Your latest issue [“Living Green,” Nov. 17 Xpress) makes it abundantly clear that you guys are way behind the info-curve regarding the issue of Man-Made Global Warming (MMGW).
Your [feature] story, “Living Green,” while written within the general context of legitimate and noble environmental goals and practices, continually upholds the abject fiction that human activity — primarily the burning of fossil fuels for energy — is causing the Earth’s atmosphere to warm. The Earth hasn’t even been warming — actually cooling — since 1998.
MMGW has been definitively shown to be a scientific fraud. The “science” upon which it was based, having been both fraudulent and purchased by the interests that would make trillions from the resulting “carbon taxes,” has been exposed as ridiculously flawed with intent.
Has your editorial staff never heard of the “Climategate” scandal from one year ago in which the fraud was resoundingly exposed? Evidently not, because when you publish a feature story that affirms the fraudulent concept of MMGW over and over again, I have to conclude that your editorial staff is composed of people who have a very small universe of info-sources — or have become “true believers” in the MMGW mythology to the extent that no objective information gets through the filters.
One’s “carbon footprint” is an NLP brainwashing term that has been exposed as more Orwellian terminology by the control structure that is imposing its agenda upon us all.
— Michael Ivey
Asheville
Green Scene reporter Susan Andrew responds: The international scientific community is in broad agreement. An increasing body of evidence provides a collective picture of a warming climate, and that human activities are altering Earth’s atmosphere. Readers may consult the Union of Concerned Scientists website on global warming at www.ucsusa.org.
Yes, “global warming” is a hoax. Always has been.
Can we move on now?
…………………..
Anti-capitalism is not a hoax.
……………………..
[b]Has your editorial staff never heard of the “Climategate” scandal from one year ago in which the fraud was resoundingly exposed?[/b]
Ten points if the letter-writer can raionally and accurately explain how a handful of emails, taken wildly out-of-context ‘disprove’ decades of pear reviewed science.
If anything, this letter writer is merely exposing the extreme scientific illiteracy that our public schools are engendering in our culture. I mean, they don’t even understand what they are attacking.
Can we move on now?
You have my permission.
“You have my permission.”
Good. Onward, everyone.
……………..
The so called “climategate” is actually the only thing that has been debunked. Fox News covered it in the beginning, but has yet to report four independent studies concluded there was NO manipulation of data, and in fact the science is sound. You can check the University of Kentucky’s (I know, clearly a bastion of liberalism)meteorology department for more info.
If you add millions of tons of CO2 to the atmosphere it warms up. We can debate how fast, but that it happens is fact. Also, there is empirical evidence, i.e. huge sheets of ice turning into water. You can call it anti-capitalism, but are you suggesting industries should be able to regulate themselves, and pollute endlessly? I would call that stupidity at its finest, and M.A.D.
Of course climate change is real, regardless of how much squealing the purposely ignorant spew out. The overwhelming evidence cannot be ignored except by the ignorati. As for the tired bilge that ‘Climategate’ was a fraud, the letter-writer needs to get some real news and not Glenn Beck’s garbage.
“Last week, five independent investigations cleared the scientists involved in the Climategate scandal from allegations that they had tampered with their research in order to prove global warming. The verdict is a major victory for environmentalists and a wake up call for climate change skeptics. CNN’s Howard Kurtz, however, notes a disparity between the amount of coverage Climategate received when the controversy first broke last year and the amount of media attention it’s getting now.”
http://www.mediaite.com/online/media-not-excited-anymore-about-debunked-climategate-scandal/
Those who act like ostriches and insist on ignoring the facts can yelp all they want. They are nothing more than members of today’s Flat Earth Society.
Good. Onward, everyone
I believe you willfully misconstrue my meaning.
“I believe you willfully misconstrue my meaning.”
I fully understand your meaning. You mean to be insulting, hateful, uncivil and personal.
[MODERATOR NOTE: This is where the incivility began on this thread.]
……………………..
You mean to be insulting, hateful, uncivil and personal.
Not in the least. I merely gave you permission to move on as you requested.
Oh give it up, Hanke. You’re just being a jerk.
……………………
You’re just being a jerk.
Now, that’s being personal. I’m actually the only one here who hasn’t disagreed with you.
Well, you’ve ruined another MX thread, Hanke.
[MODERATOR NOTE: This is where the obstinate incivility was continued.]
……………………………
“I believe you willfully misconstrue my meaning.”
I fully understand your meaning. You mean to be insulting, hateful, uncivil and personal.
[MODERATOR NOTE: This is where the incivility began on this thread.]
……………………..
Not true. The incivility began when you made the leap to infer that those who support the theory of Global Warming are “anti-capitalist”. This is an insult, Tim(1).
I too encourage you to move on if you’ve made up your mind, and stop insulting people who are still discussing the issue.
The letter writer is an idiot and believes all the scientific proof of global warming is a joke … more dumbing down of america.
Tim, you always act like the victim.
Just one prime example of debunking “Climategate”:
Principle in the stolen emails, Dr. Michael Mann, was completely and unanimously exonerated of all accusations of malfeasance, by a panel of his peers at Penn State and outside experts:
http://www.desmogblog.com/penn-state-completely-exonerates-climate-scientist-michael-mann-bogus-climategate-accusations
Turns out that his out-of-context quotes were deliberately misinterpreted. The stolen emails contained phrases like “hide the decline”, which skeptics leapt on as evidence that the researchers were falsifying data that didn’t support Global Warming. In fact, the other climate scientists who were part of the email exchange understood phrases like this to be about treating the data appropriately, and it only sounded nefarious if you didn’t understand the science… People with an agenda stole these emails, took the selected quotes out of context, and handed it to the right-wing media.
Along come people like the letter writer, who don’t understand that the ‘skeptics’ they are listening to are actually paid by the polluting industries to mislead them.
absolutely! The skeptics are fools and are willing to destoy humanity because of corporate greed!
absolutely! The skeptics are fools and are willing to destoy humanity because of corporate greed!
absolutely! The skeptics are fools and are willing to destoy humanity because of corporate greed!
Are you sure? You sounded a little hesitant that last time…
I’m puzzled as to why anyone would give climate change deniers any attention whatsoever. They truly are the Flat Earthers of today. They are free to show their bone-headedness all they wish, but to dignify them with any attention is perplexing.
So, the reason that naysayers throw out is the lefts’ agenda to reap money from Carbon Taxes. Geez, now who seems conspiratorial. Given some recent past incidents, it seems that the right et al have as their mission to cast doubt on anything the progressives put forth as genuine issues i.e. global warming, evolution, helping others using very nefarious methods, indeed, to manipulate their lies. It is interesting when the extreme righties try to think on more than one level, and funny. It is the old battle of neanderthal and cromagnon, but I guess that we will have to continue to help them along. Ha I will tell you what will end capitalism…greed & power stirred in a big pot of hatred stew.
Fine, don’t look at it as global warming. Look at it as an active, alternative approach to “not in my backyard.” There’s no risk of another landfill, power plant, whatever being built next door if we keep the demand within the capabilities of what we already have, right? Think about it.
It is very frustrating that debate on global warming is impossible, it is like abortion or gay marriage to emotional. One side calls the other idiot or flat earthers and the other says people have been hoaxed, not really the start of a healthy dialog. I believe that Global Warming is in fact happening and it seems logical that man has contributed to this with burning fossil fuels, but I am not as convinced that CO2 is the major culprit, I am more concerned with all the other poisons that we spew into the air. I also believe that the heat island effect by increased paving has to factor into the warming effect. The complexity of our climate cycle makes identifying a single source very difficult. I think that “Man Made Global Warming” and “Carbon Footprint” have become a little buzz wordy; but I do not really care, if that is what it takes for people to be scared into pumping less crap into our air & water.
I have an ongoing offer to anyone who would like to bet me $$$ that the atmosphere is cooling. (I maintain that it is warming)
So far, I’ve had no takers.
That’s because these people usually go back to verify their info prior to making the bet and soon realize that there is zero evidence of any cooling.
Thank you Michael Ivey. Yes, “global warming” is a man-made “emergency” so that our taxes can be raised and progressive busybodies can tell us how to live our lives. Want your electric bills doubled? Just agree with these people. Because that’s what they want to do under “Cap n Trade”. And the capper is that GW’s chief architech Al Gore breaks his own rules by living in a new, enormous seaside mansion in Santa Barbara CA. He also flies around the country showing his propaganda film on a private jet. Talk about a “carbon footprint”. Progressives always want to control the other person and not themselves. But workaday people are not fooled by such hypocrisy.
“there is zero evidence of any cooling.”
Nor is the a scintilla of evidence that there is some kind of liberal ‘hoax’, but that doesn’t stop the Flat Earthers (I’ll use whatever term I wish, since the prospect of a “healthy dialogue” is non-existent now) from throwing it out there and making irrelevant but disparaging remarks about those who are concerned (be it Al Gore or anyone else). Their posts are completely devoid of anything but invective and ignorance. That’s my opinion and I’m sticking to it, regardless of what others think.
I agree with you Dionysis … too bad many don’t care about the future of this planet .. they only care about their stuff and how to preserve it.
I am guessing Agnes falls into the flat earthers .. ignorance is bliss!
Agnes –
Just because one of your favorite whipping boys (Gore) got out in front of global warming, doesn’t invalidate it. You appear to be mired in seeing this issue as “the-good-guys-versus-the-libs”, and that’s too bad. Sometimes there’s things that we can all agree on & work together on, and this should be one of them. Unfortunately, a lot of people are getting rich off of the current energy structures in this world, and they use a lot of that money and people with big microphones to prevent an honest discussion from taking place.
I know you won’t look at it, but here again is the address listed above, the Union of Concerned Scientists. The website has tremendous resources for explaining the science of climate research, the history of the debate, and debunking the critics. I double-dog-dare you to read some of it…
http://www.ucsusa.org.
Mr. Ivey, it’s a sad fact that stupid people, or people with average intelligence, truly believe that they are as smart or smarter than highly intelligent people. Therein lies their stupidity.
Having said that, attacking the dignity of highly regarded scientific organizations is considered good politics on the conservative side of the political spectrum in the United States. The Republican Party wants everybody to believe that the most reputable scientists and scientific organizations in the world are all either corrupt or stupid.
And why, might you ask, are Republicans doing this?
Because not a single reputable scientific organization, or reputable scientist for that matter, thinks that man-made global warming is a myth, or that global warming and climate change aren’t very serious problems that require immediate attention.
Mr. Ivey, do you know what the word “absolved” means?
It means that a big part of the frozen crap you’ve been peddling melted away already.
A Pennsylvania State University panel cleared Dr. Michael E. Mann of any wrongdoing. Dr. Mann was one of the notable climate scientists at the center of the hacked emails controversy.
The panel of scientists looked through all of Dr. Mann’s email correspondences, including the handful of sentences that every conservative hack in the world has been trying to inflate into a worldwide conspiracy.
It bears repeating:
The inquiry found no wrongdoing.
Of the major findings:
When Dr. Mann said in an e-mail that he had used a “trick” in a graph that showed global warming in the 20th century, he wasn’t manipulating data, as most deniers claimed. The so-called “trick” was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion. Dr. Mann’s use of this technique was reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field and they unanimously agreed.
The board also found that Dr. Mann didn’t destroy any data. All of the data in question was produced to the Penn State board.
Furthermore, there have since been at least 3 or more independent reviews, all of which concluded that there was no evidence of scientific malpractice or scientific misconduct, whatsoever.
“That’s my opinion and I’m sticking to it, regardless of what others think.”
Excellent Bumper Sticker
Or this one:
“The Emperors new outfit is beautiful, don’t you agree?”
Or, getting back to climate change, let’s steal from Bill Cosby’s bit about God convincing Noah to build the Ark:
“Noah – how long can you tread water?”
Bill Cosby’s bit about God convincing Noah to build the Ark
Great routine if you’ve never heard it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0KHt8xrQkk
What’s a god?
uh-oh.
Ayn Rand is a hoax.
Ayn Rand is a hoax.
You had to pick at that scab, did you?
You had to pick at that scab, did you?
Well, I could have said something like: It is nice of Mr. Peck to take a time out from sniffing Franzi’s panties to offer us his sublime opinion, but that might be misconstrued as a personal attack, and I am above such things.
As I said before, uh-oh.
Ayn Rand is a hoax.
You are way too kind.
You are way too kind.
Ummm… uh-oh?… OK, I don’t get it.
Ummm… uh-oh?… OK, I don’t get it
She’s much worse than a hoax.
““That’s my opinion and I’m sticking to it, regardless of what others think.”
Excellent Bumper Sticker”
At least the opinion is supported by the overwhelming weight of facts (besides, “god, guns and guts” was taken). If anyone can show just how the majority of climate scientists are conspiring to perpetrate a ‘hoax’ to (evidently) enrich Al Gore, please do so. Show how they’ve engineered the melting of glaciers and permafrost, the submerging of islands (which is occurring now), the demise of species due to climate change, etc. then you might be taken seriously. Simply making pronouncements as if that constituted objective reality might work for the Flat Earthers, but it wins no cigar.
I love how Tim and Agnes chime in with their Hannity fueled talking points, and then don ‘t respond to any questioning or retorts. It’s like everyone on the right is shouting little quips they’ve heard on Fox news and then sticking their fingers in their ears, while going, “lalalalla I can’t hear you, lallallala”
My dream bumpersticker: “Palin Snookie 2012”
JMAC. You’re the most objectively rational person on here.
“If anyone can show just how the majority of climate scientists are conspiring to perpetrate a ‘hoax’ to (evidently) enrich Al Gore, please do so. Show how they’ve engineered the melting of glaciers and permafrost, the submerging of islands (which is occurring now), the demise of species due to climate change, etc. then you might be taken seriously.”
Has anyone really suggested this? I always hated Tipper, but Al’s work in Manbearpig research is invaluable.
“Simply making pronouncements as if that constituted objective reality might work for the Flat Earthers, but it wins no cigar.”
I try to be objective in any debate, and sometimes I too am blinded by my own passion.
There may have been some Neanderthals that thought the earth was flat, but early modern man believed in a domed earth, even the simplest mind was able to see the horizon disappear in the distance. Before the round earth theory was presented it seems likely that the consensus of scientist believed the domed earth theory and probably looked at round earthers as fools. The most popular theory does not always equal fact.
Fact: The Earth is warming, easily proven by climate records
Fact: CO2 Levels have increased, also proven by scientific records
Correlation: Higher CO2 levels have increased the Earth’s temperature. The popular theory is that this is true, another theory is that the increased temperature of the ocean decreases its ability to hold CO2 therefore releasing into the atmosphere. Which one is correct? Seems difficult to prove either.
I have said before that I am very concerned that the pollutants that we pump into the air and water and mans impacts that have the ability to destroy the earth as we know it. So I think we are of the same religion I just do not follow it so blindly.
To ignore the facts is ignorant.
To only seek one source of facts is ignorant.
To refuse to listen to opposing views is ignorant.
“To ignore the facts is ignorant.”
Agreed; for decades now, I have looked at virtually every scientific fact I could, and the results are unambiguous.
“To only seek one source of facts is ignorant.”
Also agree, see above. However, facts are facts, regardless of how many sources are considered.
“To refuse to listen to opposing views is ignorant.”
Two points: one, I have heard and considered “opposing views” for several years now; views devoid of factual substantiation offer nothing. It has been the same weak argument time after time. Secondly, taking specious or unsupported opinions seriously hardly advances anything, and in fact clouds rational consideration of the problem. If ‘opposing views’ offered anything remotely like empirical substantiation, then your point would be reasonable, but so far, nothing of the sort has been offered. It pretty much boils down to opinions like that of the letter-writer: a view that is unsupported (“it’s all a hoax to enrich someone else”) but delivered with false certitude by citing discredited ‘facts’.
Dionysis – you say all the facts you’ve seen support mmgw but you don’t cite a single source. Instead you accuse those who disagree with you of offering nothing of substance.
What about the multiple studies of CO2 levels and temperature levels that show the rising temps PRECEDING the increases in CO2? Can you show me where CO2 is even demonstrated to BE a “greenhouse gas?”
Fact – islands are indeed being submerged – and others are emerging. There are entire cities under water – and seabeds at 7000′ elevations. So nothing new here.
Species are indeed disappearing – and new ones are being discovered. Some polar bear populations are diminishing – others are increasing. Nothing new here either.
One of the best discussions I’ve seen is here http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
http://www.goldenageproject.org.uk/977.php sheds a little more light on this subject.
Emotions seldom lead to good scientific results. “Please don’t confuse me with trivial things like facts… “
“Free”thinker,
That link is absurd. The guy who writes the report is obviously dedicating his life to debunking MMGW. Any scientist will tell you that if you go into an experiment looking for an outcome, you will find it. Our thoughts effect our conclusions. He just finished a book in 2009 about how environmentalists want to control your life!?
If you want facts I suggest you look to non-partisan sources. I’ll give you one: NASA, who’s climatologists just found 2010 to be the hottest year on record. There really is no debate among scientists, just fringe nut jobs like the one you cite, who are self-promoting, and just wanting to sell books that reinforce other nutjobs’ world view.
Also, here’s another non-partisan link that sums it up (note: the NOAA isn’t trying to sell anything, or for that matter control you)
http://www.lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q2
“Dionysis – you say all the facts you’ve seen support mmgw but you don’t cite a single source.”
Nor do I feel the need to post every source that one can easily find oneself by simply looking. For example, start with the link provided in the body of the piece:
http://www.ucsusa.org.
What you provided is full of verbiage but devoid of anything that has support among the majority of real climate scientists.
This is a standard effort to try and weaken the argument without offering anything to factually counter it: claim the writer didn’t cite the voluminous facts accumulated for years, then throw out one or two specious sources as if that neutralized decades of research.
You haven’t really offered anything but the same old same old. It’s an ideology wrapped in a thin veneer of objective commentary, and couldn’t really persuade anyone. But you are certainly entitled to your opinion, even if unsupported.
As an aside, the website ‘FreeThinker’ offered to refute decades of rigorous scientific studies is by a guy named Steve Milloy, a conservative mutual fund manager and frequent Fox News contributor. A careful review of his postings shows this to be true:
“Unsuspecting visitors might think that Milloy’s site is devoted to criticizing shoddy science, but they would be wrong. If you look at what he “debunks” you will find that the real criterion for deciding what is “junk science” is not the quality of the work, but the political agenda that it might support. Studies that support a right-wing agenda are endorsed, while studies that don’t are harshly criticized.”
http://info-pollution.com/milloy.htm
And just in time…on the matter of Fox News and climate change naysayers comes this:
“For the second time in less than a week, the Fox News Washington managing editor has been caught trying to “slant” the news…
…Bill Sammon told his staff to downplay the importance of climate science that showed the world was getting warmer…
Sammon issued the instructions less than 15 minutes after Fox News correspondent Wendell Goler noted that the United Nations’ World Meteorological Organization announced that 2000-2009 was “on track to be the warmest [decade] on record.”
…since joining Fox News, Sammon’s pressure to “distort” and “slant news” had made some in the newsroom uncomfortable.
“Since Bill Sammon assumed the role of Washington managing editor and vice president of news at the beginning of the Obama Administration, pressure from Fox management to produce stories that lean toward a conservative agenda, and distort news in some cases, has found its way into coverage,”
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/leaked-email-fox-boss-told-staff-cast-doubt-climate-change/
Yet we still have people embracing diversion and misinformation terming them “good scientific facts.” Perhaps from some alternative universe they may be considered “facts” but not in the world the rest of us occupy.
Do we need Tim Peck and Barry Summers to comment on every single thing?
“Also, here’s another non-partisan link that sums it up (note: the NOAA isn’t trying to sell anything, or for that matter control you” The Asheville NCDC is also known as the World Meteorology Organization, World Data Center, an agency of the entity (UN) seeking to enforce climate regulation through national governments,hardly a disinterested source.
“an agency of the entity (UN) seeking to enforce climate regulation through national governments,hardly a disinterested source. ”
Interesting standards. Extending those out, show me one piece of data that purports to counter climate-science that isn’t funded by industries with a direct financial interest in avoiding environmental regulation.
“…[e]-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data.” Associated Press. 2009-12-03.
“…these researchers, some of the most prominent climate experts in Britain and America, seem so focused on winning the public-relations war that they exaggerate their certitude — and ultimately undermine their own cause.” The New York Times. 01 December 2009.