Sunday Apr. 20, 2014
Comments on:
Average temperature last year was a full degree warmer than the old record set in 1998
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), accuse 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 webmaster [at] flatheadbeacon.com.

The views expressed in the comments section do not reflect those of the Beacon.

  Newest First
By GATE on 01-08-13 @ 4:15 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
29 up | 52 down


It’s really a shame when you have to rely on PRAVDA to get the truth about ‘Global Warming’.
PRAVDA HEADLINE: Jan. 4th 2013: GLOBAL WARMING, THE TOOL OF THE WEST. ’ For years
the elites of the West have cranked up the myth of Man made Global Warming as a means first and
foremost to control the lives and behaviors of their populations. ‘At the same time, they used this
‘science’ as a new pagan religion to push out the Christianity they hate and despise, and most of
all, fear. ‘Gia Worship’ , the Earth Mother has been pushed since the 1980’s in Western culture with
this religion replete with an army of Priests , called Government Grant Scientists…............”
By Craig moore on 01-08-13 @ 4:22 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
27 up | 43 down


A bit of balance to the hyperbole is in order.  First, the US landmass is less that 3% of the
earth’s total.

Second, conditions in Europe and Asia have been deadly cold. 
===quote===
http://www.financialexpress.com/news/asias-natural-gas-kerosene-demand-rises-as-cold-spell-spreads/1056284
  China is facing its lowest temperatures in nearly 28 years. Japan has seen record snowfall in
many places and in northern India the coldest weather in at least 44 years has killed more than
100 homeless people.
===end quote==

===quote===
http://www.skyvalleychronicle.com/FEATURE-NEWS/RUSSIANS-ARE-FREEZING-TO-DEATH-br-In-one-of-coldest-winters-on-record-B-I-Dozens-have-died-already-I-1207818
Russia is engulfed in the harshest winter in over 70 years, with temperatures dropping as low as
-50 degrees Celsius (-58 Fahrenheit).

Dozens of people have already died and almost 150 have been hospitalized, according to Russia
Television (RT TV).
.
The network reports that Russia hasn’t seen such a long cold spell since 1938 and that
temperatures are 10 to 15 degrees lower than the seasonal norm all over Russia.

Across the country, some 45 people have died due to the cold, and 266 have been taken to
hospitals, according to RT TV.

Another Russian report said 542 people were injured due to the freezing temperatures.
===end quote===

Now, how did Seth B. miss that?????????
By GATE on 01-08-13 @ 5:11 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
26 up | 42 down


..’ Amongst the newest claims of pending disasters, is a cry that ice packs are melting at three times
the rate of the 1990’s., even though there’s has not been any significant warming in the past 20 years.
Greenland’s ice pack melt off, has been linked to volcanic activity under the ice,heating it. Must be the
magnamen and their SUV’s!  Get ready for the orchestrated shrills from the usual suspects to get
louder as they attempt to divert attention from the abyss of poverty they’re plunging this Nation into.
By todd tanner on 01-08-13 @ 5:38 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
50 up | 28 down


Craig, your numbers about the U.S. landmass representing 3% of the world’s total are a little off.  The
U.S. actually has a bit more than 6% of the planet’s landmass.  (There are about 148,940,000 square
kilometers of landmass on the planet.  The U.S. has about 9,161,966 square kilometers of land.  If my
calculator is correct, it’s .0615%.)

More importantly, though, your point is irrelevant.  The planet is warming.  Our weather is getting more
extreme.  We’re facing more violent storms, more huge wildfires, more damaging droughts.  I admire
folks who stick to their guns, but the climate argument is essentially over.  Every single major
scientific organization on the planet (with the exception of the petroleum geologists) that has offered
an opinion on the subject says that we’re warming, that humans are to some extent responsible, and
that it’s going to be a major problem in the future.  NOAA agrees.  NASA agrees.  The NAS, which
Lincoln formed to advise the U.S. on matters of scientific importance, calls human-caused climate
change a “settled fact.”  Settled facts are, well, settled facts.

It’s time to move on.  No point beating your head against the wall.
By GATE on 01-08-13 @ 5:44 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
28 up | 50 down


...The US alone spends $7 BILLION a year on ‘warming studies’ which is, in truth, nothing but a huge
money laundering operation as no real science is conducted and vapid alarmist reports the only
product generated..’
By BiggerMig on 01-08-13 @ 6:09 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
42 up | 30 down


It’s amazing to me that there are still people who deny this.  Do y’all also reckon that the earth
is flat?
By Craig moore on 01-08-13 @ 6:19 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
27 up | 36 down


Todd, I was referencing total area.  Area of U.S.: 3,790,000 sq. mi.  Earth’s total surface
area: 197,000,000 sq. mi.  3,790,000 / 197,000,000 = 0.0192385787 = about 1.9 %.  I was being
generous. 

I was responding to the exaggeration of the article with it’s emotive characterizations.  Other
parts of our world have a different experience.  When using such terms as “global” context is
important. 

There is also some very important unanswered questions.  See here.
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/10/27/candid-comments-from-global-warming-climate-scientists/

===quote===
There are some interesting quotes from climate scientists in this article that highlight a large
degree of uncertainty with respect to the climate system, and the human role in it, even among
scientists closely involved with the IPCC reports.  The long article focuses on the question

    ‘Why, despite steadily accumulating greenhouse gases, did the rise of the planet’s
temperature stall for the past decade?”

Interesting quotes and text {rearranged to order the persons’ quoted; I highly recommend reading
the entire article include [highlight added]:

From John Barnes [Barnes’s specialty is measuring stratospheric aerosols].

  “If you look at the last decade of global temperature, it’s not increasing,” Barnes said.
“There’s a lot of scatter to it. But the [climate] models go up. And that has to be explained.
Why didn’t we warm up?”
===end quote===

We have been warming since the last ice age.  There have been some very cold interludes.  Now,
the only question is “What is the human signature and it’s effects separate from natural
varibility?
By GATE on 01-08-13 @ 6:31 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
28 up | 37 down


..‘GLOBAL CLIMATE WARMING STOPPED 15 YEARS AGO’, UK National Weather Service,
known as the MET Office Admits. The startling admission shows once again that the United
Nations scientific theories and climate models are wildly inaccurate at best, Experts say, meaning
Multi-Trillion Dollar schemes to deal with alleged human-caused ‘climate change’ are at the very
least severely misguided.These are the same idiot alarmists and their knuckle-dragging followers
who sounded the alarm about how Global Cooling back in the 70’s and 80’s was going to have us all
living in Igloo’s!
By todd tanner on 01-08-13 @ 9:06 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
36 up | 20 down


Craig,

I appreciate your civil tone and your willingness to use your name.  I truly do.  Both of those choices
reflect well on you. But you’ve essentially chosen to argue that up is down and left is right.  There’s
no way you can prevail in this particular discussion.  The facts simply aren’t on your side.

I’m happy to go through this in detail with you, if that’s the route you really want to take.  And I’m sure
you’ll tell me all about Roy Spencer and Judith Curry and the Pielkes, both Sr. and Jr.  We can
discuss Richard Lindzen, and you can tell me why he’s right and everyone else is wrong about cloud
feedbacks.  You can hit me with Anthony Watts and Christopher Monckton and Senator Inhofe.  Who
knows?  Maybe I’ll actually hear something that I haven’t heard a hundred times before.

I’ll tell you what.  I’m an honest guy.  I’m a reasonable guy.  If you can convince me that I’m wrong
about climate change - that I shouldn’t believe my eyes, or the 97% of climate scientists who are
certain that anthropogenic warming is real - I’ll give you a beautiful 12 gauge Beretta shotgun.  Fair
enough?

Here, you can read all about it:
http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/conservationist/2012/02/conservation-hawks-director-if-climate-
change-isn’t-real-i’ll-give-you

If the link doesn’t work for some reason, just google tanner and climate change and beretta.  You’ll
find it.
By Craig moore on 01-08-13 @ 10:39 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
17 up | 20 down


Todd, if you would, please take the time to respond specifically to my points as I stated them.
And if you see Hal again, tell him I really enjoyed his book. Thank you.
By todd tanner on 01-08-13 @ 11:47 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
27 up | 17 down


Absolutely, Craig.

Point one.  You wrote: “I was responding to the exaggeration of the article with it’s emotive
characterizations.”  I don’t believe that the article was excessively emotional, or an exaggeration. 
That’s obviously a subjective statement, but as someone who studies climate science, and who works
on climate change education on a daily basis, I do feel it’s accurate.

Point two.  “Uncertainty.”  There is indeed a tremendous amount of complexity, and resultant
uncertainty, associated with the study of climate change.  However, those uncertainties tend to be small
and related to micro-questions.  None that I’m aware of challenge the NAS’s “settled facts”: that the
world is warming, that humans are causing the world to warm, and that this warming is a serious threat.

Point three.  “Why has the temperature stalled over the last decade?”  It has not stalled.  That’s an
erroneous conclusion which is not supported by any of the four major temperature records.  I’m happy to
walk you through this in detail if you’d like, although the fact that 2010 was the warmest year on record,
and that 2005 was the second warmest, should give pause to anyone who makes this particular claim.

By the way, the warmest years on record (not including 2012, which hasn’t been ranked yet) are, in
order:
1) 2010
2) 2005
3) 1998
4) 2003
5) 2002
6) 2006
7) 2009
8) 2007
9) 2004
10) 2001

You’ll note that 9 of the top 10 warmest years occurred after 2000.  None took place before 1998. And
2011, which ranks 11th on the list, was the warmest La Nina year ever recorded.
By hotfishmt on 01-09-13 @ 9:55 am
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
15 up | 26 down


News Flash…..lol. The world is taking care of Global Warming. This winter….colder than normal
in Alaska, China, Russia and Turkey….snow & cold. So, Mother Nature has a balance, even if
the US is warmer.
One thing that the US could do to help with temps in big cities…is to coat/paint all large
buildings…..ROOFS…..WHITE. Black coating/roofing material absorbs heat like asphalt does
and keep the warmth lower in the atmosphere. Black shingles also in that same link & going
with whiter shingles means a lower attic temperature.
By Craig moore on 01-09-13 @ 1:12 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
15 up | 9 down


Todd, I had a point by point response qued up, hit send, and nothing.  Lost it.  Will try again
when I have time.
By Mark W. on 01-09-13 @ 1:45 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
18 up | 21 down


Todd, we’re dirty, incomplete bipedal beings.  We make messes, tear stuff down, build stuff up,
pollute, clean up, invent, destroy, eat other animals, bomb and kill each other and otherwise
attempt to control each other, spray pesticides, pave the wilderness, drive around, watch tv, try to
stay warm in winter and cool in summer, create cultures and generally try to make it through the
day. 

So, given that we are us, what is the real grizzly sow on the charge? 

a.  The weather
b.  An all-encompassing theology that seeks to leverage our penance for being human into a world
carbon currency? 

Isn’t there any better way to further your conservation work without making people buy into option
b?
By todd tanner on 01-09-13 @ 2:25 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
24 up | 18 down


Mark W.,

I’ve written about this particular subject a little bit in the past.  If you visit my website -
www.CastingWest.com - click on “Conservation,” and then on “Leadership,” you’ll get a pretty good
feel for my thoughts regarding your question.

One point I’d like to make right up front, though.  I’m not interested in having the public conform to
anyone’s all-encompassing theology; not mine, not yours, not Craig’s.  But we live in the real world
and we need to come up with real solutions to help address real problems.  Whatever the choices we
eventually make about climate change, it’s important to understand that those choices will have
consequences, and that our children and grandchildren will have to live with both our successes and
our failures.
By Mark W. on 01-09-13 @ 2:27 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
15 up | 16 down


So you’re not for carbon credits or an international carbon exchange?
By Mark W. on 01-09-13 @ 2:45 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
18 up | 19 down


And what kind of evidence would you need to change your course of thinking regarding global
warming?  Would ten years of consistent global temperature drop work?  How about ten years of
overall expansion of global year-round ice coverage?  Or is it irrelevant?  Is there X amount of
human activity per year that our planet can handle and X amount shall be fixed and distributed
appropriately into eternity?  Say by some event an ice shelf starts expanding into a populated area,
can we increase X to set it back?

 
By Mark W. on 01-09-13 @ 3:44 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
17 up | 20 down


Should we think about the implications of our conclusions or embrace whatever scientific truth
comes round the bend that supports our agenda and shape our reality around it? 

If the ice starts expanding do we make cars with bigger engines to slow it down?  Or is ice covered
forest valid conservation as well? 

What’s the point of trying to convince you that anthropogenic global warming isn’t valid if the
second it doesn’t support your agenda you’re going to drop it like a hot potato?

Appreciate your initial response, Todd.  I look forward to your debate with Craig.
By Craig moore on 01-09-13 @ 3:46 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
18 up | 24 down


Todd, I’ll try again.

Point One.  No one need to look any further than the hyperbole in the article’s title. 

Point Two.  Claims as to settled facts are mere opinion.  Climate has always been changing.
There is no period of idealic stasis.  If the size, scope, and percentage of the anthropmorphic
contribution to the total change could be defined, that scientist would win the Nobel prize. 

Point Three.  The warmest year on record, not counting 2012, in the US was 1934.
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/aug/15/science/sci-temp15   In fact the 1930’s were the hottest
decade.  Here’s a list by state of their highs and date achieved.

Point Four.  I wrote,  “We have been warming since the last ice age.  There have been some very
cold interludes.  Now, the only question is “What is the human signature and it’s effects
separate from natural varibility?”  You failed to respond but instead wanted to bet a shotgun on
the 97% false claim. That number came from a student’s paper where 2 questions were sent out to
10256 people with only 3146 respondents. Later only 77 were included.  72 out of those 77 gave
the approved response making the 97%.  BTW, 90% of all respondents were from the US. 

Now,  I have all the shotguns I need. My favorite that I take into the field is from the 1930’s.

Off Topic:  If you were fly fishing Duck Lake last spring just as the ice was going off, we may
have shaken hands and talked flies.
By todd tanner on 01-09-13 @ 4:09 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
25 up | 18 down


Mark,

A quick response. 

I’m for whatever solution offers us the best chance to address climate change on a global scale.  Right
now, I’m far more interested in bringing folks to the table for a rational discussion than I am in
championing a particular approach.  Once we’re ready to have that discussion and we know that our
politicians in DC are willing to follow through, I’ll spend more time looking at the various alternatives. 

As for changing my mind about climate change - that’s simple.  If the majority of climate scientists say
“Hold on.  We were wrong.”, or if the empirical evidence I see on a daily basis shifts in a new direction,
I’ll have to rethink my position.  Until then, I’ll stick with what my eyes are telling me and what the
scientists are saying. 

Third.  My agenda is really simple.  I want to be as good a husband, and as good a father, as I can be. 
I also want to pass on a healthy natural world to my son and his generation, and I want to protect
America’s outdoor heritage so that we hold on to our hunting & fishing.  My agenda doesn’t really have
anything to do with climate change.  I pay attention to climate change because it’s the biggest threat to
my way of life, and our American traditions. 

Hope that helps.
By Craig moore on 01-09-13 @ 4:16 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
13 up | 8 down


Oops! forgot to link the list of states and theirr highs.  Here it is.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001416.html
By todd tanner on 01-09-13 @ 7:58 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
25 up | 14 down


Craig,

1) I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
2) That’s what we’re doing here.  Exchanging opinions.  Personally, when it comes to matters of
science, I believe it makes sense to listen to the opinions of scientists.  But that’s just me.
3) That’s true.  And my longest fly rod, other than all my other, longer fly rods, is 9’.  The starting
point of this entire conversation was a record breaking 2012.  Let’s not forget that basic fact.
4) This, Craig, is why I have a hard time discussing climate change with certain folks.  I state a
verifiable fact.  You come back with ... well, let’s just say that you seem to have no idea what I was
talking about.  In the hope of shedding some light on the situation, let’s go through this one step at a
time.

In April of 2010, a paper titled “Expert credibility in climate change” was published by William
Anderegg, James Prall, Jacob Harold and Stephen Schneider in PNAS (also known as the
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America). 

As an aside, PNAS is the official publication of the National Academy of Sciences.  It’s considered
the gold standard for scientific publications, and it’s been published since 1915.

Anyway, the abstract of the paper reads as follows:

“Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking
agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the
American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of
scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the
distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of
agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC
discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and
citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field
support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the
relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are
substantially below that of the convinced researchers.”

You can confirm all this at:  http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract

Can we at least agree that the study I just cited, which was accepted by the U.S. National Academy
of Sciences, and which has been cited in other NAS publications, is valid?  And can we also agree
that you were completely mistaken when you described the 97% number as a “false claim?”
By Craig moore on 01-09-13 @ 8:10 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
14 up | 26 down


Todd, I perceive part of your problem is that you wrest a conversation to what you wanted to
talk about.  My opening comment was not about climate change but about balance, context,
perspective, and my objection to knee jerk emotive words.  You took it from there and
demonstrate your cherry picking.  Now, Dr Curry, who you seem to dismiss had a Italian flag
analsis of your issue.  I suggest you keep an open mind and read it. 
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/17/pause-waving-the-italian-flag/

As to your shotgun,  if at some point you don’t wan’t it,, or have changed your mind about thing
(no one needs to know) just donate it to this spring’s Duck’s Unlimited banquet for auction.  It
will raise important money and your firearm will find a good home.  Win-win.
By Mark W. on 01-09-13 @ 10:13 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
11 up | 18 down


Todd, if it became clear we were heading into a very cold period, such as a Maunder-like minimum or
an ice age, would you support pumping the atmosphere with massive amounts of CO2 in an attempt
to protect our grandchildren, our American traditions, our wildlife habitat and our way of life?
By todd tanner on 01-09-13 @ 10:32 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
20 up | 14 down


My apologies, Craig.  I’ve been making my points with a hammer rather than a scalpel, and that’s not really
fair when I’m holding four Aces and you don’t have a pair to your name.  Let’s just call it a day and end this
conversation on something we can both agree on - here’s to tight lines and good dog work.
By todd tanner on 01-09-13 @ 10:36 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
16 up | 11 down


Interesting question, Mark. I’ve never really given it any thought.  Are you worried that we’re heading
into a new ice age?
By Mark W. on 01-09-13 @ 10:46 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
12 up | 20 down


I don’t think it out of the question, but in this case it’s just a hypothetical.  If we’re going to have a
national or worldwide response I’d want it to be consistent.  If the principle is to save the planet, it
should apply in any case.  Does the principle lose its gloss for you if the facts don’t pan out as you
see them?
By HRH Prince Michael on 01-10-13 @ 12:50 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
22 up | 24 down


Millions, of tax-payer dollars.  Thousands, of studies.  Hundreds, of pundits.
Three-words, from The House of David:  Act of God (See:  Katrina, Ike, Joplin, Sandy…..)
Eight-more words?  “America”, Ye shall reap, as Ye have sown.


The House of David 20 Chronicles 13 Victory, is HERE:
http://www.all4webs.com/q/f/love4yahweh
http://www.flickr.com/photos/72265268@N08
By Craig moore on 01-10-13 @ 1:52 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
15 up | 29 down


Todd, I had hoped things had gone differently.  However, your remarks drip of condescending
arrogance untempered by any display of humility.  You don’t offter a respectful discussion,
but merely a lecture and an invitation to go to your website where you solicit contributions. 
Good luck with that…but, if I may, I suggest you take this to heart. 
https://www.bigquestionsonline.com/content/how-might-intellectual-humility-lead-scientific-insight
By Mark W. on 01-10-13 @ 3:20 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
14 up | 19 down


Todd, let me rephrase the question.  If some cosmic event, say lack of sunspots or the earth’s
position in the universe for example, were to overtake our greenhouse and begin to lower earth
temperatures in such a way that our American traditions, way of life, wildlife habitat and
grandchildren’s well-being were threatened, would you support using the same climate science you
back now, to forward measures such as larger and more automobiles, more driving and more roads,
more factories and more people, to dump CO2 into the atmosphere to regain it?
By todd tanner on 01-10-13 @ 8:01 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
19 up | 9 down


Mark,
If, in some distant and unlikely future, it turns out that the atmosphere needs more CO2 to protect our
outdoor heritage and our grandchildren’s future, then hand me the keys to my new 3/4 ton pickup and
I’ll drive around with my son and look for big whitetails to chase and new trout streams to fish.
By Mark W. on 01-10-13 @ 8:56 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
10 up | 17 down


Genuinely surprised to hear you say that, Todd.

I wonder how many of the scientists that take the consensus view feel the same way.

Have a good one.
By todd tanner on 01-10-13 @ 9:10 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
15 up | 9 down


Craig,

Would you be kind enough to drop me an e-mail via my www.CastingWest.com website.  I have some
thoughts to share with you, and I’d rather do so privately.

Thank you.

 
By todd tanner on 01-10-13 @ 9:18 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
20 up | 11 down


If I had to guess, Mark, I’d say the vast majority of them.  Scientists aren’t usually anti-technology folks;
in fact, most of the scientists I know think technology is pretty wild stuff.  And if driving a hummer would
help the planet, I suspect they’d all have one in the garage.

Unfortunately, things seem to be going the other direction.  I drive a 13 year old Toyota pickup, and
while I love the V8 power and the ability to haul lots of stuff, my next rig will likely be a hybrid or an
electric vehicle.  Not because I think driving a smaller car is a virtue, but because I need to cut down on
the CO2 I put into the air.

I keep hoping that somebody is going to produce a full sized, zero emissions pickup.  Let me know if
you hear about one.
By Mark W. on 01-10-13 @ 9:53 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
12 up | 22 down


Todd, you’re not going to convince me that it’s not agenda driven science.  Factual or not, it’s
driven by an agenda.  Asking a climate science academician about what the most important thing
in the world is is like asking a union bus driver about what he feels is the most important form of
transportation.  And I’m sure he could come up with the science if necessary. 

I think you give the consensus too much credit.  And regardless, the facts, whatever they may be,
have become almost meaningless, lost as they are in the massive ether of agenda.  At least you’re
still able to distinguish the two, but the masses aren’t going to be so careful.  My guess is that
even though you’d be willing to reverse direction in the event of an unforeseen consequence,  most
wouldn’t.  This is going to be a one way ticket, and I’m not going to buy it.  The facts I’ll accept.  I
don’t have the acumen to deny them.  But the package is going in the garbage.

Call me a flat universe denialist. 
By bopho on 01-10-13 @ 10:11 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
22 up | 14 down


The question Mark W. is can you reverse direction if you are wrong and the scientists are right? 

What I have trouble understanding is what is so horrible about at least entertaining the idea that
human caused climate change is happening.  There is no harm in talking about it.  Nobody is going to
take away your freedoms by talking.  Even Dr. Judith Curry on her website Climate Etc. encourages
discussion and the keeping of an open mind.

You on the other hand seemed to have closed your mind to even the possibility of your being wrong.
By Mark W. on 01-11-13 @ 1:09 am
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
12 up | 20 down


I am talking, aren’t I?  For the sake of argument I have accepted your facts as presented.  I also
make no argument against best practices, which most Americans chase like Pavlov’s dog.  It’s just a
matter of priorities.  And right now it’s other kinds of atmospheric pollution that gives me trouble
breathing.
By Craig moore on 01-11-13 @ 11:41 am
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
14 up | 22 down


Bopho, you statement “human caused climate change” is a non-starter because the climate has
never been in equilibrium or stasis.  It has always changed.  Calls for discussion require
respect otherwise it is just a lecture from those that are afflicted with confirmation bias. 
The issue that Dr. Curry calls for discussion is analyzing the natural and human factors that
affect our world climate environment.  Some of those factors are regional in scope at best. 

When it comes to where to put $$$$$$$$ to responding to climate change it’s important to maked
educated guesses as to whether those efforts should go into adaption or drastically changing how
humanity pulses in everyday life. 

We continue to get the alarmism associated with extreme weather events as indicative of climate
change.  Even the IPCC doesn’t buy it.
http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/SREX-All_FINAL.pdf   Go to Chapter 4 and start reading.

Here are some selected quotes:

  “There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have
not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change”
“The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic
climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados”
“The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses”

When I have a $100 to invest in hunting and fishing efforts,  my choice will always be with
organizations like Ducks Unlimited that actually put the investment into improving the
environment and enhancing the resource.  Spokesmen that attempt to take center stage with their
hair on fire and shout “Alarm” are not worth enabling when they have nothing to show for
investing with them versus tangible progress with “get it done” organizations with a track
record of accomplishment.
By GATE on 01-11-13 @ 2:38 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
16 up | 30 down


Termites are the #1 producer of methane gas on Earth, producing between 2 and 22 megatons of
Methane a year…followed closely by the hot air emitted by the hysterical Global Warming fear
mongers!
By mooseberryinn on 01-12-13 @ 10:51 am
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
8 up | 18 down


Considering the actual measurement of annual temperatures, snow, ice caps etc. has only been done
during humankind’s interest in such things, I’d say the sample period is tiny, very tiny.  Maybe so tiny
as to be inaccurate.
By GATE on 01-14-13 @ 5:16 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
7 up | 12 down


SHOCK: NY TIMES SHUTS ENVIRONMENTAL DESK! The New York Times aka Pravda has
announced the closure of it’s environmental Desk. Rumours that the entire environmental team has
volunteered to be recycled into compost and spread across the lawn of the new Billion dollar home of
ALgezeer Gore bought with the proceeds of the sale of Current TV to Middle Eastern Oil Extremists
are as yet unconfirmed….........’
 
Kellyn Brown
Kellyn Brown4h
@kellynbrown
Landslide slowly destroying part of Wyoming resort town http://t.co/ggvVuuJKTG
Dillon Tabish
Dillon Tabish19 Apr
@djtabish
KALISPELL, MT: You'll find the box in a brick building filled with history. Skateboards, pizza, clocks & ties #THTH14
Molly Priddy
Molly Priddy18 Apr
@mollypriddy
@natashavc @TaraAriano @allyzay Oh no, I've been thinking it's a room for all your types of mustards. Recalibrating my ideas now.
Tristan Scott
Tristan Scott19 Apr
@tristanscott
@tristanscott *Billie Joe
Flathead Beacon
FB Headlines15h
@flatheadbeacon
Kalispell’s Core Area Redevelopment Plan Inches Forward http://t.co/EO2le2frPY