ONCE AGAIN, ONE OF OUR LOCAL PUNDITS has attempted to cast doubt on human-caused climate change or “global warming” (“Let’s call it ‘climate disruption’ — yeah, that’s the ticket!” June 6). What he presents is a hodgepodge of quotes cherry-picked from various sources for their apparent failing to accurately predict the consequences of global warming (or cooling).
And once again, I don’t get the point. No scientific evidence is provided that would alter the overwhelming worldwide scientific consensus that humans are altering the Earth’s atmosphere and climate by loading up the atmosphere with greenhouse-type gases.
The writer makes a couple of key points that are common among the climate denier crowd. The first is the notion that polar ice is increasing, rather than decreasing. It turns out polar ice is not so simple. According to the writer’s source, he is referring to sea ice. Like ice on a lake, sea ice grows and retreats each year in response to regional weather patterns, whereas land ice (the type that built up over thousands of years — think glaciers) is continuing to melt at alarming rates. The expansion and contraction of sea ice is of little consequence. It’s the land ice that melts and raises ocean levels.
The second contention is that climate fluctuates naturally, so why worry? Well, it turns out our climate scientists have thought of that and have scientifically ruled out other factors including natural cycles, orbital cycles, the sun, volcanoes, etc. Actually, if our temperature were controlled by natural causes right now (and not human activity), we’d be getting cooler, not warmer.
Of interest, the third National Climate Assessment was just published in May. A team of more than 300 experts guided by a 60-member Federal Advisory Committee compiled the report. Here’s the upshot of that report:
“Heat-trapping gases already in the atmosphere have committed us to a hotter future with more climate-related impacts over the next few decades. The magnitude of climate change beyond the next few decades depends primarily on the amount of heat-trapping gases that human activities emit globally, now and in the future.” And: “There is mounting evidence that harm to the nation will increase substantially in the future unless global emissions of heat-trapping gases are greatly reduced.”
I’m mystified by the continued denial of this problem, especially the ill-considered attempts to discredit our scientific community on the part of some of our citizenry.
Benicia is considered a “refinery town.” And our community benefits in large part from the Valero refinery and the cash generated by burning fossil fuels. But what does it say about us when we turn a blind eye to truth to justify our continued exploitation of fossil fuels at the expense of present and future generations?
Craig Snider is a Benicia resident. He recently retired from the U.S. Forest Service, where he was regional environmental coordinator for the national forests in California from 2003-14.
Sharing is caring!
I”d say this was appropriate:
http://aattp.org/watch-the-deadly-conservative-anti-science-movement-was-predicted-exactly-by-carl-sagan-video/
I have heard that climate scientist 30 to 40 years ago predicted we were entering an ice age. If this is true how can you blame someone for being skeptical.
There are two choices,. A or B. There is no C. However, If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
Beyond the anti-intellectuals, blowhards, and anti-science crowd—
From the above article:
“And once again, I don’t get the point. [No scientific evidence is provided that would alter the overwhelming worldwide scientific consensus] that humans are altering the Earth’s atmosphere and climate by loading up the atmosphere with greenhouse-type gases. ”
From the above article:
ONCE AGAIN, ONE OF OUR LOCAL PUNDITS has attempted to cast doubt on human-caused climate change or “global warming” (“Let’s call it ‘climate disruption’ — yeah, that’s the ticket!” June 6). What he presents is a hodgepodge of quotes cherry-picked from various sources for their apparent failing to accurately predict the consequences of global warming (or cooling).
From the post below more information for the community and Mr. Snider to consider…
“The fact that this lie keeps being perpetuated despite the fact that scientists have offered numerous corrections shows the AGW deniers have the same casual disregard for the truth that creationists do. Such practices demonstrate the absymal level of their scientific integrity, and speaks to the fact that AGW deniers are not climate scientists, but people with political agendas who cherry-pick data, quote-mine out of context, and use whatever lies and half-truths they need to support their cause. The parallel with creationists and other science deniers could not be any clearer.”
http://www.skepticblog.org/2012/04/11/cherry-picked-data-and-deliberate-distortions/
RKJ said: I have heard that climate scientist 30 to 40 years ago predicted we were entering an ice age.
You heard right.
Actually starting about 1895, the media including the NY and LA Times have alternated between global cooling and warming scares. In 1895 until the 1930’s it was a coming ice age then from the late 1920’s until the 1960’s it was global warming. In the 1970’s they warned again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming alarmists the fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years.
One of these decades they will make up their minds.
Craig Snider said: And once again, I don’t get the point.
Thank you Craig for looking at my piece, it is appreciated.
You may have noticed, while glancing at my article, that I mentioned there were over 150 examples where various promoters of MCGW, including scientists, were wrong.
I have on other threads asked several pertinent questions to the primary local proponent of MCGW, I have yet to see an answer from anyone on those questions, let alone the author of those numerous pieces.
Examples:
If the burning of fossil fuels is the cause of today’s Global-cooling-warming-Change-disruption, what caused the past fluctuations which have occurred for tens of thousands of years?
Or
Obviously in the response to that question, one has to mention that “other factors” were at play. How do we then know that those other factors are not still at play?
Again thanks for the time spent in your response I hope in the future you will actually read my pieces and then perhaps you will get the point.
However, if we are to be honest, even 300 or even 3000 examples would not sway the disciples of MCGW.
.
And if we are to be honest, no amount of examples will sway the extreme minority of blockheads like you who are scientifically illiterate and so ashamed of your stupidity that you erect a facade of skepticism impermeable to reality. If we are to be honest.
Nice
It’s important to note that today we have the benefit of a myriad of satellite monitoring systems which have been gathering very good data for the last couple decades. Everything from air temperature to ice caps to ocean temps to ocean flora, weather patterns, altered landscapes, u-name-it. So it’s hard to equate past predictions with findings of today.
Also, there seems to be a notion among some that there is some sort of climate change agenda among the scientific community. Scientists have some conspiracy underway to hoodwink the public into believing in climate change. I find this odd given that most of the scientists benefit from fossil fuel usage same as everyone else, both in their personal use of gas and oil, as well as corporate profits (growing stock portfolios) fueled by cheap oil. So why would there be such an agenda in the first place? It would be against their personal and community interest. What would be the purpose such a conspiracy?
On the other hand, I can see the climate denier motive because once one realizes the truth of global climate change, the options for dealing with it in a meaningful way will be costly and painful for everyone.
First, I am answering this based on the assumption that I am responding to the author of the original column: Craig Snider.
we have the benefit of a myriad of satellite monitoring systems which have been gathering very good data for the last couple decades. So it’s hard to equate past predictions with findings of today.
From the original piece which seems to have offended Mr. Snider: “Dr. David Viner of the University of East Anglia, in March 2000…”
And
“In a 2007 speech, Gore…”
And
and we have Harry Reid (2014) to thank for shining on a light on the culprits: the Koch brothers.
Thank you for confirming that you never really rad the piece in question.
Also, there seems to be a notion among some that there is some sort of climate change agenda among the scientific community.
Feel free to explain away these examples (all can be searched as they are lifted headlines, or opening paragraphs):
1) Scientist fired for becoming climate change skeptic (May 15, 2014).
2) Israeli government scientist fired for his views on evolution and climate change Dr Gavriel Avital was sacked for ‘denying the tenets of evolution and global warming’ (Oct. 2010)
3) Nicholas Drapela, Professor And Climate Change Denier, Fired From Oregon State University (June 2012)
4) A Win for the Climate Scientist Who Skeptics Compared to Jerry Sandusky
As the judge green-lights his libel suit, the defendants’ lawyers jump ship. (Jan 2014)
5) A top New Zealand climate scientist whose work contributed to a Nobel Peace prize was fired from his job at a state-funded agency Friday for speaking to the media without approval. Jim Salinger was let go for breaching a new policy at the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research requiring scientists to have prior approval before speaking to media. …
How many more examples (there are many more) would I need to supply before you conceded validity on the point?
I would also point out that the two questions I raised remain unaddressed.
Incompetence is, in fact, a firing offense. What do you do for a living, again?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/23/hottest-may-record-temperature-_n_5523031.html
Good point, thanks for bringing that up. Perhaps we should fire 88 out of the 90 Scientists who created the models used to predict Global-cooling-warming-change-disruption.
Obama’s schizophrenic position on climate change—
From the article by Mr. Snider : A key quote for the community to consider…
“But what does it say about us when we turn a blind eye to truth to justify our continued exploitation of fossil fuels at the expense of present and future generations”?
From the post below, more hard “truth(s)” for our elected and appointed leaders past and present to comprehend…
“Obama Bashes Climate Change Deniers
As Obama delivers new and powerful rhetoric on climate change, a closer look at his own policies asks harder questions”
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/06/15-0
Get off the Obama hatred train. He’s done more, and tried to do more, than any president. The real obstruction is coming from the GOP, anyone with a brain knows that.
Obama’s schizophrenic position on climate change—
From the article by Mr. Snider : A key quote for the community to consider…
“But what does it say about us when we turn a blind eye to truth to justify our continued exploitation of fossil fuels at the expense of present and future generations”?
From the post below, more hard “truth(s)” for our elected and appointed leaders past and present to comprehend…
“The Obama administration unveiled historic environment rules cutting carbon pollution from power plants by 30 percent… spurring prospects for a global deal to end climate change”, heralded The Guardian.
“In reality the headline figure of a 30 percent reduction by 2030 is a lot less impressive than it sounds. This is because of the Obama Administration’s habit of moving the goalposts on climate change policy. So while the rest of the world uses 1990 as the baseline for measuring reductions in carbon emissions, the US uses 2005 – a far easier baseline figure to aim for as emissions were significantly higher in 2005 than in 1990. According to Kevin Bundy from the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute the 30 percent reduction in power plant emissions shrinks to just a mere 7.7 percent reduction when the 1990 baseline is applied.”
“So we should be prepared to defend the Obama Administration’s proposals from attacks from the right and the fossil fuel industry. However, we also need to be clear: given the size of the climate problem Obama’s plan is completely inadequate. Obama’s “historical fate is to be in power at a time when good intentions and important steps are no longer enough”, notes Mark Hertsgaard, The Nation magazine’s Environmental Correspondent. “The science he is faced with… demand actions that seem preposterous to the political and economic status quo.”
http://zcomm.org/znetarticle/obama-turns-on-the-hose/