Feb 19

As the public’s belief in man-made global warming/climate change fades, perhaps the alarmists can heap some of the blame for the failure of the hoax on George W. Bush’s shoulders.  A letter to the editor of The Oregonian:

“Climate change” is politically correct nonsense, but Republican pollster Frank Luntz and George W. Bush are to blame, not Al Gore. Luntz sold the phrase to Bush: “Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming.” While “global warming” has catastrophic connotations attached, “climate change” suggests a more controllable challenge. Bush agreed.

Republican political appointees at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, where I was a biologist, forced scientists to always use “climate change” instead of the accurate and alarming “global warming.”

DAVE MILLER
Astoria

2 people like this post.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
Tagged with:
Jan 13

From The Akron Beacon Journal:

If Joseph Ortiz, the Kent State University geology professor who wrote the Dec. 7 letter ”Climate change is beyond denial,” really believes that it is time for a serious discussion regarding climate change, maybe he could start by framing the debate more honestly.

He states that ”the climate-change denier’s logic goes like this: There is evidence of natural climate change; therefore, humans can’t be the cause of the climate change seen in the last 200 years.”

This is as absurd as stating that the climate-change zealot’s logic goes like this: There is evidence that human activity has increased carbon dioxide levels in the past 200 years; therefore, humans must be causing the climate to change. It is a cheap debating tactic to state an opposing view in a weak and unconvincing manner, and then denounce that position as a ”badly flawed conclusion.”

I am an environmental geologist, and I am skeptical of the climate-change hysteria because of the daunting magnitude of variables that influence the impact of chemicals when they are released to our environment. Many of these variables are poorly understood, many others have probably not yet been identified, and the complexity of the interactions on a scale as large as the global climate is almost certainly beyond our current levels of scientific understanding.

It is simply not logical that controlling a single (and miniscule, by volume) variable such as atmospheric carbon dioxide will allow us to bend the entire global climate to our will.

I am also skeptical because models used to predict environmental impact, while useful tools, are prone to calibration problems, manipulation and can produce results with little or no semblance to real-world outcomes.

Finally, I am skeptical because climate change is, contrary to the assertion by Ortiz, a political question at the bottom line.

The proposed solutions currently in search of a global warming problem involve enormous (and likely unachievable) alterations to world economies, drastic changes in lifestyles that most people will simply not accept and a redistribution of wealth that would make the most devout communist giddy.

By all means, Ortiz, continue your good research. We need your contribution to our overall understanding of the climate. But please forgo statements such as the evidence of human-induced climate change is beyond denying — it is not.

Determining when evidence is sufficient and if debate should begin or end on a topic of such universal importance is not the purview of you, Al Gore or the Beacon Journal editorial board.
Jim C. Smith
Wadsworth

15 people like this post.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
Tagged with:
Jan 05

Newspaper’s sustainability message backfires: Letter writer sarcastically takes message to heart; considers canceling subscription

By Editor Letter to the Editor Comments Off on Newspaper’s sustainability message backfires: Letter writer sarcastically takes message to heart; considers canceling subscription

Via The Oregonian:

Thank you so much for your recent report on sustainability. It has greatly inspired me, up to the point to where I seriously considered cancelling my subscription to The Oregonian. You see, taking the weight of Friday’s paper at 10.7 ounces as an average, I could save a good 244 pounds of paper each year, maybe even more. (I’ll let your green experts figure out how many trees or partial trees that would make).

A lot of us country folks have been “environmentally friendly” as far back as when “green” was simply a color, not a statement. Back then, it was called “common sense,” “saving money” or just “the right thing to do” (a k a “decency”), and nobody bragged about it.

Nowadays it seems to me that everybody recycling an empty toilet paper roll expects to get a Congressional Gold Medal. Naturally, they would then loudly broadcast the fact that they recycled the bubble wrap it came in.

MARION BOGDEN
Corbett

13 people like this post.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
Tagged with:
Oct 09

Bias? The Oregonian edited a reader’s letter to expunge views skeptical of man-made global warming

By Editor Letter to the Editor Comments Off on Bias? The Oregonian edited a reader’s letter to expunge views skeptical of man-made global warming

On October 4, The Oregonian published the following letter which, as printed, seemed to indicate that the reader was enthusiastic about buying toilet paper made of recycled material:

I read, with great interest, the article in The Oregonian about making toilet paper exclusively out of recycled material in order to save our old-growth forests (“Green groups try to wipe out fluffy toilet paper,” Sept. 27).

I am old enough to remember the good ol’ days of the Montgomery Ward and Sears catalogs as standard equipment in outhouses.

In effect, other than the fact that modern technology can now make this paper a lot more user friendly, it appears we have come full circle. I will personally commit to buying 500 rolls as soon as it becomes available and take great pleasure in its use.

WAYNE BUEHNER
Gresham

Today, The Oregonian reprinted the letter in its entirety (with an editor’s note).  In its full context, including one crucial sentence that indicated Mr. Buehner’s skepticism of man-made global warming, Buehner’s letter proves to be much more sarcastic in tone regarding his supposed desire to use toilet paper made of recycled material.  The previously omitted sentence is emphasized in red:

Due to editing, the meaning was changed of a letter to the editor that was printed on Oc. 4. Here is the letter as submitted:

I read, with great interest, the article in The Oregonian about making toilet paper exclusively out of recycled material in order to save our old-growth forests. I am old enough to remember the good ol’ days of the Montgomery Ward and Sears catalogs as standard equipment in outhouses a number of years back.  In effect, other than the fact that modern technology can now make this paper a lot more user friendly, it appears we have come full circle. I would also like to suggest that all paper utilized to promote the theory that humans are the cause of global warming be used exclusively for this purpose. I will personally commit to buying 500 rolls as soon as it becomes available and take great pleasure in its use.

WAYNE BUEHNER
Gresham

This is either a fine example of inexcusably shoddy editing, or is an example of just plain bias. I vote for bias.

3 people like this post.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
Oct 05

From The Oregonian:

The environmentalists, whose latest interest in matters of the toilet extends to the satanic pleasure of fluffy toilet paper, are laughable.

There may be carbon-based concern regarding wood-pulp use. If so, add such impacts to a carbon tax that allows fluffy toilet paper to compete with other carbon problems related to human activity.

Global warming is indeed a serious problem worthy of a serious, comprehensive solution. I would hope a more sane approach would build on our creativity, respond to our preferences and allow for differing utilities to be built into a market price.

The latest silly attempt at micro-managing our behavior by regulating the construction of toilet paper, however, reveals a petty totalitarian impulse in the environmental movement.

This impulse will do no good for our economy, our freedom or the environment.

KENNETH UPTON
Southwest Portland

Be the first to like.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
Tagged with:
Aug 25

From The Wall Street Journal:

It is is nauseating, not instructive, to celebrate the wealthy individuals who can afford to take advantage of subsidies provided by the rest of us, to build exceedingly expensive “high-efficiency” homes (“The Homely Costs of Energy Conservation,” Currents, Aug. 7).

Energy-saving multipane windows, insulation and appliances have been available for decades but are beyond most people’s means. Meanwhile, solar panels don’t grow on trees; plus, they are very inefficient and their production requires large amounts of energy.

If the wealthy and green-conscious really want to improve efficiency, they would be smarter to promote nuclear power instead. This form of energy inexpensively generates power for domestic and industrial demand, a fundamental component of all manufacturing and of our ability to compete in the global marketplace.

Only nuclear power has the potential to make battery-powered cars practical and at least somewhat “clean.”

Kent Brady

Woodland Park, Colo.

Be the first to like.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
Tagged with:
Aug 05

Al Gore/AIT Index, Vol. 15: Globally averaged temperatures have flat-lined since Al Gore released An Inconvenient Truth

By Editor AIT Index, Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth, Letter to the Editor, President Obama Comments Off on Al Gore/AIT Index, Vol. 15: Globally averaged temperatures have flat-lined since Al Gore released An Inconvenient Truth

AIT Index 8_09Each month GORE LIED takes significant liberties with Dr. Roy Spencer’s monthly UAH globally averaged satellite-based temperature of the lower atmosphere. We mark it up with a red marker to more fully illustrate the really inconvenient truth – that temperatures have not risen as Al Gore had predicted when he released his science fiction movie, An Inconvenient Truth (AIT) at the Sundance Film Festival on January 24, 2006.

Through June, 2009, globally averaged temperatures have largely flat-lined at +.08°F (.04°C) since AIT was released.

Here’s another way to interpret the same data:

In the 42 months since An Inconvenient Truth was released, globally averaged temperatures have been over what they were in January, 2006 in only five of those 42 months (including this month), but tellingly, the same temperatures have been below the globally averaged temperature in January, 2006 a total of 37 of those 42 months!

Even as the globally averaged temperatures have largely flat-lined as of this month’s latest data from Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. John Christy, the divergence between the observed temperatures and the alarmist’s beloved computer models remains well below the IPCC’s most modest prediction.

3 people like this post.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
Tagged with:
preload preload preload