| 
Other Views and Opinions
You are dead on regarding anthropogenic contributions to climate change or global warming. Humanity's contribution to 'greenhouse' gases is also wildly overstated; the dominant 'greenhouse' gas is water vapor, which is responsible for 95% of the 'greenhouse effect'. Anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide contributes less than 0.3% to the 'greenhouse effect'.
There are grounds on which to assail the measurements believed to substantiate global warming. See "Playing with Numbers" below.
Major Causes of Global Temperature Shifts
(1) Astronomical Causes
* 11 year and 206 year cycles: Cycles of solar variability
( sunspot activity )
* 21,000 year cycle: Earth's combined tilt and elliptical orbit around the Sun ( precession of the equinoxes )
* 41,000 year cycle: Cycle of the +/- 1.5° wobble in Earth's orbit ( tilt )
* 100,000 year cycle: Variations in the shape of Earth's elliptical orbit ( cycle of eccentricity )
(2) Atmospheric Causes
* Heat retention: Due to atmospheric gases, mostly gaseous water vapor (not droplets), also carbon dioxide, methane, and a few other miscellaneous gases-- the "greenhouse effect"
(to which our anthropogenic contribution = <0.3%)
* Solar reflectivity: Due to white clouds, volcanic dust, polar ice caps
(3) Tectonic Causes
* Landmass distribution: Shifting continents (continental drift) causing changes in circulatory patterns of ocean currents. It seems that whenever there is a large land mass at one of the Earth's poles, either the north pole or south pole, there are ice ages.
* Undersea ridge activity: "Sea floor spreading" (associated with continental drift) causing variations in ocean displacement.
For more details see: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html
Playing with Numbers
Global climate and temperature cycles are the result of a complex interplay between a variety of causes. Because these cycles and events overlap, sometimes compounding one another, sometimes canceling one another out, it is inaccurate to imply a statistically significant trend in climate or temperature patterns from just a few years or a few decades of data.
Unfortunately, a lot of disinformation about where Earth's climate is heading is being propagated by "scientists" who use improper statistical methods, short-term temperature trends, or faulty computer models to make analytical and anecdotal projections about the significance of man-made influences to Earth's climate.
During the last 100 years there have been two general cycles of warming and cooling recorded in the U.S. We are currently in the second warming cycle. Overall, U.S. temperatures show no significant warming trend over the last 100 years (1). This has been well-established but not well-publicized.
Each year Government press releases declare the previous year to be the "hottest year on record." The UN's executive summary on climate change, issued in January 2001, insists that the 20th century was the warmest in the last millennium. The news media distribute these stories and people generally believed them to be true. However, as most climatologists know, these reports generally are founded on ground-based temperature readings, which are misleading. The more meaningful and precise orbiting satellite data for the same period (which are generally not cited by the press) have year after year showed little or no warming.
Dr. Patrick Michaels has demonstrated this effect is a common problem with ground-based recording stations, many of which originally were located in predominantly rural areas, but over time have suffered background bias due to urban sprawl and the encroachment of concrete and asphalt ( the "urban heat island effect"). The result has been an upward distortion of increases in ground temperature over time(2). Satellite measurements are not limited in this way, and are accurate to within 0.1° C. They are widely recognized by scientists as the most accurate data available. Significantly, global temperature readings from orbiting satellites show no significant warming in the 18 years they have been continuously recording and returning data.
See this link:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
and this:
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
(the document "Global Warming: a Chilling Perspective" has been moved from the URL where I originally found it. I have a suspicion that the information and links it contains threaten the doomsayer contingent, and have aroused attempts at suppression.)
George Monbiot | The Rich World's Policy on Greenhouse Gas Now Seems Clear: Millions Will Die
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/01/896/
and an excerpt:
Oh, boy... S&A Oil Report pick ConocoPhillips (COP) became the first U.S. oil major to join the call for a global-warming emissions cap. Why would it do this? For the same reason drug companies welcomed regulation, and the same reason the tobacco companies welcomed regulation. Shaping legislation on "global warming" will enable COP to pass on more of its costs to its customers and to make it harder for smaller oil companies to compete against it. Now you see the real meaning of "global warming": a massive new lobby in Washington, new rules and regulations, higher costs for you and me. Never mind how cold it is.
Barrie Luttge
What have we come to when an obvious, consummate nut, such as Al Gore, can garner so much attention and support? I used to think of such lemming mentality syndromes as isolated cases, like"Jonestown." A world gone mad portends a much greater threat to it's human population than the worst sci-fi prognostications that I've heard postulated by the most hysterical of the Global Warming ilk! Thank you for creating this site.
John Berger
Bingo!
I am looking at my handy dandy map of climate change called "Greenhouse Earth" from National Geographic, August 2007, which shows warming and cooling cycles for 400,000 years.
According to NG, the present Warming is about 1-2 degrees cooler than the Warmings of 120,000, 230,000, and 320,000 years ago, and about twice as long as the average of the previous three.
I.e., it is right on schedule for a long history of cyclical warming and cooling at intervals of about 100,000 to 120,000 years, and it is well within historic range in magnitude - cooler than the last three Warmings.
While there is a spike of CO2 from previous peaks of 280 ppm (0.028% of atmospheric composition) to 380 ppm (0.038% of atmospheric composition), this is not reflected in a spike in global temperature - we are still cooler than the last three Warmings.
The variatin in CO2 from 280 ppm to 380 ppm is a meager 0.01% of atmospheric composition, or 1% of 1% of the proportions of atmospheric gases - a change far too trivial to have significant, if even identifiable, climactic effects.
According to the same chart, at the last Warm era (-120,000 years) sea level peaked at 4+ meters higher than now. Just before the start of the Holocene Warm Era about 12,000 years ago, sea level had dropped to nearly 120 meters - 400 feet approx. - lower than now.
In the next 3,000 years, there was so much Global Warming that it melted off so many continental glaciers that sea level rose, quite rapidly, 400 feet!
And that was all because I was driving an SUV!
Ray Kraft
Jack Kelly
About this time last year, Dr. Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit of East Anglia University in Britain, predicted 2007 would be the warmest year on record.
It didn't turn out that way. 2007 was only the 9th warmest year since global temperature readings were first made in 1861.
2007 was also the coldest year of this century, noted Czech physicist Lubos Motl.
Both global warming alarmists like Dr. Jones and skeptics like Dr. Motl forecast that this year will be slightly cooler than last year. If so, that means it will be a decade since the high water mark in global temperature was set in 1998.
And the trend line is down. Average global temperature in 2007 was lower than for 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002 and 2001. November of last year was the coldest month since January of 2000, and December was colder still. "Global warming has stopped," said David Whitehouse, former science editor for the BBC. "It's not a viewpoint or a skeptic's inaccuracy. It's an observational fact."
But observational fact matters little to global warming alarmists, particularly to those in the news media. "In 2008, your television will bring you image after image of natural havoc linked to global warming," said John Tierney, who writes a science column for the New York Times. "You will be told that such bizarre weather must be a sign of dangerous climate change -- and that these images are a mere preview of what's in store unless we act quickly to cool the planet."
"Global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter," said Steven Guibeault of Greenpeace. There is no dispute among scientists that the planet warmed about 0.3 degrees Celsius between 1980 and 1998. What is in dispute is what caused the warming, and whether it will continue. The alarmists say the warming was caused chiefly by emissions of carbon dioxide from our automobiles and factories, and that, consequently, it will continue at an ever increasing rate unless we humans change our behavior. The skeptics say the warming trend was caused chiefly by natural cycles, and that it is at or near its end.
"The earth is at the peak of one of its passing warm spells," said Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences. It'll start getting cold by 2012, and really, really cold around 2041, he predicts.
The news media promote global warming alarmism through selective reporting. Dr. Roger Pielke of the University of Colorado noted that a paper published in an obscure scientific journal that argued there was a link between hurricanes and global warming generated 79 news articles, while a paper that debunked the connection published in a far more prestigious journal generated only three.
"When the Arctic sea ice last year hit the lowest level ever recorded by satellites, it was big news and heralded as a sign the planet was warming," Mr. Tierney wrote. "When the Antarctic sea ice last year reached the highest level ever recorded by satellites, it was pretty much ignored."
Two studies published last year which indicated the melting of Arctic sea ice was due more to cyclical changes in ocean currents and winds than to planetary warming also attracted little attention, Mr. Tierney noted.
And though the record melting of Arctic sea ice this summer was widely reported, the record growth of Arctic sea ice this fall (58,000 square miles of ice each day for 10 straight days) was not.
More than 400 scientists -- many of them members of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- challenge the claims of the leading global warming alarmist, former Vice President and now Nobel laureate Al Gore, said a report issued by the Republicans on the U.S. Senate's Environment and Public Works committee last month. Kailee Kreider, a spokeswoman for Mr. Gore, said there criticisms should be discounted because 25 or 30 of the scientists may have received funding from the Exxon Mobil Corp.
It's Mr. Gore who is the crook, says French physicist Claude Allegre in a new book. He's made millions in an eco-business based on phony science, Dr. Allegre charges.
Mr. Gore isn't alone, says Weather Channel founder John Coleman: "Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an illusion of rapid global warming," Mr. Coleman wrote. "Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going...In time, in a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious."
This whole flap over GW is due to trying to predict future climates using mathematical modeling techniques which do not successfully match past climate changes with known amounts of CO2. How can we expect to predict the future climate with such flawed tools?
We could expect as reliable results using the "Farmer's Almanac." During the Mideval Warm spell, CO2 in the atmosphere did not increase for several hundred years after it began around 1000 years ago, indicating that prolong warming causes the ocean to release some of its stored CO2. This fact alone should bring elaborate energy and money consuming plans to sequester CO2 to a screeching halt.
We should feel lucky to be in a warming trend and hope it continues because humanity can adapt to a warmer climate much better than the return of another ice age.
R R Reynolds, Geologist, retired
The advantage of being 89 is that you become familiar with recurring climate changes. Take global warming for instance. I was aware that:
(1): The 1930's was warmer here in Texas than it is now (confirmed by NASA recently in rectifying previously erroneous temperature publications).
(2): In the late 19th century Artic explorers were sailing across the Siberian Arctic from Norway to the Behring Sea and from Greenland across Northern Canada to the Behring.
(3): I also know that the Polar ice-cap is floating ice and that floating ice when it melts diminishes the water level because the ice is lighter than water and therefore occupies greater space than the water content. That is why frozen water pipes will break.
I am not a scientist, but I know a deliberate lie when I see one. And all the big social movements today that contain words such as Global, Universal, or Green This or That are all fraudulent - and you can put Ethanol with that also.
Walter from Orange
I understand that global changes have been happening for billions of years and do agree with you that more need to understand that.
Whether or not we have a need, whether immediate or otherwise, I can not say for certain. You may be right or the greenies may be right.
My point about your article however, is this. The people on this planet need to stop being led like sheep. You are absolutely correct in that statement. People need to understand that the independent thought process starts with each and every one of us. Stop believing everything that's in the news or beyond. Just because it's in print doesn't make for truth. Just because a political or private groups says it's so doesn't mean it is.
What I'm saying is, we all need to learn to think independently. By that I don't mean become psychotic, pessimistic or believe there is a conspiracy around every corner, but begin truly thinking for ourselves and not being spoon fed by all of the bombarding information now coming our way in this new technological era of ours.
Don't assume someone in the news is guilty right away because the news may be biased or the masses may think so. Don't automatically go with the flow because it's the easiest wagon to jump on. I mean, there's so much more I could embellish on this subject in my attempt to convey my thought here, but hopefully I have accomplished that with just this.
Anyway, good to see someone who it seems to me that I could classify as a free and independent thinker. Kudos to you man.
Pete
Buying Forgiveness
Environment: The Federal Trade Commission is taking a close look at the carbon offset industry with a series of hearings, but it shouldn't take much scrutiny to find out that it's a scam.
The carbon-offset business is not actually about mitigating the effects of greenhouse gas emissions and the global warming they allegedly cause. It's about psychological massages. It allows willing dupes and those who've been driven to guilt by the environmental lobby a chance to redeem themselves.
Then there are the trendy Americans. For them, the offsets provide a reason to celebrate their moral superiority because they can think that they're canceling the carbon footprint they've left by driving SUVs and large luxury cars, living in energy-swilling homes and jetting around the world.
For business, its about acquiring an "environmental halo," if we may borrow a fitting phrase from a New York Times story covering the FTC's examination of the carbon-offset trade.
In the carbon-offset scheme - cleverly called the "21st century's answer to the 16th-century practice of selling indulgences for sins" by California state Assemblyman Chuck DeVore - an individual, group or company can purchase an offset for their CO2 emissions. Utilities, multinational corporations and firms set up to do nothing but market offsets sell them for between $5 and $50 per ton of CO2 emitted. The World Bank reckoned last year that this relatively new business has turned into a $100 million global industry.
Often the buyers pay for the planting of trees, which breathe in CO2 and thus neutralize the carbon emissions that buyers pump into the atmosphere. But increasingly, their dollars are - supposedly - used to invest in renewable energy development such as wind, solar and hydroelectric power or in energy-conserving technology.
Their dollars are also used for political influence. Or maybe just to line the pockets of those who have taken advantage of a crisis created by a green lobby that was forced to switch to global warming as an issue because environmental improvements over the last 35 years were making it irrelevant.
The point, though, is that it's hard to verify that the money being spent on offsets is actually mitigating the amount of CO2.
However, at least a buyer has an idea of where his money is going. To atone for the CO2 spit out by his energy-draining manor in Tennessee and his frequent junkets on private jets, which are among the worst carbon emitters, Al Gore buys his offsets through Generation Investment Management. It's a corporation of which he just happens to be chairman and co-founder.
A Generation Investment Management spokesman said Gore does not profit from others buying offsets, yet his situation reminds us of an old and successful business model: work people into a lather over a speculative fear and then start a company from which the frightened and the image-conscious will buy what they believe to be solutions that will fix the problem.
Yes, environmentalism is green, like the color of U.S. currency.
While the FTC is holding hearings on carbon offsets, maybe someone with governmental authority will probe into cap-and-trade systems. In these arrangements, companies are able to increase their emissions beyond their government-mandated cap by buying emission permits from other businesses.
Trouble is, it can be a wealth redistribution mechanism that does little or nothing to cut emissions. Thriving - and politically unfavorable - companies that can't do business within their caps will buy permits from sclerotic - and politically connected - companies whose emissions would never reach the cap. Where's the net decrease?
But then, for eco-activists it's all about perceptions. Their real goal is to shackle capitalism. Any real benefits to the environment are both unlikely and incidental.
I find it interesting how liberals are desperate for causes. The concept of global warming fits them like a glove...it provide excuses for them to argue against many things that they hate...such as freedom, prosperity, free enterprise, etc. What surprises me is I have yet to hear a liberal make the claim that the war in Iraq is causing global warming. How could they miss that propagandistic opportunity? Remember how the Iraq war was all about oil? What happened to that?
Someone mentioned that back in the 70's, liberals and some "scientists"
were concerned that we were heading into another ice age. Don't forget this one: They were almost in tears about the "coming population explosion". I remember reading about how they were predicting widespread food shortages even in the USA, riots, and so forth, because an out of control population was going to run us out of food and other resources, all by the year 2000 or before. As a result of that unfounded belief, the concepts of euthanasia and legal abortion became very popular with liberals...and still are, but the riots and food shortages just didn't happen.
Now it's global warming. What next? Belly button lint?
Rick Hobson
Jasper GA
Baltimore Chronicle Global Warming Will Save America from the Right,
I'd like to respond to Dave Lindorff's recent article:
"Global Warming Will Save America from the Right".
I do think that Dave Lindorff oversimplifies the opposition to much of the prescribed policies to counter global warming. There are quite a number of professional scientists who do not deny the fact that the world is warming, but doubt how much human activity is responsible. No, they're not all conservatives. Socialist Claude Allegre is a PHD physicist at the Pasteur Institute in France. After he examined the latest computer models, he ceased believing man is the cause.
His speculation about resettled right wingers being gerrymandered out of power seems farfetched. Can you imagine a transplanted right winger from Tucson visiting a Santa Monica real estate agent and saying, "Excuse me, I'm interested in living in a gated community of conservatives; someplace liberals aren't allowed in"? They'll more likely integrate with the existing population. Perhaps Mr. Lindorff would be happy if there were a political litmus test in determining who'd be allowed to vote.
The tone and title of his article makes him sound like a sniveling, sanctimonious Stalinist.
Steve Kalka
East Rockaway, NY
The Global Warming Suicide Cult The Global Warming movement has been compared to a religion -- albeit one without God, but with a vision of sin and repentance, damnation and salvation. Click the link to read more.
Historic La Nina could be in the making, says Bastardi The current La Nina has briefly leveled off at -1.5 is about to turn down once again. The CFS model is catching this as it can see the renewed charge of cold water in Nino 1.2 region that is coming west. This is the revenge of the Thermohaline circulation and the big implication is that it is a kick in the teeth of people pushing man-made global warming. Click the link to read more.
When the Kyoto Protocols were published I found it hard to believe they could have been conceived by rational people. My first thought was this is just bad geology, a total ignorance of, or disregard of paleoclimates in general and the Pleistocene cyclic glaciations in particular. The Mesozoic Era, from 245 to 65 million years ago was a much warmer climate than today. Life thrived in the sea and on land.
Dinosaurs were dominant and their fossil remains have been found in the Arctic and Antarctic. Mammals appeared during this Era as did birds and flowering plants. If it wasn't for dinosaur predation there was adequate time for mammals to have developed in numbers of species and size. This did not happen until after dinosaurs became extinct 65 my before the present. Al Gore is very wrong to claim we are endangered by Global Warming. The success of most life in the Mesozoic should be proof of this. I feel we will be lucky if it wams a bit more. The alternative, a cooling off of about 10 degrees C, could plunge us into another 100,000 year ice age which would fit seamlessly with climate events of the last 1.7 million years in North America.
Robert R Reynolds, Geologist, Retired
D.D. Florida
Point taken. The earth is warming - mostly due to natural processes, yes; but it is clearly accelerated by some of our interactions with the earth. I'm not sure if your position is anger at the hypocrisy of those promoting the cause ( yes, I know I drive an old Jeep around town - I'm just as bad) or is it the emerging products and economy that will have to be developed - and that it will likely mainly benefit the CEO's. Let's not pretend that there's nothing we can do to at least temper the rate of global warming. We know that carbon dioxide production can raise temperatures in localized areas. Just look at the heat dome that is generated over any city as carbon particles trap heat in addition to the amount produced by day to day electrical consumption. So what does it hurt to spend money developing new and cleaner technologies? Reduce, reuse, recycle. Forget that it's leftist cliché - it's simply good policy.
The danger to humans lies in the accelerated change in climate. Weather patterns will shift worldwide. Once fertile areas will become dry and unfarmable. Islands and cultures will be lost to the sea. Of course we have to adapt - both as animals and as how we conduct ourselves. (don't call it evolving, or you lose the Creationists...) Part of the problem faced in the next two generations may be that humans have become so coddled by modern medicines and comforts that many will have lost the ability to simply survive. Populations will have to relocate. Infrastructures - supply and distribution - will have to be rebuilt. Availability of many necessities will be slowed. Specialized diets, compromised immune systems, sickness - all will be weeded out by climate change. Only the strong survive - it'll be one big genetic cleansing. We won't even need military force.
Nor is it necessarily in society's best interest to show the masses the real big picture faced by the next 2 or 3 generations of humans - folks would panic worse than if they learned the truth about extraterrestrial life (whichever that is). It may be easier for the masses to digest an alien invasion wiping out most of the world's population than to realize that there are steps we can take to slow the onset of impending global climate change, which very well may drastically change the human genome by forcing the strong to survive.
I kind of doubt if a power and profit driven elite care too much in teaching survival skills to our generation, though. As long as corporations can run rampant and keep dividing the poor from the wealthy; and as long as they continue to buy and consolidate the media; and as long as we allow our public education systems to slide; and as long as we allow our civil rights - particularly freedom of speech and assembly to be chipped away by a corporate driven government- we will not only lose the ability to learn and think critically, we may lose the right. And so what if it's a case of "what they don't know will kill them", right? It'll be less of a shock when the tsunami takes out the uninformed. Otherwise we still would have needed that military to keep the masses out of the politician's and oil barren's compounds...
Just for the record: If the windmill comment was directed at Massachusetts, there are 2 very large windmills visible from my hometown of Cohasset - which is overrun with politicians and board members. Many more have popped up in high visibility locations since my last trip home. One of them provides the majority of the power for neighboring Hull High School. And I have not read or seen Mr Gore's book or film. I said and wrote it in the 90's and I'll say it again: We as humans are a failed species. We're here to witness the beginning of the end. Greed has divided us, uniquely as a species. Without a global shift in daily actions towards the earth, we are taking what is indeed a natural process of the earth warming and cooling and accelerating it to a rate that will likely alter the makeup of the earth's creatures - ourselves included.
Mike Hunter Response:
I don't think that we can make the changes as a society that it would take to make any difference. I do think that we should be looking very hard for fossil fuel replacements.
Fossil fuels are a finite resource!!!
Global Climate Change Happens, maybe we could slow it just a tad but change happens anyway adapt or die....
Dear Mr Hunter,
My name is Leah and i am 11 years old. I agree with you completely. Im doing a debate in science class about global warming. Im on your side. Thank you for all the info and will let you know if we win the debate or not. With the stuff i got i think we will win. I have some amazing stuff on my hands.
Thank You,
Leah
I think you really need to look at the scientific evidence. All peer-reviewed papers now agree - and have for several years - that global warming is taking place, that it is going to have extreme effects and that it is being caused or at least greatly exacerbated by mankind. Almost the only scientists who disagree are those paid by Exxon-Mobil to produce non-peer-reviewed articles and claims.
Mohamed, Jeffrey
You are a fu***** idiot. Like all you Republicans, you are just trying to show that mankind is not responsible for the warming so that you can argue against government regulations as one tool to be used to address the issue. Blame the warming on the sun, because even us evil Democrats can't regulate the energy output of something that could swallow 300,000 Earths.
Jim Eberle
It is unfortunate that those who promote the Global Warming Crusade, as you call it, cannot see the forest for the trees. There is research that right now the globe is warming. Just as there was "scientific research in the "70's stating the Ice age was upon us. Most people tend to focus on a concept like reduce green house emissions but they fail to see the overlapping effects the so called "solutions" would create. I believe what you are trying to say is that we just don't know enough to definitively implement a solution. These proposed solutions currently would leave the tax payers of the United States financially devastated. Although the "democrats" like to think we would be taxing only the rich and "big business" , those increased taxes trickle down to us in the form of increased prices, loss of jobs and a decrease in the philanthropy provided to those in need. Those who are pushing for all of these reforms are not seeing the big picture.
It is also sad to see people so vehemently angry at a dissenting opinion they feel the need to cure and name call. I do believe this is still the United States of America and as of today we still have Freedom of Speech. Although our constitution is taking a beating. but that is another issue.
Donna from Tampa
You say "To think that we caused it, or can significantly change it, is the same as saying the world is flat."
EVERY scientific institution that has studied climate change concurs that humans are at least partially the cause. Are you then saying that these institutions would also conclude that the world is flat?
Google some sources. Statements on Climate Change - Global Warming Art
If you have credible institutional support for your opinion please send it. If you are just parroting some neocon/corporate talking points please nock it off. Haven't we had to deal with enough misleading propaganda?
Phillip Noe
Albany, OR
Trying to convince some people that global warming is real is almost like trying to convince an atheist that Jesus Christ died for their sins. They will be stuck in their ways. If you are a Christian and reading this, remember that God commands us to be good stewards of the earth. For those news articles that deny global warming, did you even dig a little deeper and to find who funded that scientific research of global warming deniers ? If you check into Exxon Mobil, they have funded billions in the past decades to deny global warming. Once again, some people are hard headed at convincing. People once believed the world was flat. We all have contributed to this global issue and it should turn into a human rights issue. The issue that it is our right to live in a sustainable planet. The creators of this website should be full of shame before THE CREATOR for this mockery of a website. Though I agree on one thing-- it may take a "guilt trip" for people to change their minds and their lifestyles to save this planet that God has given us to take care of.
Michael Cocoa, Florida
I understand that global changes have been happening for billions of years and do agree with you that more need to understand that.
Whether or not we have a need, whether immediate or otherwise, I can not say for certain. You may be right or the greenies may be right.
My point about your article however, is this. The people on this planet need to stop being led like sheep. You are absolutely correct in that statement. People need to understand that the independent thought process starts with each and every one of us. Stop believing everything that's in the news or beyond. Just because it's in print doesn't make for truth. Just because a political or private groups says it's so doesn't mean it is.
What I'm saying is, we all need to learn to think independently. By that I don't mean become psychotic, pessimistic or believe there is a conspiracy around every corner, but begin truly thinking for ourselves and not being spoon fed by all of the bombarding information now coming our way in this new technological era of ours.
Don't assume someone in the news is guilty right away because the news may be biased or the masses may think so. Don't automatically go with the flow because it's the easiest wagon to jump on. I mean, there's so much more I could embellish on this subject in my attempt to convey my thought here, but hopefully I have accomplished that with just this.
Anyway, good to see someone who it seems to me that I could classify as a free and independent thinker. Kudos to you man.
Pete
M Hunter,
I'm with you. When is the mainstream media going to give more credence to those with opinions like yours and mine? There are plenty of professional scientists who are doubters.
Today, I sent the letter below to the progressive Baltimore Chronicle and Sentinel. The article I responded to you can read on the link below.
Steve Kalka
Baltimore Chronicle,
I'd like to respond to Dave Lindorff's recent article "Global Warming Will Save America from the Right".
I do think that Dave Lindorff oversimplifies the opposition to much of the prescribed policies to counter global warming. There are quite a number of professional scientists who do not deny the fact that the world is warming, but doubt how much human activity is responsible. No, they're not all conservatives. Socialist Claude Allegre is a PHD physicist at the Pasteur Institute in France. After he examined the latest computer models, he ceased believing man is the cause.
What makes Dave think that resettled Republicans from future uninhabitable areas won't register to vote? They could well change the political landscape where they move if the scenario he describes comes true.
The tone and title of his article makes him sound like a nasty, sanctimonious, miserable Stalinist. I will not stoop to his level and wish suffering on the good citizens of Baltimore should its harbor bring massive flooding and destruction.
Steve
|
