Denying warming is harmful, irrespons...

Denying warming is harmful, irresponsible

There are 60 comments on the Evening Sun story from Dec 27, 2009, titled Denying warming is harmful, irresponsible. In it, Evening Sun reports that:

While it is often humorous to listen to the arguments of the global warming skeptics, it's also a dangerous indulgence we cannot afford.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Evening Sun.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
JWB

Carlisle, PA

#55 Jan 5, 2010
Concerning the IPCC report which has many disputing analysts.....
From Fred Singer,an American atmospheric physicist, Professor Emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, specializing in planetary science, global warming, ozone depletion, and other global environmental issues.

He's not alone.

"Thousands of competent scientists who have scrutinized the IPCC reports agree that many of the conclusions are unsupported by the scientific evidence. Many IPCC reviewers have publicly rejected the Summary's conclusions. In my opinion, every good scientist is a skeptic. Humans don't dictate facts to nature. As our knowledge of global climate improves, we may discover that all of the popular assumptions are wrong."
JWB

Carlisle, PA

#56 Jan 5, 2010
There is a definite pattern to debating people of liberal mindset.
Didn't mean to insinuate that CO2 is a carcinogen, only that, as with second hand smoke, radon gas and now CO2, the EPA has declared that each must be regulated due to rigged scientific reports. Enough clarification of the point, or is rudimentary explanation required throughout any discussion?
There is ample evidence to repute reports supporting all three bogus threats.
JWB

Carlisle, PA

#58 Jan 5, 2010
To completely clarify, the EPA has not ruled that radon gas must be regulated in regard to housing and is not on par with that of second hand smoke or CO2. However, the effect is similar in regard to how it affects property values and the industry that arose from the the purported threat.
Jon

United States

#60 Jan 5, 2010
JWB wrote:
In my opinion, every good scientist is a skeptic. Humans don't dictate facts to nature. As our knowledge of global climate improves, we may discover that all of the popular assumptions are wrong."
I agree 100% with that, yet the climate is rapidly changing. The solutions presented to us give us the chance to wean ourselves from fossil fuels and clean up our environment at the same time. Everything about fossil fuels is destructive, from the extracting (Mountain top removal mining), to the transport (Exxon Valdez), to the burning of them (pollution). On top of that, there is no denying there is a finite amount of oil, coal, gas so it's safe to say that the supply will dry up at some point. So what then? Do we wait until that point and go into a panic looking for some means to continue to power our economy? Sun and wind are free and not controlled by Saudi Arabia or Exxon. Yes you can argue that solar or wind are not as efficient as they could be, this is why we need to invest in them. Look at PC's, the performance improves while the price drops. Improvements are so rapid, your computer is outdated when you pull it out of the box. We invest in solar the same way and every household in America can be a clean, renewable source of power with panels on their rooftops.

And what if we discover that most of the popular assumptions are right? We are heading for a global catastrophe that much of life on earth probably won't survive. Do you really want to risk that? Yes, things are changing. Yes, I agree that we've gone through cycles of change, but the speed of this change will not allow a lot of life on this planet to continue. It's foolish to take such risks with the only planet we have. There is no Planet B.
Jon

United States

#62 Jan 5, 2010
JWB wrote:
Concerning the IPCC report which has many disputing analysts.....
From Fred Singer,an American atmospheric physicist, Professor Emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, specializing in planetary science, global warming, ozone depletion, and other global environmental issues.
From further down the wiki page on Fred Singer:

Singer has been a consultant to various major corporations, including GE, Ford, GM, Exxon, Shell, Sun Oil, Lockheed Martin and IBM.[1][9]

A 2007 Newsweek cover story on climate change denial reported that: "In April 1998 a dozen people from the denial machine — including the Marshall Institute, Fred Singer's group and Exxon — met at the American Petroleum Institute's Washington headquarters. They proposed a $5 million campaign, according to a leaked eight-page memo, to convince the public that the science of global warming is riddled with controversy and uncertainty." The plan was reportedly aimed at "raising questions about and undercutting the 'prevailing scientific wisdom'" on climate change. According to Newsweek, the plan was leaked to the press and therefore was never implemented.[10] ABC News has reported that Singer insists he is not on the payroll of the energy industry, but admits he once received an unsolicited $10,000 from Exxon.[11] Singer subsequently stated that his purported "connection" to ExxonMobil was more like being on their mailing list than to holding a paid position, pointing out that this single charitable donation comprised a tiny fraction (1%) of all donations received.[12]

In 1994 Singer was the Principal Reviewer of a report authored by Kent Jeffreys titled Science, economics, and environmental policy: a critical examination which was published by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution (AdTI), a right wing[13] think tank of which he was a Senior Fellow.[14] The report attacked the United States Environmental Protection Agency for their 1993 study about the cancer risks of passive smoking and called it "junk science". Singer also appeared on a tobacco industry list of people who could write op-ed pieces defending the industry’s views, according to a peer-reviewed commentary by Derek Yacht and Stella Aguinaga Bialous.[15] Writing for The Guardian, George Monbiot stated that in 1993 APCO, a public relations firm, sent a memo to Philip Morris vice-president Ellen Merlo stating: "As you know, we have been working with Singer and Dr. Dwight Lee, who have authored articles on junk science and indoor air quality (IAQ) respectively ..."[16] Monbiot wrote that he did not have direct evidence that Singer had been paid by Philip Morris.
JWB

Carlisle, PA

#63 Jan 6, 2010
2 questions.
Should we completely change our way of life, costing trillions, basically reverting living conditions backward at least 100 years, all on the very slim unprovable chance that cutting back on human based C02 would make any difference at all?
Have you ever read anything written by Fred Singer or have you only read what others have written about him, without questioning THEIR motives?
JWB

Carlisle, PA

#64 Jan 6, 2010
The notion that "everything about fossil fuels is destructive", indicates a very narrow, indoctrinated view, absent of critical thought.
Jeebus

Elizabethtown, PA

#65 Jan 6, 2010
Jon wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes it does apply to both sides. What has Al Gore said that would be disinformation in your opinion? I'm guessing you are talking about "Inconvienient Truth". Which part didn't you agree with? Let's hear specifics because all I'm hearing from a lot of you deniers is "Al Gore=bad". He is basically saying what the IPCC said. Your last part is confusing, who said "man affected the glaciers retreating during the five major ice ages"? Also, what has been "happening for thousands of years" - you need to be more specific.
Since you agree that hyperbole (lies) applies to both sides anything we post, third party wise, should be considered as crap.

Having said that, your hero Al has been cited numerous times putting his foot in his mouth. I'm sure you know how to use Google. A couple of gems to indicate what an idiot he really is-

"This is mind blowing ignorance on the part of Al Gore. Gore in an 11/12/09 interview on NBC’s tonight Show with Conan O’Brien, speaking on geothermal energy, champion of slide show science, can’t even get the temperature of earth’s mantle right, claiming “several million degrees” at “2 kilometers or so down”. Oh, and the “crust of the earth is hot” too."

“The north polar ice-cap is melting before our very eyes. It’s been the size of the continental United States for most of the last three million years and now suddenly 40 percent of it is gone and the rest of it is expected to disappear within five, 10, 15 years,” said Gore."

In reality, between summer 2007 and summer 2008, arctic ice at the North Pole grew by a staggering 30 percent, an area the size of Germany.

WRT to glaciers, you seemed to state that man was responsible for the glaciers retreating. The glaciers have come and gone at least five times without man's help.

One lat thing-remember the Uk courts ruled in 2007 that Al's movie was full of crap and it could not be presented in schools as educational? Remember IT IS A MOVIE.

Jeebus

Elizabethtown, PA

#66 Jan 6, 2010
Jon wrote:
<quoted text>

Singer has been a consultant to various major corporations, including GE, Ford, GM, Exxon, Shell, Sun Oil, Lockheed Martin and IBM.[1][9]
And Al runs the Generation Investment Management LLP. No bias there right?
not surprised

Hollywood, FL

#67 Jan 6, 2010
Goracle is a self serving greedy idiot, he has no credibility.
eric

Denmark, WI

#68 Jan 6, 2010
they uncover an article from Sweden from November 1922.They were going to the North Pole to explore why we are losing ice caps and there is less ice in general and they spoke of climate change then 88 years ago...!
isnt the same global warming idiots the same scientists ( research paid for by liberal democrat research money and grants) the same folks who talked about global cooling and heading for an ice age back in the early 80's
Jon

Ponte Vedra Beach, FL

#69 Jan 6, 2010
Jeebus wrote:
<quoted text>
And Al runs the Generation Investment Management LLP. No bias there right?
Al doesn't hide the fact he is a businessman. Again, he is not a scientist, he is only reporting what the IPCC is saying. By the way, he testified to members of congress that the proceeds from his movie and the book are going to his non profit Alliance for Climate Protection. Keywords being NON and PROFIT. I guess you missed that on FOX News.
Jon

Ponte Vedra Beach, FL

#70 Jan 6, 2010
Jeebus wrote:
<quoted text>
And Al runs the Generation Investment Management LLP. No bias there right?
Al doesn't hide the fact that he's a businessman. Again, he is not a scientist. He is only reporting what the IPCC is saying. He also testified to members of Congress that 100% of proceeds from his DVD and new book are going to his Non-Profit Alliance for Climate Protection. Key words being NON and PROFIT. I guess you missed that on Fox News.
gimini210

Dunlap, TN

#71 Jan 6, 2010
I know this will tick some off but in the 70's they were crying about the ice age coming, then they went to global warming and now it is climate change, due to the longer winter last winter and the coldest winter in years, this year. There has been record snow falls world wide and record lows. Here where I live we have never had snow before Feb. and never has it covered the ground in many years as long as I have been here. Yet so far it has snowed 3 times and once covered the ground. Our roads were salted today to prepare for 2 days of snow, we have never had salt on the road in front of my house as long as I have lived here until today. Global warming is when the earths surface heats up but how can it be if we have snow that fell in some states before, during and after Christmas that is still here while more is on the way. A warm surface would create melting yet it is not. It is frozen and hanging in there.

Pollution in any form is not good for you but a man whose utility bills are higher than most of ours combined, who uses a private jet to travel, who wants to buy extra carbon vouchers, stands before me and cries global warming, well it makes it hard for me to believe he is being really concerned about it. He is either a liar or a hypocrite. Either one makes him a person I would not trust no matter what he spews forth. Also when he said the ice caps would be melted in four years the very scientist he used to back this stood up and said he could not and never would make a claim such as that. I guess what I am saying is, global warming, climate change or the ice age, no one really knows. The earth has gone through these changes for millions of years and will continue to long after we are gone. We have no control over nature. Look at the winter now, laughing at Al and everyone who believes him. Wonder how the ice caps are doing now?
Jon

United States

#72 Jan 6, 2010
JWB wrote:
2 questions.
Should we completely change our way of life, costing trillions, basically reverting living conditions backward at least 100 years, all on the very slim unprovable chance that cutting back on human based C02 would make any difference at all?
Have you ever read anything written by Fred Singer or have you only read what others have written about him, without questioning THEIR motives?
You ignored my questions, but I'll go ahead and respond to yours anyway. You are equating getting our energy from clean, renewable sources as "reverting our living conditions backwards at least 100 years". Electricity is electricity no matter what the source. A TV doesn't look any different using power generated by wind.
No I haven't read anything by Fred Singer who is supposedly an atmospheric physicist. How does this qualify him to declare second hand smoke being a carcinogen to be a myth? I think it qualifies him to be a "scientist for hire" to whichever harmful, polluting industry will pay him. Where did your trillions figure come from? Would it be from the same source that told us before the war that it would cost a "couple of billion" dollars?
And you're missing the point that cutting back on burning fossil fuels also cuts back on Sulfur dioxide, Mercury, Nitrogen oxide, VOC's, and other pollutants. That is not "reverting our living conditions backwards" to me.
Jon

United States

#73 Jan 6, 2010
Jeebus wrote:
<quoted text>

In reality, between summer 2007 and summer 2008, arctic ice at the North Pole grew by a staggering 30 percent, an area the size of Germany.

One lat thing-remember the Uk courts ruled in 2007 that Al's movie was full of crap and it could not be presented in schools as educational? Remember IT IS A MOVIE.
Between the summer of 2007 and the summer of 2008 would be winter. The Arctic ice cap grows and shrinks with the seasons. I believe when Al talks about the Polar Ice cap being gone he is refering to the Arctic being ice free in the summer. The overall trend is downward. View the graph at the Sea Ice index here: http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/
A good primer on sea ice: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2008_faq.ht...

I don't believe the UK judge said the movie was "full of crap" as you say. Some actual words from Justice Burton:

“I have no doubt that Dr. Stott, the Defendant’s expert, is right when he says that:‘Al Gore’s presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.”

Then he quotes Martin Chamberlain, the lawyer for the defendant (The Secretary of State for Education and Skills), who says,“The position is that the central scientific theme of Al Gore’s Film is now accepted by the overwhelming majority of the world’s scientific community." Justice Burton then adds that "For the purposes of this hearing, Mr.(Paul) Downes (lawyer for the plaintiff) was prepared to accept that the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report represented the present scientific consensus."

Don't see "full of crap" anywhere in there.
Up Uranus

United States

#74 Jan 6, 2010
Since WHEN the HELL am I responsible for financing Al Bore's PERSONAL FORTUNE?

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#75 Jan 6, 2010
Jon wrote:
<quoted text>

Don't see "full of crap" anywhere in there.
Just look at your own posts, Jon, and you'll see that they are full of crap.
JWB

United States

#77 Jan 6, 2010
Uhhh Jon,
"And what if we discover that most of the popular assumptions are right? We are heading for a global catastrophe that much of life on earth probably won't survive. Do you really want to risk that?"

My question as a response....
"Should we completely change our way of life, costing trillions, basically reverting living conditions backward at least 100 years, all on the very slim unprovable chance that cutting back on human based C02 would make any difference at all?"

And since you admit to not ever actually reading anything written buy Fred Singer, how do you automatically discredit him, without discrediting your own opinion?
Inquiring minds want to know.....

Also, you say...
"Al doesn't hide the fact that he's a businessman. Again, he is not a scientist. He is only reporting what the IPCC is saying."

Really?? I've never heard Al say he's a business man but he HAS insinuated everything he spouts is based on SCIENCE, inferring the "scientist" point of view. And that Science, according to him is "settled". He has absolutely reported far more that what the discredited IPCC report stated. Polar bears becoming extinct? Greater occurrences of hurricanes? Increased global temps.? Greater occurrences of tornadoes? Pleaseeeeeee......

Enough of the nonsense already.......
Jon

Roy, WA

#78 Jan 6, 2010
JWB wrote:
Enough of the nonsense already.......
That's the smartest thing you've said....

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

James Inhofe Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Looking for answers: Oklahomans hope town hall ... Mar 19 lastditch 1
News In Toronto, Leonardo DiCaprio delivers 'Before ... (Sep '16) Sep '16 inbred Genius 7
News Fracking Didn't Cause Oklahoma Earthquake (Sep '16) Sep '16 Go Blue Forever 1
News US Sen. Inhofe OK after weather forces him to l... (Jul '16) Jul '16 Hostis Publicus 1
News GOP chairman intensifies fight with White House... (Dec '15) Dec '15 goonsquat 10
News On climate change, Republicans are truly except... (Dec '15) Dec '15 serfs up 3
News Sen. Inhofe's 81st Birthday Present: Senate Vot... (Nov '15) Nov '15 Patriot AKA Bozo 1
More from around the web