Archive for Monday, September 24, 2012

Letter to the Editor: Look at science

September 24, 2012


To the editor:

I don’t consider myself one who goes to the extreme over the environment. But grant me time to share a few thoughts with any who refuses to accept the possibility that man is having an adverse effect on our environment. 

We enjoy the luxury and convenience of microwave ovens, computers, cell phones, air-conditioning, flat-screen TVs, preserved and pasteurized foods, and the science of medicine. We marvel about man on the moon, exploring Mars and beyond. GPS and weather-related satellites bring us information about where we are and how hot tomorrow will be.

Science made all those things possible. I doubt we would give up many of those marvels.  

We buy insurance policies on our cars, houses and bodies. We spend billions of dollars defending our country in case someone decides they don’t like us very much, insurance for ourselves and country. Insurance is our fall-back position against the unexpected.

Given the millions of benefits we all enjoy through science, why would we deny the findings of hundreds of people with PhD’s in environmental science warning us that man is negatively affecting the climate of the very place we live. Did we object to the science of microwaves or cell phones?

 I don’t relish paying for insurance, but with the environment, it’s not just your life you are gambling with – it is mine and every other living thing on Earth. If you reject the findings of environmental science, show me your research and PhD in that field. 

I have one question for you: What if you are wrong?


grigori 1 year, 6 months ago

There's no such thing as an atmosphere... that's a bunch of witchcraft nonsense


Armstrong 1 year, 6 months ago

Global warming, the best science money can buy.


George Lippencott 1 year, 6 months ago

Here again I feel a need to observe as I did with Mr. Pitt’s tome yesterday, that maybe some acknowledgement for distance travelled should be presented

Last year we (US) emitted the smallest amount of carbon in 20 years. That is right our emissions were at the 1993 level. Is this permanent – who know but it is real and it is in the right direction

Last year the federal government spent more than $100 billion on climate change matters (Report to Congress). I was unable to find any data summarizing corporate or private spending. I would observe that curly bulbs are doing well and Kansas is spending quite a bit on renewable energy.

It is striking that one can find a gazillion articles postulating the costs of addressing or not addressing climate change but one can not find (at least I could not) documentation on how much we are actually spending right now. Perhaps one of you could offer a number?

I would suggest an ATABOY for accomplishments to date is warranted in addition to our daily reminder that we are not going fast enough for the zealots.


Flap Doodle 1 year, 6 months ago

Didn't the oceans stop rising on Jan. 20, 2009?


Benjamin Roberts 1 year, 6 months ago

This will be the third posting of this comment: for some reason it is not appearing in the forum.

"Given the millions of benefits we all enjoy through science, why would we deny the findings of hundreds of people with PhD’s in environmental science warning us that man is negatively affecting the climate of the very place we live."

The issue is no longer driven by science; it has been taken over by politics. Politics from both sides and the middle.

In other words: Follow the money (power).


dontsheep 1 year, 6 months ago

What about all of these?

What about the 1970s global ice age prediction? There is a pretty good list of studies, headlines and articles here.

Mr Burgess, your camp has been wrong once and now they want the world to spend trillions of dollars on ineffective technology, bankrupt companies with overzealous regulations, seize more control through Agenda 21 initiatives, and steal taxpayer money to bailout failed companies. They are ruining lives now.

And by the way, comparing the science of microwaves and cell phones to climate change is a ridiculous. It sets up a false argument. One you can prove, the other you can't. Try comparing to religion...there are many more parallels.


Liberty_One 1 year, 6 months ago

Here's another analogy: You take your car in for a tune-up and the mechanic tells you there's something terribly wrong with it. It will cost $5000 to fix and if you don't pay to fix it now your car will explode. You take it to another mechanic who says there's nothing wrong, but the first one says that mechanic is a "denier" who has connections to the new car dealership and just wants to sell you a new car when your current car explodes.

Oh, and one more thing. The first mechanic has never been right about anything in the past, but he swears if you don't give him $5000 right now your car is going to explode.


Benjamin Roberts 1 year, 6 months ago

"Given the millions of benefits we all enjoy through science, why would we deny the findings of hundreds of people with PhD’s in environmental science warning us that man is negatively affecting the climate of the very place we live."

The issue is no longer driven by science; it has been taken over by politics. Politics from both sides and the middle.

In other words: Follow the money (power).


Ken Lassman 1 year, 6 months ago

Put another way: you take your car in to the local shop and they hook it up to a computer, look over the readouts and check it over, listening to it, and conclude that the front suspension is getting loose enough that you are going to need new parts. Thinking about it, you've noticed that when you are going 75 on the turnpike, you get a little rumble when you are going on curves.

Now, it could just be the road ripples on that stretch of curve, and it could be that the mechanic is just trying to make a buck, so you take your car to 9 other shops (I know, this is a bit of a stretched metaphor). All but one shop comes up with the same conclusion: your suspension is worn and if you don't do something, your car could lose control unexpectedly when you were driving at 75 some day on the turnpike.

So are all of these shops selling you the same scam? Is it really just the road? If you wait and the majority is right, you'll end up having to get a new set of tires too, and run the risk of catastrophic failure. But if they are wrong, you end up with some new parts that you didn't necessarily need. What kind of chance are you willing to take? Are you willing to take that chance while driving your grandkids to Colorado?

Frankly, climatologists are getting pretty clear signals on this issue, and it's getting clearer with each study and each passing year. The politicians are happy enough to have us turn up our radioes to mask that noise, since they're afraid that they'll get fired when they have to take that repair bill to their boss. But even the politicians are in this car, and if the front end goes out, everyone, politicians and all, will be headed toward the ditch.


JohnBrown 1 year, 6 months ago

First off, let's not blame Republicans. For most of my life, Republicans have been pretty level-headed. Today's so-called Republicans are actually an amalgam of the John Birch Society, gold-standard bearers, the Know-nothings, and religious despots (aka American Taliban). Let's call them RINOs: Republican In Name Only.

RINOs deny global warming because it does not fit with their beliefs. The American Taliban believe that god controls the climate, and how arrogant to believe that mankind could possibly vie with the power of their god. The Know-nothings can easily deny stuff they don't know's easy...just deny it. The JBS and the gold-bugs want completely free enterprise, with no strings attached. Unfettered greed is good. Taking responsibility for global warming means PAYING for it (i.e. more government oversight and government taxes and government regulations, ugh!).

You dare to ask "But what if you are wrong?"

That's a question they never ask themselves, that's why they are so sure they are right.

But....what if they ARE wrong?????



Les Blevins 1 year, 6 months ago

I'll second that Merril and I posted two response comments to the story about Brownback brusing up on his tax cuts story in today's paper that I believe connect with your position.


The GOP instituted the end of a century Negro Slavery when President Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation ending the era of slave labor in the US. Today the "Grand old Party" is instituting a new era by introducing economic class slavery where the rich among us hold the economically disadvantaged in bondage while they pass the burden of excess spending for things like bank bailouts and unfunded wars off on the poor class and enjoy the perks of vast wealth without pulling their fair share of the financial load they created via unregulated bank bailouts and the military industrial complex Republican Ike Eisenhower warned us about. Thankfully many people in the so called "swing states" are beginning to figure out who Mitt Romney wants to lighten the burden on and who he would enslave.


Incidently; I had my attorney write a letter to newly elected Kansas Governor Sam Brownback offering energy innovation manufacturing and deployment as a viable pathway for Kansas in addressing budget problems Kansas faced when he took office but he turned my proposal aside without so much as a response letter. My attorney wrote; Mr. Blevins would like to point out that most feedstock conversion systems focus on one or two feedstocks while the Advanced Alternative Energy conversion technology is designed to operate on a wide variety of feedstocks including; • Crop Residues • Livestock and Poultry Wastes • Dedicated Energy Crops of Many Types • MSW, Urban Wastes and Special Wastes • Forest and Lumber Industry Residues • Food Processing Residues • Wood Products Manufacturing Wastes • Algae and Seaweed • Natural Gas and Landfill Gas • Low Rank Coal The AAEC technology can use multiple advanced processes in the conversion of the above listed feedstocks to several higher value end products. Mr. Blevins believes his proposal will prove to be both a near term economic boost and a long term solution to the problems that face Kansans and the nation, including increasing energy efficiency and energy independence, combating global warming and climate change, and implementing smart-grid improvements. Mr. Blevins believes that therein lies the opportunity for bringing about the changes you are promising for Kansas. Increasingly, "Trickle Up" technology is being seen as a viable way to repower the nation and the world via distributed clean energy solutions. This provides a backup for regional installations of solar and wind energy and enables the use of various types of biomass and waste resources which can be dispatched – on an as needed basis - when solar and wind are found to be insufficient.


Richard Heckler 1 year, 6 months ago

Union Of Concerned Scientists

The Earth is warming and human activity is the primary cause. Climate disruptions put our food and water supply at risk, endanger our health, jeopardize our national security, and threaten other basic human needs. Some impacts—such as record high temperatures, melting glaciers, and severe flooding and droughts—are already becoming increasingly common across the country and around the world. So far, our national leaders are failing to act quickly to reduce heat-trapping emissions.

However, there is much we can do to protect the health and economic well-being of current and future generations from the consequences of the heat-trapping emissions caused when we burn coal, oil, and gas to generate electricity, drive our cars, and fuel our businesses.


Commenting has been disabled for this item.