Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Save the jobs — man isn’t changing climate

July 9, 2014

To the editor: The EPA’s new regulations calling for a substantial reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from stationary power plants; 30 percent or more in some cases, is essentially worthles....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(55)

NoBleedingHeartHere

Jul-17-14 9:44 PM

I'll be waiting to hear your rabid spin in November regarding my last comment, seen in action. In the meantime, happy hand wringing about that "preventable", "absolutely unique", "never seen before humans" thing called "climate change". I'm sure the next volcanic eruption clouding the atmosphere; or the next methane burst from the sea floor, emitting megatons of greenhouse gases; will in your eyes, will have been caused by human habitation. You can go to Copenhagen and hyperventilate about it with Vaughn.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hartman75

Jul-17-14 9:04 PM

You are quite the drama queen NBHH. Fact is, you don't need me or a so called "liberal" to prove your ignorance. Simply reading your last comment indicates you are perfectly capable of doing that all on your own.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

NoBleedingHeartHere

Jul-17-14 7:04 PM

So, hartmann, how about an "artful" review of Bill Ayres, that liberal darling so admired by Obama?

Here is a fact hartmann. Whether it be Obama, Pelosi, Reid . . . . you. To a liberal, anyone who doesn't agree with them is immediately labeled a fake; a liar; in whatever way, less than human. Your response is breathless in that it follows liberal core values with precision.

In any election cycle, it doesn't matter if you have a qualified candidate or not (case in point, Obama), it only matters to liberals that they lie and smear the best. All seemingly Gloria Allred wannabees. Come this November, it will be our misfortune to be once again reminded of that lack of fair play and/or morals.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hartman75

Jul-17-14 4:33 PM

NBhh, its clear from your “former head of Greenpeace” reference that facts are meaningless. You may as well accept as fact what the person sitting at the end of the bar at the Nickel says about global warming as opposed to most climate experts. In all our debates, I have yet to read a comment from you that wasn’t based more on ideology than fact. As I pointed out to Scout, ideology is not a valid substitute for a reasoned argument. Patrick Moore once worked for Greenpeace but now works as a paid spokesperson for the Nuclear Industry. Here is what Patrick once said about spokespersons that work for the Nuclear Industry: “One can no more trust them to tell the truth about nuclear power than about which brand of toothpaste will result in the sexiest smile."

So Patrick is either a bald faced liar or a two faced shill, neither of which makes for a reliable source. Your inability to distinguish fact from fiction NBHH simply means others will need to do more.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

NoBleedingHeartHere

Jul-17-14 11:38 AM

Vaughn, you keep contradicting yourself ... constantly. You are saying the same things I've been telling you about naturally occurring casues for "climate change", then you throw in this inexplicably random screech about man's influence on your dipsy doodle version of "climate change". You are one mixed up trick. You are the one that should do the reading rather than spending so much time using my point of view to twist your "man caused" foolishness into being correct. You make no sense, but then alarmists never do. The former head of Greenpeace finally figured it out. Now it's time for you to do the same. Oh, and you might want to take a queue from former head Meteorologist at the Weather Channel. Sheesh, talk about shouting "fire" in a crowded movie house!! I think some "climate change" alarmists are, in fact, sadists.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Vaughn

Jul-17-14 9:29 AM

Hartman75 understands, NBHH, why don't you? Global warming is happening. It is a freight train rumbling down the tracks and you are standing between the rails arguing about who released the brake. Global warming is a heart attack happening RIGHT NOW, and you are arguing about whether it was your daily cheeseburger or your familial hypercholesterolemia that caused it. Maybe it is time for you to keep quiet and listen and learn: watch "Chasing Ice". Read the "Hothouse Earth" article in National Geographic, note the section about release of methane from the arctic tundra permafrost, and see if you can connect the dots to this morning's report of a huge explosion hole in the Siberian tundra. I'm not as optimistic as Hartman that humanity's damage to the environment can be remedied any time soon, but I know your hubris is not helping.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hartman75

Jul-16-14 5:59 PM

Of course I grasp the cyclical nature of climate change NBHH. Thats why I'm able to understanding how that is different than the climate change produced by human activity. Whether we are actually able to stabilize and/or reduce global warming remains to be seen. We have made remarkable progress in recognizing the dangers of pollution and reducing their deadly impact on our planet since the first printing of Silent Spring but we still have a long way to go. Our planet has an amazing ability to recover from the abuses inflicted by mankind. With improved technology and a better understanding of our climate, I like the chances that we can actually leave this world a little cleaner for the next generation. Of course imagine how ridiculous it would have been to simply deny the information Rachel Carson presented. Denying the scientifically substantiated causation of climate change is like trying to deny reality; its senseless.

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

NoBleedingHeartHere

Jul-16-14 10:21 AM

hartmann, you don't grasp the concept of cyclic "climate change". You, like other alarmists, run in circles flailing your arms over events of the last 200 years, why would I expect you to understand anything stating that the earth, the climate, the atmosphere, AND "climate change" events have existed a a whole lot longer than 2 centuries. You must have been one of Really's students. That would explain it.

4 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hartman75

Jul-16-14 9:55 AM

Vaughn has effectively refuted with fact and evidence every point you've made regarding climate change AND NOW you claim he's helped make your overall point? Honestly NBHH, you can't actually be that dense.

7 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

NoBleedingHeartHere

Jul-15-14 5:38 PM

Ummm, you are arguing using my point stating that humans have had no effect in past "hot house" (as you call it) events? Thank you for helping me to make part of my overall point. Soooo, what are we arguing about?

4 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Vaughn

Jul-15-14 1:12 PM

NBHH - Science is a meritocracy; the best ideas incorporating all the relevant facts win out. As I have pointed out in past posts, your ideas lack merit. Yes, the earth has experienced hot-house periods in the past. Why is that irrelevant to the current discussion? What inconvenient facts are you ignoring? Hmmmm. During the last hot house period, how many people lived in coastal cities? (The correct answer is, "zero".) During the last hot house period, how many acres were cultivated with food crops? (zero) During the last hot house period, what was the total human population size? (ZERO.) Golly, those seem like pertinent facts given the best case scenario predicts that a future hot house earth will have higher sea levels, less arable land, and therefore, a lower human carrying capacity! So, no, you aren't demonstrating "how to think"; you are demonstrating the cherry-picking of facts to fit your pre-determined conclusion.

10 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rangeral

Jul-14-14 3:55 PM

vaughn - again, what are your education and experience credentials so that we can judge your comments on climate change? You don't respect mine so give it a go.

Not answering means you don't have any educational or job-related standing.

5 Agrees | 10 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

NoBleedingHeartHere

Jul-14-14 11:32 AM

Vaughn, unlike what those who reside in your camp seem to demand, I don't have to be an authority. Unlike Really, and you, I am attempting to convey that it is ok to "think outside the liberal/climate change/alarmist box". Promoting the idea what Really, the teacher, seems so opposed to. And that is "HOW" to think about climate change. I'm not trying to shove a idea down peoples' throats like you are. There is a rational, rather than an alarmist way, to think about "climate change". The slow, steady process, the cooling and warming cycles in earth's history is embedded in geological data, inside which the last two centuries of climate data is practically undetectable. That is the essence of "how to think". Unlike you and Really, I prefer not to bully.

4 Agrees | 10 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

NoBleedingHeartHere

Jul-14-14 10:59 AM

Vaughn, Really is a teacher. Read the most recent posts by him/her. Then tell me who is poisoning the minds of students. A teacher???? Off the chart!

3 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

NoBleedingHeartHere

Jul-14-14 10:56 AM

Really, you are linguistic proof that liberal alarmists live in a microcosm given that tire analogy. Eerily similar to instilling climate change panic based on only a couple of centuries of data.

And while your at it another post supports the idea of shutting down freedom of speech.

Really you are a teacher, right? Ever heard the concept of not teaching students what to think, but rather teaching them how to think? I'm guessing the "how to think" idea is beyond your comprehension, considering you are pining for a proletariat future for our country. You are teaching our kids and that is frightful! Based on the way you have always posted, indoctrination is alive and well in your classroom.

4 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Vaughn

Jul-14-14 9:36 AM

NBHH - You wrote, "Where has does (sic) this exchange have me boasting that I am the authority? Nowhere. Here it is again. You are deflecting from the point."

I am not deflecting from the point because that IS my point: you are ignorant of science in general and the climate change science in specific, and, as is becoming patently clear, are uninterested in rectifying that ignorance. WHY ARE YOU COMMENTING ON THOSE TOPICS IN A PUBLIC FORUM? By spreading your ill-informed opinions, you and Phil Drietz are endangering the technological and scientific future of the US by poisoning the minds of today's students against science. STOP!!

11 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WW07

Jul-14-14 12:08 AM

These entities have a vested interest in promoting the fear of global warming/climate change. It is time for the government to stop funding irrational fear of global warming/climate change based on a concept of climate that is not substantiated by the physical evidence. If we are to progress in our understanding of climate change, the paradigm must be changed from one that earth’s temperatures are largely controlled by atmospheric CO2, to one which recognizes that climate change is normal and predominately natural. Human CO2 emissions have little, if any, influence on temperatures and other climate trends.

I find this reporting much more credible than the thermageddon alarmists'

3 Agrees | 10 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WW07

Jul-14-14 12:05 AM

The Science and Environmental Policy Project reported this week-

Based US government reports, SEPP calculated that from Fiscal Year (FY) 1993 to FY 2013 total US expenditures on climate change amount to more than $165 Billion. More than $35 Billion is identified as climate science. The White House reported that in FY 2013 the US spent $22.5 Billion on climate change. About $2 Billion went to US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). The principal function of the USGCRP is to provide to Congress a National Climate Assessment (NCA). The latest report uses global climate models, which are not validated, therefor speculative, to speculate about regional influences from global warming.

Much of the remaining 89% of funding goes to goes to government agencies and industries claiming they are preventing global warming/climate change, even though they do not understand the natural causes of climate change and, likely, far overestimate the influence of CO2.

3 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Really

Jul-13-14 11:43 PM

The only scientific knowledge one needs is to go start a tire on fire in your back yard, enjoying the extreme temperature change, stand over it for a minute while inhaling, then step back try to breath while getting the fn stupid idea that man has no effect on the environment/climate out of your already empty head. Then send Phil and AL the bill for the fine you will get because openly burning petroleum based things is hazardous in populated areas.

9 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Really

Jul-13-14 11:34 PM

I ask again, why is the Independent compelled to publish everything this nut writes?

9 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

NoBleedingHeartHere

Jul-13-14 12:08 PM

Where has does this exchange have me boasting that I am the authority? Nowhere. Here it is again. You are deflecting from the point. This has nothing to do with me being right or wrong. In essence, all I have said is that millenia of geological data are alot more convincing when defining the cyclic nature of climate change than comparatively insignificant data collected on the comparatively insignificant effect of the industrial age. The alarmists (name calling I guess?) with the liberal legions (more name calling?) obediently in tow, would willingly make heating fuel and food too expensive to afford, all for some perceived notion that ice caps should not be melting near the close of an ice age, based on data that has been collected for barely 2 centuries. That sir is the essence and the consequence of shortsightedness. In competition, as you seem to insist it is, the complete geological history wins every time on the basis of accuracy. What I think or believe is not the point here.

4 Agrees | 12 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Vaughn

Jul-13-14 11:31 AM

NBHH - I'm not really sure what to make of your last two posts, beyond disappointment that you still think name-calling will resolve anything. Your poor healthcare analogy also suggests you don't understand climate change (what you are telling me is that when you suffer a heart attack, you plan to yell at those who come to help you, "Stay away from me you alarmists! My coronary arteries have been fine for the last five years. You just want to make me pay higher healthcare bills!") and you don't appear interested in improving your understanding. You appear certain that the world is not warming, or you waffle and imply that if it IS warming, that warming is nothing of concern. Thus, my only remaining question is, is it possible you are wrong?

13 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

NoBleedingHeartHere

Jul-12-14 11:50 AM

Here is one for you Vaughn. All that the data from Balog is telling you is that we are still in the most recent Ice Age. When the polar ice caps recede enough to tip the balance, then a new Ice Age will begin. It doesn't matter if humans are around or not. Frankly, I wish some of them weren't. Thanks to you alarmist guys, we have ridiculously high energy bills, and we are forced to worry about some stupid little toad or fish, resulting in farmers, who provide our food, not getting the necessary irrigation water, and so you are also raising our food prices! And you irrational "do gooders" think your doing the world such a favor. If you alarmists just went away, the world would be a so much better place.

5 Agrees | 19 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

NoBleedingHeartHere

Jul-12-14 11:41 AM

Let me point out that it is liberals who "wander off" the subject with pointless details, attempting to trivialize sound logic. The only reason that works is because those who agree with you are equally blind to that logic. Ok Vaughn, lets talk data analysis.When you have your cholestrol tested, or your blood pressure tested, do you determine your future health practices based on the last tests, or do you base it on the trends over your entire medical history? Which has more telling information? I think the latter. That's the trouble with liberal/environmentalists/alarmists, they take the input from the last 20 minutes, and think conditions have always been that way. When someone is that shortsighted, it means they don't have a clue. At the very least, it means they will probably die of serious health problems.

4 Agrees | 19 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Vaughn

Jul-12-14 11:26 AM

For those who would like to examine some of the climate change data for themselves, an easy place to start is with the visual data. The documentary "Chasing Ice" is available on Netflix. It contains the multi-year photographic data collected by self-described climate change skeptic James Balog. Balog is a professional photographer, most often selling his work to National Geographic, so the documentary also demonstrates that one need not be a professional scientist to "do" science.

18 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 55 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web