Let’s be civil. The Flathead Beacon encourages vigorous discussion and lively debate, but we will delete comments that attack other readers, make accusations we can’t verify, stray too far off topic, criticize local businesses (call them if you have a problem), convict someone of a crime, use profanity or are simply judged to be in bad taste. We don’t always have someone moderating comments, so we ask for your help: If you see a comment that violates these ground rules, or you simply deem it offensive, please e-mail editor [at] flatheadbeacon.com. The views expressed in the comments section do not reflect those of the Beacon.
By Joe on 01-14-08
I’m glad someone has some brains…“global warming” is nothing more than a hoax to lower U.S. living standards to that of a third-world country!
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Matt on 01-15-08
Big me a break. Guys like Craig Witte and Joe have thier heads in the sand. What a bunch of idiots. The average temp. in Missoulia is going to be similiar to July of 2007. We have unleashed an unnatural force of destruction. Wake up people before we are doomed to fire for forever. God’s justice is upon us. Read the book of revelations.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Roark on 01-15-08
global warming=junkscience
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By j davis on 01-15-08
There is a lot of ‘junk science’ on both sides. To dismiss global warming out of hand without investigation as most republicans tend to do is to make a serious mistake. Of course a lot of these guys embrace creation ‘science’ so it doesn’t surprise me.
wake up and smell the carbon dioxide! (or the ozone if you like) people are affecting the planet -period. maybe we did not know before - in the early days when we began to industrialize; but there is an overwhelming stack of evidence being compiled by scientists from around the globe. let’s be smart about it, not stubborn and obstinant. we have a chance to make informed and good choices. this is not neccesarily a death sentence to our life styles and economies - it brings new business opportunities and a shift away from old ways. not such a big deal. you know the old saying - change or die.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Tom on 01-15-08
O.K., “By its a gas on”...WHY did the planet COOL from 1940-1979?? Hmmm?? Why are the glaciers surrounding the lava dome on Mt. St. Helens GROWING?
Everyone who is intelligent enough to think for themselves needs to get the word out: the “global warming” “therory” is out-of-control hysteria! Soon you’ll be paying taxes to breathe!
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Junior on 01-15-08
Witte might be the slowest person in the legislature. His rhetoric on science reminds me of communist China. I guess someone from California doesn’t really care about Snow, Glacier Park, or Montana.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By its a gas on 01-15-08
it is important to look at all available data/information in context. to simply take a chunk of the story away or out of context, like a percieved cooling cycle from 1940-1979, and interpret that alone is not the way to go, and could be misleading. climate change is not simplistic, easy to understand, or black and white by any means - i give you that, and in spades. this explains why so many theories may seem to abound and/or conflict with one another. however, consider a look at the big picture, all info together.
why does “global warming” have to be considered out-of-control hysteria? what is hysterical about the fact that the global climate is being affected in new and different way instead of it humming along as perceived in previous years?
the phrase"global warming” is also misleading, “climate change” is a more accurate descriptor. predictable and historic weather patterns should be expected to change and become unpredicatable - and with much greater frequncy and intensity than in the past. just look at spring and fall precipitation patterns in recent years in the valley, recent floods in december in the pacific nothwest, tornados in places that have never expereinced tornados (wa or ore?), 2 consecutive super-hurricanes like katrina and rita hitting in such close proximity and in the same season, etc.. if you were to examine each of these events alone it may not seem like such a big deal as tracking patterns on a larger scale over time.
>>Why are the glaciers surrounding the lava dome on Mt. St. Helens GROWING?<<
Crater Glacier never existed before, but is now forming in the crater created by the 1980 blast. There are many glaciers in Washington, and they will form anywhere where more snow falls than can melt each year on a sustained basis.
In this case, the crater has a steep north facing slope that both slides, adding depth to the snow, and also shades the area below, reducing snow melt in the summer.
Once a glacier has formed and reaches a steady state, THEN you can make inferences based on whether that glacier is advancing or receding.
Glaciers in Glacier National Park are known to be generally receding. However, if you melted one of them with hot water one summer, it would reform in a manner similar to the new one on St. Helens.
Sorry, your conclusion adds no evidence one way or another to the climate change argument…
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Jim on 01-16-08
Anyone who thinks an accurate statistical prediction of temperature in the near future can be made from current observations and the last one hundred years of temperature monitoring is fooling him/herself. If the earth was formed 4.5 billion years ago as many scientists claim, the sample size (number of years recording accurate temperatures across the globe) to give any study statistical power would be in the thousands to hundred of thousands of years.
The earths temperature is always fluctuating based on various factors, including solar radiation, atmospheric water vapor content , and various other gases - many of which have more ‘greenhouse affect’ than CO2. The glaciers that formed Glacier National Park, Priest Lake Idaho, etc…have been receding gradually for thousands of years, long before you were driving down the road in your SUV and coal plants were in operation.
The current ‘sky is falling’ mentality of politicians who blame naturally occurring climate change on human activity, is an attempt to gain more power in regulating industry and individual activity they see as offensive. Creating hysteria allows them to pass legislation based on emotion rather than accurate scientific data. Also consider the motive of ‘scientists’ who want to shut down debate on the issue of human CO2 emissions as a cause of global warming - funding and reputation often cloud judgment. There are many scientists who disagree with the current mainstream reporting of science behind global warming, including Bill Gray, professor emeritus, at Colorado State University and MIT’s Richard Lindzen. For all the global warming crowd out there, at least read this article from the Seattle times http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003040068_warming05.html.
For a look at climate change rationally, take a look at the video by Steve Hayward, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. You will get more accurate information without the hyperbole of Al Gore’s film. Go to http://www.aconvenientfiction.com/ and click on ‘watch the movie.‘
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Citizen on 01-16-08
watch http://www.storyofstuff.com good clip. Interesting. Me on the other hand, I believe that we are in a state of “Climate Change” I feel it is not black and white, as in 100% human caused however. I am positive we do have a tremendous affect and have dramatically contributed to it. I also feel that it may be a combination of factors that also include, cycles of the earth, perhaps solar factors as well. The sun has been said to be getting hotter by some scientists, as well as the distance the earth is from it changes time to time. That in addition to natural cycles and all of our pollution may create a perfect storm of global temperature increase. I see it happening, the polar ice caps see it happening, glacier park sees it happening, scientists and history both agree. This is not a political issue and should not be made into one. This is a global and EARTH issue. I am no super duper greeny or environmentalist, however I do believe in being a good steward of the earth. You know what, it is changing. Even if we are all wrong and its not happening, what is it going to hurt to create a little less pollution and use a little less energy? Come on! It is a win win. GO GREEN OR GO FIND ANOTHER PLANET TO LIVE ON! Oh yeah…..........VOTE RON PAUL 2008! He is the only candidate that will protect your civil liberties, restore Habeus Corpus, and honor the constitution (read it sometime). I urge all my fellow Americans to read and listen to the ideas of Ron Paul on youtube or http://www.ronpaul2008.com Join the change that can bring hope to America. End the War, End inflation and the destruction of your money by the federal reserve. Bring Peace and Prosperity back to America and the idea that ALL MEN ARE EQUAL WITH CERTAIN INALIABLE RIGHTS!!!! RON PAUL! I know I know….another forum hijacked by Ron Paul fans. Well it beats a government hijacked by Neo-conservative war-mongers bent on dominating the middles east and driving our economy into the ground. So there…........Ron Paul 2008!
He did great in the South Carolina Debate!
Everything he says about the economy is happening right now and every day! People need to watch “Freedom to Fascism” on video.google.com and then watch “Money, Banking and the Federal Reserve” watching those documentaries changed my entire investment and monetary train of thought. I sold all my mutual fund holdings and bought gold last month. Best decision I ever made. While you all lost an average of 6% these last two months alone not including inflation destruction I locked in on Gold at $790.00 per ounce and now its worth $900 per ounce. I made money and sold my worthless mutual funds before they tanked! Wheeeeeew! I feel so much better. Now I am not contributing to the military industrial complex and all these POLLUTING COMPANIES anymore. I am free of the monetary game. I am not playing by their rules anymore! Buy gold and dump your funds before it all comes down like a deck of cards!
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By BB on 01-17-08
One of the things that baffles me about the resistance to the notion of global climate change is the idea that this needs to be absolutely 100% “proven” before we take any action.
The general notion of management of risk is to multiply the risk of something happening by what is at stake to arrive at a conclusion of whether something should be done about that risk.
In the case of global climate change, the consequences are so great (think rising sea levels) that if there is any significant chance of this happening, we should be willing to take steps to avoid this outcome.
The skeptics are right to point out that we should have an ongoing scientific debate because predictions about the future are not black and white. There is plenty of pseudo-science on both sides of the fence here, and scientists of all people should retain the right to change their minds as new information comes in.
One reason that some scientists are not on board is because these predictions are being portrayed as definitive, and dissent is being stifled. However, anyone that says that there is not a general consensus in the scientific community that man-caused climate change is more likely than not happening is trying to spin things.
I think we should take action, because so much is at stake. And, the things that need to be done should be done anyway for other reasons. What’s wrong with reducing air pollution; improving gas mileage, making more efficient use of resources, etc.? Particularly, what is not good about pursuing renewable energy sources, which reduces our dependence on foreign oil, and our need to fight wars while creating enemies to ensure our petroleum supply?
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Jim on 01-17-08
BB -
Again, you might find the site http://www.aconvenientfiction.com/ very interesting. The movie is made by a scientist who believes in a component of human caused global warming, but points out the huge lack of ‘scientific consensus’ on the issue that is commonly reported in the news.
I agree with your idea of taking action to reduce pollution and reducing our dependence on foreign oil, but we might disagree on how to get there. I am opposed to the government setting regulations that could result in less American prosperity. It is my opinion that we will come up with more alternative energy sources more quickly the more prosperous we are.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By BB on 01-17-08
Jim,
>>I am opposed to the government setting regulations that could result in less American prosperity. It is my opinion that we will come up with more alternative energy sources more quickly the more prosperous we are.<<
What was it, thirty years since the last time the federal government set higher fleet gas mileage standards? Meanwhile, Detroit pissed and moaned about “the government” mandating anything of the sort, while losing the chance for becoming a leader in hybrid vehicles. They have also done the same with safety standards, emissions standards, etc.
Sometimes mandating change from a national level is a good thing, even if some people are philosophically opposed to regulation. I am jaded enough by now to scoff at the notion that free market forces will, on their own, naturally produce the kind of future that we need. Electric deregulation, anyone?
A highly successful businessman friend of mine takes the stance of, regulate us and I’m happy to be on board - as long as it’s a level playing field. But, don’t expect me to do a bunch of do-gooder stuff on my own if it puts me at a competitive disadvantage. His peers look at him funny but I think it’s a healthy attitude.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Sasha on 01-18-08
Good website, Jim. The real agenda of the global warming crowd is quite sinister. They are mostly a disgruntled group who see everyone else as having “too much” of everything they don’t have, and wish to redistribute wealth to those who sit around collecting gubmint welfare.
They are the same crowd who protest Operation Iraqi Freedom…note that everyone else is working while they are out protesting, blocking traffic!
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Paula on 01-18-08
That “ICECAP” site is quite revealing as to how much junk science re “climate change” is out there! Your site is quite informative also, Roark! I have a new perspective!
Rush Limbaugh has some great parodies on “global swarming”...LOL!!
His site: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html
Hope y’all in Flathead have Rush on one of your radio stations!
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By BB on 01-18-08
I have a question for all you folks that think the notion of climate change is a “sinister” plot.
Do you believe that there is no chance at all that there is truth to the notion of human-caused climate change, or do you just believe that the chance of substantial effects is overstated?
If the latter, what do you believe the percent likelihood of this becoming a significant problem?
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Tom on 01-18-08
BB:
IF (BIG IF) there is climate change that is to ANY degree worth destoying our economy and our way of life by imposing onerous regulations, it is certainly NOT human-caused…the planet has been warming and cooling for eons…GREENLAND is named such because it was once WARM & GREEN, long before we got here!
Therefore, it is overstated & all a big money-making hoax for the fear-mongerers. It follows to say that it will not be a significant problem IF it exists…we will all adapt since it will happen VERY slow…we are talking oceans rising by INCHES, not feet.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Jim on 01-20-08
BB-
I think the natural forces affecting global temperature are much more powerful and complex than we give credit. The amount of CO2 and other so called green house gasses released by animal feces, natural forest fires, volcanoes, living creatures breathing,etc… dwarfs the amount humans artificially manufacture. When you take that into account and add factors that have much greater affects on temperature variations like changes in solar radiation, atmospheric water vapor content, changes in the orbit of the earth around the sun…I guess my answer is humans have little if any significant affect on the climate. Remember, one of the most significant periods of warming in recent times was coming out of the little ice age 10,000 years ago.
One point, the idea that there is an ideal temperature for our planet is a myth. Humans haven’t been around long enough or studied it enough to have a clue.
And what happened to the scientific consensus from the 1970s (talked about in TIME magazine) that we were entering the next ice age? At that time, some scientists advocated spreading ash on the polar ice caps to try and melt them….I’m not making this up.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Steven in NM on 01-21-08
Regardless of the claims of one side or the other, global warming exists, and humans are one of the contributing factors. But even if this was not the case, I feel that we need to start new inroads to renewable sources on a large scale.
You can fight the opinions of global warming until the cows come home, but regardless of views, it is happening and warming will continue, regardless of what anyone does. The question is, what can we do if anything, to reduce that impact.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Roark on 01-21-08
The junk science global warmers blame ANY and ALL peculiar weather on ‘global warming’, even excessive cold. It’s all a red herring for collectivist idealogy. Some day, sooner than later, people will look back at the whole ‘global warming’ schtick, roll their eyes and laugh, like we do to those who still believe that the Earth is flat.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
In order to post comments you must register once with the Beacon and be logged in. Log in below or register now.
‘The Defining Story of This Band’
Glacier’s Quick Road to the Top
Giving Comfort When There is No Cure
Schweitzer Rejects NMAR’s Request for Special Session
Political, Agriculture Leaders React to Buffett’s BNSF Purchase
Comments on: Republican Lawmakers Skeptical About Global Warming Report
Let’s be civil. The Flathead Beacon encourages vigorous discussion and lively debate, but we will delete comments that attack other readers, make accusations we can’t verify, stray too far off topic, criticize local businesses (call them if you have a problem), convict someone of a crime, use profanity or are simply judged to be in bad taste. We don’t always have someone moderating comments, so we ask for your help: If you see a comment that violates these ground rules, or you simply deem it offensive, please e-mail editor [at] flatheadbeacon.com. The views expressed in the comments section do not reflect those of the Beacon.
By Joe on 01-14-08
I’m glad someone has some brains…“global warming” is nothing more than a hoax to lower U.S. living standards to that of a third-world country!
By Matt on 01-15-08
Big me a break. Guys like Craig Witte and Joe have thier heads in the sand. What a bunch of idiots. The average temp. in Missoulia is going to be similiar to July of 2007. We have unleashed an unnatural force of destruction. Wake up people before we are doomed to fire for forever. God’s justice is upon us. Read the book of revelations.
By Roark on 01-15-08
global warming=junkscience
By j davis on 01-15-08
There is a lot of ‘junk science’ on both sides. To dismiss global warming out of hand without investigation as most republicans tend to do is to make a serious mistake. Of course a lot of these guys embrace creation ‘science’ so it doesn’t surprise me.
By Tom on 01-15-08
Here’s a link for ya:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
By Rachel on 01-15-08
I trust this website, it is devoid of politics!
http://icecap.us/index.php
By Nick on 01-15-08
Great link, Tom!
By its a gas on 01-15-08
wake up and smell the carbon dioxide! (or the ozone if you like) people are affecting the planet -period. maybe we did not know before - in the early days when we began to industrialize; but there is an overwhelming stack of evidence being compiled by scientists from around the globe. let’s be smart about it, not stubborn and obstinant. we have a chance to make informed and good choices. this is not neccesarily a death sentence to our life styles and economies - it brings new business opportunities and a shift away from old ways. not such a big deal. you know the old saying - change or die.
By Tom on 01-15-08
O.K., “By its a gas on”...WHY did the planet COOL from 1940-1979?? Hmmm?? Why are the glaciers surrounding the lava dome on Mt. St. Helens GROWING?
Everyone who is intelligent enough to think for themselves needs to get the word out: the “global warming” “therory” is out-of-control hysteria! Soon you’ll be paying taxes to breathe!
By Junior on 01-15-08
Witte might be the slowest person in the legislature. His rhetoric on science reminds me of communist China. I guess someone from California doesn’t really care about Snow, Glacier Park, or Montana.
By its a gas on 01-15-08
it is important to look at all available data/information in context. to simply take a chunk of the story away or out of context, like a percieved cooling cycle from 1940-1979, and interpret that alone is not the way to go, and could be misleading. climate change is not simplistic, easy to understand, or black and white by any means - i give you that, and in spades. this explains why so many theories may seem to abound and/or conflict with one another. however, consider a look at the big picture, all info together.
why does “global warming” have to be considered out-of-control hysteria? what is hysterical about the fact that the global climate is being affected in new and different way instead of it humming along as perceived in previous years?
the phrase"global warming” is also misleading, “climate change” is a more accurate descriptor. predictable and historic weather patterns should be expected to change and become unpredicatable - and with much greater frequncy and intensity than in the past. just look at spring and fall precipitation patterns in recent years in the valley, recent floods in december in the pacific nothwest, tornados in places that have never expereinced tornados (wa or ore?), 2 consecutive super-hurricanes like katrina and rita hitting in such close proximity and in the same season, etc.. if you were to examine each of these events alone it may not seem like such a big deal as tracking patterns on a larger scale over time.
By Roark on 01-15-08
http://econot.com/index.html
By BB on 01-16-08
>>Why are the glaciers surrounding the lava dome on Mt. St. Helens GROWING?<<
Crater Glacier never existed before, but is now forming in the crater created by the 1980 blast. There are many glaciers in Washington, and they will form anywhere where more snow falls than can melt each year on a sustained basis.
In this case, the crater has a steep north facing slope that both slides, adding depth to the snow, and also shades the area below, reducing snow melt in the summer.
Once a glacier has formed and reaches a steady state, THEN you can make inferences based on whether that glacier is advancing or receding.
Glaciers in Glacier National Park are known to be generally receding. However, if you melted one of them with hot water one summer, it would reform in a manner similar to the new one on St. Helens.
Sorry, your conclusion adds no evidence one way or another to the climate change argument…
By Jim on 01-16-08
Anyone who thinks an accurate statistical prediction of temperature in the near future can be made from current observations and the last one hundred years of temperature monitoring is fooling him/herself. If the earth was formed 4.5 billion years ago as many scientists claim, the sample size (number of years recording accurate temperatures across the globe) to give any study statistical power would be in the thousands to hundred of thousands of years.
The earths temperature is always fluctuating based on various factors, including solar radiation, atmospheric water vapor content , and various other gases - many of which have more ‘greenhouse affect’ than CO2. The glaciers that formed Glacier National Park, Priest Lake Idaho, etc…have been receding gradually for thousands of years, long before you were driving down the road in your SUV and coal plants were in operation.
The current ‘sky is falling’ mentality of politicians who blame naturally occurring climate change on human activity, is an attempt to gain more power in regulating industry and individual activity they see as offensive. Creating hysteria allows them to pass legislation based on emotion rather than accurate scientific data. Also consider the motive of ‘scientists’ who want to shut down debate on the issue of human CO2 emissions as a cause of global warming - funding and reputation often cloud judgment. There are many scientists who disagree with the current mainstream reporting of science behind global warming, including Bill Gray, professor emeritus, at Colorado State University and MIT’s Richard Lindzen. For all the global warming crowd out there, at least read this article from the Seattle times http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003040068_warming05.html.
For a look at climate change rationally, take a look at the video by Steve Hayward, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. You will get more accurate information without the hyperbole of Al Gore’s film. Go to http://www.aconvenientfiction.com/ and click on ‘watch the movie.‘
By Citizen on 01-16-08
watch http://www.storyofstuff.com good clip. Interesting. Me on the other hand, I believe that we are in a state of “Climate Change” I feel it is not black and white, as in 100% human caused however. I am positive we do have a tremendous affect and have dramatically contributed to it. I also feel that it may be a combination of factors that also include, cycles of the earth, perhaps solar factors as well. The sun has been said to be getting hotter by some scientists, as well as the distance the earth is from it changes time to time. That in addition to natural cycles and all of our pollution may create a perfect storm of global temperature increase. I see it happening, the polar ice caps see it happening, glacier park sees it happening, scientists and history both agree. This is not a political issue and should not be made into one. This is a global and EARTH issue. I am no super duper greeny or environmentalist, however I do believe in being a good steward of the earth. You know what, it is changing. Even if we are all wrong and its not happening, what is it going to hurt to create a little less pollution and use a little less energy? Come on! It is a win win. GO GREEN OR GO FIND ANOTHER PLANET TO LIVE ON! Oh yeah…..........VOTE RON PAUL 2008! He is the only candidate that will protect your civil liberties, restore Habeus Corpus, and honor the constitution (read it sometime). I urge all my fellow Americans to read and listen to the ideas of Ron Paul on youtube or http://www.ronpaul2008.com Join the change that can bring hope to America. End the War, End inflation and the destruction of your money by the federal reserve. Bring Peace and Prosperity back to America and the idea that ALL MEN ARE EQUAL WITH CERTAIN INALIABLE RIGHTS!!!! RON PAUL! I know I know….another forum hijacked by Ron Paul fans. Well it beats a government hijacked by Neo-conservative war-mongers bent on dominating the middles east and driving our economy into the ground. So there…........Ron Paul 2008!
By WOOhooooooooo!!! on 01-16-08
RON PAUL 2008!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=rqxXzkaEAGo&feature=related
He did great in the South Carolina Debate!
Everything he says about the economy is happening right now and every day! People need to watch “Freedom to Fascism” on video.google.com and then watch “Money, Banking and the Federal Reserve” watching those documentaries changed my entire investment and monetary train of thought. I sold all my mutual fund holdings and bought gold last month. Best decision I ever made. While you all lost an average of 6% these last two months alone not including inflation destruction I locked in on Gold at $790.00 per ounce and now its worth $900 per ounce. I made money and sold my worthless mutual funds before they tanked! Wheeeeeew! I feel so much better. Now I am not contributing to the military industrial complex and all these POLLUTING COMPANIES anymore. I am free of the monetary game. I am not playing by their rules anymore! Buy gold and dump your funds before it all comes down like a deck of cards!
By BB on 01-17-08
One of the things that baffles me about the resistance to the notion of global climate change is the idea that this needs to be absolutely 100% “proven” before we take any action.
The general notion of management of risk is to multiply the risk of something happening by what is at stake to arrive at a conclusion of whether something should be done about that risk.
In the case of global climate change, the consequences are so great (think rising sea levels) that if there is any significant chance of this happening, we should be willing to take steps to avoid this outcome.
The skeptics are right to point out that we should have an ongoing scientific debate because predictions about the future are not black and white. There is plenty of pseudo-science on both sides of the fence here, and scientists of all people should retain the right to change their minds as new information comes in.
One reason that some scientists are not on board is because these predictions are being portrayed as definitive, and dissent is being stifled. However, anyone that says that there is not a general consensus in the scientific community that man-caused climate change is more likely than not happening is trying to spin things.
I think we should take action, because so much is at stake. And, the things that need to be done should be done anyway for other reasons. What’s wrong with reducing air pollution; improving gas mileage, making more efficient use of resources, etc.? Particularly, what is not good about pursuing renewable energy sources, which reduces our dependence on foreign oil, and our need to fight wars while creating enemies to ensure our petroleum supply?
By Jim on 01-17-08
BB -
Again, you might find the site http://www.aconvenientfiction.com/ very interesting. The movie is made by a scientist who believes in a component of human caused global warming, but points out the huge lack of ‘scientific consensus’ on the issue that is commonly reported in the news.
I agree with your idea of taking action to reduce pollution and reducing our dependence on foreign oil, but we might disagree on how to get there. I am opposed to the government setting regulations that could result in less American prosperity. It is my opinion that we will come up with more alternative energy sources more quickly the more prosperous we are.
By BB on 01-17-08
Jim,
>>I am opposed to the government setting regulations that could result in less American prosperity. It is my opinion that we will come up with more alternative energy sources more quickly the more prosperous we are.<<
What was it, thirty years since the last time the federal government set higher fleet gas mileage standards? Meanwhile, Detroit pissed and moaned about “the government” mandating anything of the sort, while losing the chance for becoming a leader in hybrid vehicles. They have also done the same with safety standards, emissions standards, etc.
Sometimes mandating change from a national level is a good thing, even if some people are philosophically opposed to regulation. I am jaded enough by now to scoff at the notion that free market forces will, on their own, naturally produce the kind of future that we need. Electric deregulation, anyone?
A highly successful businessman friend of mine takes the stance of, regulate us and I’m happy to be on board - as long as it’s a level playing field. But, don’t expect me to do a bunch of do-gooder stuff on my own if it puts me at a competitive disadvantage. His peers look at him funny but I think it’s a healthy attitude.
By Sasha on 01-18-08
Good website, Jim. The real agenda of the global warming crowd is quite sinister. They are mostly a disgruntled group who see everyone else as having “too much” of everything they don’t have, and wish to redistribute wealth to those who sit around collecting gubmint welfare.
They are the same crowd who protest Operation Iraqi Freedom…note that everyone else is working while they are out protesting, blocking traffic!
By Paula on 01-18-08
That “ICECAP” site is quite revealing as to how much junk science re “climate change” is out there! Your site is quite informative also, Roark! I have a new perspective!
Rush Limbaugh has some great parodies on “global swarming”...LOL!!
His site: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html
Hope y’all in Flathead have Rush on one of your radio stations!
By BB on 01-18-08
I have a question for all you folks that think the notion of climate change is a “sinister” plot.
Do you believe that there is no chance at all that there is truth to the notion of human-caused climate change, or do you just believe that the chance of substantial effects is overstated?
If the latter, what do you believe the percent likelihood of this becoming a significant problem?
By Tom on 01-18-08
BB:
IF (BIG IF) there is climate change that is to ANY degree worth destoying our economy and our way of life by imposing onerous regulations, it is certainly NOT human-caused…the planet has been warming and cooling for eons…GREENLAND is named such because it was once WARM & GREEN, long before we got here!
Therefore, it is overstated & all a big money-making hoax for the fear-mongerers. It follows to say that it will not be a significant problem IF it exists…we will all adapt since it will happen VERY slow…we are talking oceans rising by INCHES, not feet.
By Jim on 01-20-08
BB-
I think the natural forces affecting global temperature are much more powerful and complex than we give credit. The amount of CO2 and other so called green house gasses released by animal feces, natural forest fires, volcanoes, living creatures breathing,etc… dwarfs the amount humans artificially manufacture. When you take that into account and add factors that have much greater affects on temperature variations like changes in solar radiation, atmospheric water vapor content, changes in the orbit of the earth around the sun…I guess my answer is humans have little if any significant affect on the climate. Remember, one of the most significant periods of warming in recent times was coming out of the little ice age 10,000 years ago.
One point, the idea that there is an ideal temperature for our planet is a myth. Humans haven’t been around long enough or studied it enough to have a clue.
And what happened to the scientific consensus from the 1970s (talked about in TIME magazine) that we were entering the next ice age? At that time, some scientists advocated spreading ash on the polar ice caps to try and melt them….I’m not making this up.
By Steven in NM on 01-21-08
Regardless of the claims of one side or the other, global warming exists, and humans are one of the contributing factors. But even if this was not the case, I feel that we need to start new inroads to renewable sources on a large scale.
You can fight the opinions of global warming until the cows come home, but regardless of views, it is happening and warming will continue, regardless of what anyone does. The question is, what can we do if anything, to reduce that impact.
By Roark on 01-21-08
The junk science global warmers blame ANY and ALL peculiar weather on ‘global warming’, even excessive cold. It’s all a red herring for collectivist idealogy. Some day, sooner than later, people will look back at the whole ‘global warming’ schtick, roll their eyes and laugh, like we do to those who still believe that the Earth is flat.