the usual exception this has been an interesting conversation. I’m still of the mind that the most important thing with this issue is to make it clear there is no debate. The time for debating is over. Now, will the free market help us realize the necessary changes, or not? What choices do we as individuals make in the next 8 months to secure our happy and healthy future?
Posted April 28th, 2008 at 10:55 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
High Gas Prices?…
Make your money you spend on Gasoline go Farther Click Here! To see how….
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.