Archive for Friday, February 16, 2018

Letter to the editor: Environmental harm

February 16, 2018


To the editor:

I was struck by the letter to the editor “Trump is Dangerous” on Feb. 8, with the thought that there is much more to be concerned with regarding this nation’s future than its politics. Within my granddaughter’s lifetime, this nation’s environmental condition will be drought- and heat-ridden, making her life miserable.

At this point, there is nothing more dangerous than the willful disregard for our children’s and their children’s environmental sustainability in this nation and our northern hemisphere.


Bob Smith 2 months, 1 week ago

The apocalyptic weather predictions have been thick on the ground at least since the 1970s. Ice age, permanent drought, world-ending flooding, you name it, some waffle-whiffer has predicted it. Guess what. They've been wrong every time.

Ken Lassman 2 months, 1 week ago

Facts have nothing to do with your pseudo factoid collection of an article you've linked to, either, Bob. Let me know if you'd like some real facts and I'd be happy to provide them to you concerning the changing climate and what's causing it. You're dreaming in la-la land in the meantime if you think that article represents anything close to what's really happening.

Bob Smith 2 months, 1 week ago

BTW, I think you have me confused with someone else named Bob.

Louis Kannen 2 months, 1 week ago

Irrespective of the ponderous and overwhelming, currently accepted World-wide Scientific Climate Data, there will always be those dim-witted naysayers with a conveniently spelled, same forwards / BACKWARDS given name, that would appear to be oblivious to any degree of acceptable logic and willing to just "roll the dice". After all, what do they care, they won't be around anyway when their shallow, egocentric postulating is proven wrong. And lest we forget, 2 'Bob's combined actually spells Boob-bb

Bob Smith 2 months, 1 week ago

How wonderfully droll you are. Making sport of peoples' names is a great debating technique, not.

Bill Pasquel 2 months ago

Hey Deb. Well, I can understand your concern, in a very small way. "Within my granddaughter’s lifetime, this nation’s environmental condition will be drought- and heat-ridden, making her life miserable".

Before that happens to widdol gwandotter, or even her own, you will be long gone with nothing to worry about - as will she. Get a grip and go outside and enjoy.

Heck, if it makes you feel any better invest you $$ in the stock market NOW and will it to your widdol gwandotter. She could buy a sun hat and a glass of water with it. Problem solved.

David Reynolds 2 months ago

Deborah, I too am a grandparent. But please take heart, Man made global warming is not a problem. Our grandchildren will be just fine. The key is to educate ones self on the issue by looking at both sides. If you noticed during the Democratic rebuttal to the January State of the Union address, even the democrats did not bring it up. The reason? It's a non-issue! The populous put global warming way down on their priority list.

Please consider what you see out your own window, and then reflect on the news not published by the so called MSM & Liberal blogosphere. There are voices of reason on the other side of the climate issue.

In particular is the recent finding that, yet again, the data has been erroneously "adjusted" by NOAA. Now I know there are some that say there is consensus and that "main stream science" supports man made global warming. If you look deeply enough you find some of those supporting this hypothesis are also the same ones "adjusting" the data.

But please read the following article. I have lost count of the number of times NOAA has been found guilty of manipulating data "upward" to show there is some global warming, when in fact the data has shown cooling. There justification for these "adjustments", is beyond ludicrous.

Please read the following article. You can click on the "blue" words to get further background.

In the summary this article it says: "..One excuse NOAA’s apologists make is that weather stations are subject to changing environmental conditions. For example, when the station sited at Syracuse in 1929 was located at what was originally just a sparse aerodrome. Since then, however, as Homewood notes, it has grown into a large international airport with two runways servicing two million passengers a year. Its weather station readings therefore will certainly have been corrupted by the Urban Heat Island effect: that is, its temperature readings will have been artificially elevated by the warmth from the surrounding development and aircraft engines.

So you’d think, wouldn’t you, that to compensate for this NOAA would adjust the recent temperatures downwards. Instead, for no obvious reasons, it has adjusted them upwards.

This is a scandal. NOAA’s climate gatekeepers are political activists not honest scientists and the U.S. taxpayer has no business funding their propaganda."

it's a shame Deborah, that the so-called MSM & Blogosphere would report these issues. That is why you read about them in other places. There are those that will try to denigrate the site referenced above...why I can only guess. one of my guesses is their intolerance for anything that presents facts contrary to their agenda.

Ken Lassman 2 months ago

Time to update your tired old arguments you've collected by reading the denialist literature too long, David. Science has left behind the question about whether human triggered changes in the atmosphere's chemistry is changing the climate, just as they have left behind the question about whether gravity exists. They are now well into the phase where they are documenting the ripple effects being felt in ecosystems, in ocean acidity, in shifting migratory and breeding patterns, in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather, and on and on.

Your Delingpole (who is a journalist for Breitbart) article about an article (written by a non-scientist) holds absolutely no water, as expected. It gets all upset about the temerature record of ONE WEATHER STATION and how it appears to be manipulated. Paul Homewood, the mysterious non-scientist article author, has a long track record of manipulating data to make warming temperatures disappear from the record, as is evidenced here:

Instead, let's look at how well the oft-maligned "models" are doing with the observed GLOBAL temperatures:

Bob Summers 2 months ago

This chart is a favorite on the Onion.

One of their best.

David Reynolds 2 months ago

I have to congratulate you Ken on your tenacious support of those who predict the worst, and nothing happens.

You can point to all of the charts you wish, and you can denigrate all of the journalists, reporting facts, you wish, but it doesn't change the facts.

Let's see, in the 1970's the climate alarmists predicted we were going to be living in a cooling period. In the 1990's thru today the alarmists predicted by now the coasts would be flooded and the earth would be excessively hot. But, the polar bears are doing fine, and the human species is just as ornery as ever. The quantity of hurricanes in the period 2000 there 2017 ranged from 8 in 2000, 15 in 2005, 3 in 2009, 2 in 2013 & 10 in 2017, thus hurricane activity is normal. Even the alarmists have admitted that over the last 18 years there has been a cooling trend in the US. Nothing is significantly out of balance.

Amazing! No major calamities as predicted by the models.

The models are flawed primarily due to the prejudice in the mathematics...the results of the models can only be what the person writing the equations predicts. Thus even the "sensitizing" by running various assumptions are still flawed because they are all predicated on the assumptions initially built into the models. I have heard you say the models are getting better. That may be true, but they are not good enough. They still are incomplete due to a total lack of understanding of what all the variables are needing to be included in the models, each variables contribution to the whole, what happens when one variable changes (ie, increases in CO2 increases foliage which reduces CO2), and their complex interactions. Part of the problem with the model's predictions is the "manipulated data sets". The old adage of "garbage in-garbage out", will always hold true.

I know you like to defend the modeling techniques & the data, but the facts remain, performance of the climate models are like kids toy cars compared to the performance of the most sophisticated automobiles.

In the past you have admitted there is politics at play in the climate issue. Until that issue is resolved no progress will be made toward the truth.

Looking forward to the "some day" when we both may find common ground.

Ken Lassman 2 months ago

I guess you are going to persist in your faith-based attitudes, which you're certainly entitled to do, but all that means that I'll continue to point out the facts, which you have never countered with your anecdotes.

Let's take your latest batch:

-imminent ice age scare: guess what--the few papers that actually did that (not the majority of climatologists) got some funding allocated, and lo and behold: they found out what was actually going on (warming), and the idea, having been disproven, was left in the dustbin, only to be dragged up by denialists every once in a while as an example of how scientists have been wrong. Actually, what it shows is how science works! After all, back in the 70s, we also were just wondering about but had no evidence for other planets outside our own solar system, had no clue whether we'd be able to detect gravitational waves, didn't know our way around the metabolic activities of cells, didn't know what most of our DNA was doing there, were quite a few subatomic particles short of what we know exist now, and on and on. Each one of those discoveries was paved with a bunch of dead-ends that didn't pan out, and yet our knowledge progressed because we were able to tease out what was going on by sticking to the facts. It's time you do the same, David.

I've never said that the models are not flawed, but that's very different than saying that they aren't good enough to figure out the general trends in the climate and what is causing those trends. You haven't brought any alternative explanations that account for what the collected data is showing, period. So what's stopping you? And yes, science in general has a political component, but it's not something that needs to be "resolved" because science has highly refined ways to tease out those biases, including in the fields that show humanity as being behind climate change.

We have common ground, David: it's called the Earth. I'm certainly living on/in it and paying attention to it and look forward to you joining me here.

Scott Burkhart 2 months ago

Ken, talk about "faith-based attitudes." You defend bad science like a Calvinist defends the Reformation. It truly is a religion to you! David laid out the major problems with your side of the debate. Models that have predicted calamity only to come up empty. Obfuscation of data that contradicts "consensus" science. (Which btw isn't science at all.) Good, well meaning scientists publicly castigated and careers ruined for disagreeing with the data. Continued funding for projects that make the same wrong predictions over and over. Not to mention the other ancillary details of what it does to our country economically. No, it is YOUR faith that drives you on like Henny Penny screaming, "The sky is falling, the sky is falling."

Ken Lassman 2 months ago

Actually, Scott, I have repeatedly asked him for specifics showing exactly where the science goes wrong and every time he offers "proof," it falls flat on its face. Take some of his latest examples: he pointed to an article about how the Pacific Island Tuvalu was actually getting bigger despite all of the fears about climate change. But if you read the article, it just reported that debris from storms had increased the size of the island despite the documented rise in sea level that is occurring. And that goes for everything else he has offered up as "proof" that human activities are not behind climate change. I'm still waiting.

His claim about bad modeling is exactly why I posted the graph above that shows that indeed the models are not only accurately reflecting past data ("hindcasting") but the forecasts are also right on the mark in succeeding years: the forecasts and the observed data agree. So exactly how is that a "religion?" It's science, Scott, and David (and you too) have not offered up a better model that does a better job or even as remotely as good of a job.

I have never screamed "sky is falling," Scott: it is you that is using hyperbole so freely. I merely post the latest complex findings of science which I put my faith in more than your hyperbolic denialist cherry picking. Where's the beef?

David Reynolds 2 months ago

Ken, faith-based you say?...Really? I believe your comments are just that.

Your comments about lack of knowledge back in the '70's, is no different than our lack of knowledge today. Yes we are smarter, but not yet smart enough. Yes, in 50 years we will view today they same way you view the '70's.

Your comments supporting the admittedly flawed models is faith based. By admitting the models are flawed, yet assuming they are "good enough"to figure out general trends is a clear expression of faith in flawed information. I would ask," how does anyone know what is good enough", & relative to what?

Ken, the fact climate alarmists predictions of catastrophes are not occurring is proof of my case. Just last fall alarmists were saying the latests hurricanes were caused by global warming. Really? How do we know the existence or strength of a particular hurricane is caused by global warming? Is there an equation or model that would predict that?

Regarding science & politics. You say politics will always be part of the climate discussion. That is only true if the science is flawed. Politics always is left behind when the science is irrefutable. The earth is round, not flat, & the sun is at the center of our solar system, not the earth. The "adjustments to data" are reminiscent of "Archaeoraptor", (link between birds & dinosaurs) back at the turn of the century, which was revealed to be a hoax. Just as fake fossils subverts/misrepresents paleontology, so does needlessly adjusted data pervert the climate change debate. Politics will play a significant roll in the Climate Change debate until the science is indisputable, and the predictions can be independently predicted by someone independent of the studies.

Yes we all do share the earth. But the common ground I am talking about is indisputable evidence. When we have indisputable evidence then we will have the answers to solutions we seek. Then real solutions & progress can be made.

Bob Summers 2 months ago

Climate change where the money is.

Ken Lassman 2 months ago

When will we be smart enough, then, David? Why isn't our current state of understanding enough to conclude that our activities on this planet are directly responsible for changing the chemistry of our atmosphere and oceans? We certainly have carefully measured the emissions from human activities and have also measured the natural world emissions and capacity to absorb the emissions, and the increasing ocean acidity and carbon content in the atmosphere match up with our understanding.

You keep saying that this is alarmist: precisely what part of the Global Carbon Project annual reports are inaccurate and alamist? Exactly why do you say that the CMIP3 model provided above is inaccurate and alarmist? You keep claiming all of these things and yet you fail to provide any cogent arguments that specifically show how these things are inaccurate and alarmist.

The difference between your constant droning complaints and the many fields involved in climate science is that the you keep saying the same thing and never change, while scientific endeavors constantly refine their understanding to reflect the increasing data coming in all the time. The result is a BETTER understanding in the same way that Einstein's relativity theory EXTENDED our understanding of gravity, not nullify our understanding of it.

Ken Lassman 2 months ago

By raising the temperature of the oceans and atmosphere through human carbon emissions, the air is able to hold more moisture and its capacity to rain more is increased. By increasing the temperature in areas with less access to water, transpiration is increased and droughts are made to occur or worsen.

Both are occurring thanks to "Man:" the intensity and frequency of extreme weather events were predicted and are well documented and will continue in the future. And this is not hyperbole: ask for references if you want them.

Bob Summers 2 months ago

At this point, there is nothing more dangerous than the willful disregard for our children’s and their children’s environmental sustainability in this nation and our northern hemisphere.

Right. It's for the children.

So says the ideology that floods the country with MS-13 gang members that rape, murder, pillage the countryside, many of which are members of the Liberals coveted class of people DACA and gives sanctuary in cities to guys like the one that killed Kate Steinle.

At this point the Liberal ideology has been unsustainable in America and on planet Earth.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.