Comments on: Arctic Cooling On Schedule

By: Ed Ring

Ed Ring — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 19:32:06 +0000

Dave: Thank you for your comment. I’d be interested in where you are referring to. I grew up in the Silicon Valley in the 1960’s, back when it was still known as the Santa Clara Valley. When I was growing up, say in 1965, there were only about 500,000 people living in that valley, and the air was so filthy you often couldn’t see the mountains five miles away. Now there are 2.0 million people living there, but the air is much cleaner, thanks to unleaded gas and catalytic converters. And this is a very good thing. The air is not dirtier now than it was - per capita, in the USA at least, the air is much cleaner than it was 30 or 40 years ago.

If you want to use “carbon” as the currency to accelerate a transition away from fossil fuel, fine, but please don’t say CO2 is pollution, because it isn’t. Plants can’t grow without CO2, and for CO2 to be toxic for humans it would have to do a lot more than double - CO2 will not hurt human health at any conceivable level of fossil fuel driven increases in our atmosphere.

The need for the US to eliminate dependence on foreign energy - or at least greatly diversify that dependence - is compelling. We support that absolutely. And the need to eliminate remaining sources of genuine pollution - NO2, CO, SO2, O3, particulates, and so on - is compelling and we support that absolutely as well.

But the notion that rising CO2 concentrations due to industry are leading to runaway global warming is not beyond debate at all. And it would be helpful if more people would reopen their minds to the issues involved, and make the distinction between (1) energy independence, (2) genuine unhealthy air pollution, and (3) CO2 emissions. These are distinct issues with distinct reasons to be supported or debated.

By: Dave Vogel

Dave Vogel — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:41:25 +0000

Global Warming: Who cares what you call it. Scientific facts and theories can be argued forever because there will always be two sides to every issue. It only matters if you have eyes and can comprehand what you are seeing. 50 years ago I could easily see my hometown skyline, today I ONLY SEE SMOG. 40 YEARS ago I flew a lot while in the military and could easily see the ground from 25 to 35k feet, today when flying I see mostly haze(smog). With 400+ million vehicles on the road and a new coal fired electrical plant every week(world-wide) you can only dilute the atmosphere so much. Anybody can argue against enviromentalists or the fossil fuel proponents , but if you use your senses, just observe what you see and breathe. My life span is getting short, but I have children who are having children, Think about the legecy we are leaving Them. So instead of arguing what the other side said , what matters is to reduce our carbon foot-print or conserve our resources , so our children can have a Breathable Future

By: ed wheeler

ed wheeler — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 23:47:53 +0000

Mr. Norrigan is correct in that Mr. Ring was being an alarmist, much as the global warming zealots are. However, he makes real scientific points that Mr. Norrigan ignores, as do all the GW zealots. We infidels present arguements refuting the CO2 HYPOTHESIS and the true believers ignore them. They simply throw ad hominem arguements back, never addressing our arguements directly.

By: Ed Ring

Ed Ring — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 19:58:56 +0000

Now see here Paul - you’ve probably observed just as many infantile proclamations on television and radio as I have, and if it doesn’t frighten you, you aren’t paying attention. The four year old child standing by the seashore, plaintively declaring that “our parents didn’t make the choices they had to make, and now we have rising seas, etc.,” or the radio spot telling us “global warming is a choice, and we all have to do our part,” or the new laws forcing builders to include “global warming impact” in their EIRs, or Al Gore saying “this is a crisis,” and “this is a moral issue,” and Robert Kennedy saying “global warming skeptics are traitors and should be treated as such.” And on and on and on. Often paid for with our tax dollars.

What do YOU think is going to happen, if this hysteria isn’t curbed? Do you actually think we can lower CO2 emissions enough to impact global climate? Are you kidding? Over 90% of our energy in the world comes from burning things. And what do YOU think is going to happen when the global economy slows down, and on top of all the stress that will create, we are leaning on China to stop burning coal? Clean coal (no particulates etc.) is feasible - instead you want coal without CO2?

The hidden agendas behind global warming alarmism are not pretty - at their most innocent, it is to raise the price of energy and transfer wealth into the hands of otherwise insolvent public entities.

Perhaps I was a bit hyperbolic in my conclusion to this post, and perhaps I should minimize that as much as possible. But I am tired of hearing people say “the debate is over.” The debate is not over, and anyone who thinks it should be over is crossing a line we should not cross in this democracy.

By: Paul Norrigan

Paul Norrigan — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 19:45:16 +0000

Really? Come on, do you really think we’re all that slow? You’re using hysterical arguments, which is exactly what you accuse global warming to be. And by the way, we don’t all get our news from the popular media, and many of us are aware of all of the variables involved in what could be ‘Global Warming’. Real scientists are aware and are factoring these variables in.

“Nationalized our energy industry and gone to war with China”, WWIII, Really? “socialism, tyranny, thought police, international tension, economic misery, neo-colonialism”, Really???

Now THAT’S what I would call alarmist! Please don’t stoop as low as the popular media, or ever worse, the likes of the Inquirer…you really do have a responsibility to the public at large. And it’s obvious that you are an intelligent person. Be ethical, not hysterical.

Thanks

By: ed wheeler

ed wheeler — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 06:47:09 +0000

You neglect to mention the huge benefit of a melting Artic, and a reason why we should embrace global warming as potentially good in many ways. We may soon have the NorthWest passage all those 17th and 18 century European explorers were seeking. Imagine the economic and energy savings we can have if ships from Europe can go directly thru the NW passage and save thousands of miles not having to go through the Panama Canal, and visa verse from Asia to Europe. Why do we focus only on the potential negatives? Not that I care very much, but I’m sure polar bears will adapt just fine, as will we.