Shrinking arctic ice sends shivers down tree huggers’ spines
AP Photo
A recent and prominent New York Times article, “Satellites Show Sea Ice in Arctic Is at a Record Low,” once again sounds the alarms that man-made global warming is real and poses an imminent threat to planet earth.
Just consider the scary first sentence: “The amount of sea ice in the Arctic has fallen to the lowest level on record, a confirmation of the drastic warming in the region and a likely harbinger of larger changes to come.”
It isn’t until the last sentence of the 3rd paragraph that the article mentions that this claim is based on “satellite tracking (which) began in the late 1970s.” I guess the NYT thought that sounds a little better than precisely stating that such tracking began in 1979.
In short, the record goes back only 33 years, which is less than a blink of an eye for climate study.
The NYT is not alone. Most mainstream media covered the story in lock-step with the same hysteria — standard for the global-warming issue as a whole.
Positions on this issue can be categorized as follows:
1. Tree Huggers who believe that fossil fuel usage has planet earth on the road to man-made global warming catastrophe;
2. Industrialists and pro-growth supporters who believe global warming is a non-issue, and humanity’s near term economic interests should take priority;
3. The philosophical who argue that planet earth has survived through many global warming and global cooling cycles over hundreds of millions of years, and will do just fine in future cycles (the human race’s fate is a topic for further discussion);
4. Conspiracists who believe a small power group created the global warming issue as a tool to manipulate the “western” masses to get off of fossil fuels for strategic political reasons, even though it continues to be a very efficient energy solution.
It is hard to rationally argue with the philosophical. But their views aren’t very practical or actionable. And of course, I support pro-growth and clean-environment policies, and I believe a balance must be struck between the two.
However, I believe that to understand what is driving the debate and how the terms of the debate are framed, one must study the conspiracists’ view. I explored these views in my two essays posted on this blog in 2010 here and here.
So, share your position on global warming with us. Which category do you subscribe to? Or do you believe there are other categories?
October 10, 2012 - 6:00 AM
Ice core samples have shown that much of the ice that is melting in the Polar regions as well as in areas such as Greenland, Alaska’s Wrangell Saint Elias, Switzerland, etc has been frozen for up to 40,000 years. While it is true that records have only been kept in recent times, the ice core samples allow for precise measurements of how long the ice has been in place and temperatures over a vast period of time. I have traveled to numerous glaciated (or glaciated until recently) areas and have seen the huge reductions of ice in most of these glaciers.
The rate of melting of glacial ice is increasing rapidly and coastal communities worldwide may soon be affected by rising sea levels as well as unpredictable storms which may be intensified by changes in climate.
We are doomed. Global cooling, global warming, global hunger, global strife, global caliphate, Christianity, 2nd Amendment, polar bears (whose population is not shrinking from the 70′s…), high gas prices, starving fat kids, nobody buying volts, video games, immoral businessmen (is it possible for a global warming scientist to be immoral?), etc.
Sheesh. Ptueey.
We didn’t start the fire, Frank. It’s been always burning since the world’s been turning.
Frank#2 – you forgot the global overpopulation and AIDS crises!
May I suggest that you read my two essays (2 parts of same topic) from 2010 that the above thread links to. In the 2nd essay, I put forth a rational explanation.
hey MarkJ, there are, I’m sure, any number of real and imagined catastrophies facing us now, and many more that are just around the corner. I think the real catastrophy would be for the California regulations concerning gasoline be implemented here in Virginia, or worse yet, nation-wide. I think THAT would be a catastrophy of epic proportions.
Hey MarkJ, what month(s) were the essays in?
oops, MarkJ, I found your links. Thanks.
MMGW would not be an issue for the left if there weren’t buckets of money associated with it. That’s true of all leftwing issues, from abortion to 0bamacare to cap and trade to welfare. Just follow the money. They don’t give a rat’s ass about people.
“hey MarkJ, there are, I’m sure, any number of real and imagined catastrophies facing us now, and many more that are just around the corner. I think the real catastrophy would be for the California regulations concerning gasoline be implemented here in Virginia, or worse yet, nation-wide. I think THAT would be a catastrophy of epic proportions.”
It seems like Frank believes any regulation that promotes clean air or water is equivalent to 9/11 or a major earthquake, or that tidal wave in Southeast Asia back in 2004 that killed 230,000 people. Because THOSE were catastrophes of “epic proportions.”
That’s a good thing to consider when evaluating the sensibility of any comment Frank posts here.
Dan, personally, I respect Frank’s points in #2 and #5. His views reflect the industrialists and pro-growth focus that I describe in category 2. Compliance with the California regulations does increase cost in the immediate term.
In his dry whit, he makes clear that he thinks allow of those issues, including global warming are overhyped and no more deserve to be called a looming catastrophe than California regulations.
Well put, Frank. I guess a little to subtle for some folks.
Yes, markj, when we think of Frank, “subtle” isn’t the first word to spring to mind.
hey ol’ dano, yep, I’d hate to see the same type of greenie lib zealots which have run California for years gain control of Virginia’s legislature. And, I’m not alone on that.
You know why I refer to those folks by name? Because they need to be clearly identified for what they are. And for what they do. And for what they will do.
Hey MarkJ, I’m mostly with you, and appreciate that what I see, and how I say it, is not lost on you. I have only skimmed your 2010 pieces, and am interested such that I will go back over them again, more thoroughly.
Thanks.
“hey ol’ dano, yep, I’d hate to see the same type of greenie lib zealots which have run California for years gain control of Virginia’s legislature. And, I’m not alone on that.
You know why I refer to those folks by name? Because they need to be clearly identified for what they are. And for what they do. And for what they will do.”
Yes, Frank. If those greenie lib zealots are ever elected, Virginia will be plagued with “catastrophes of epic proportions.” Such as cleaner air and water.
Now explain to us how that is the same as earthquakes, terrorist attacks and tidal waves.
“That’s a good thing to consider when evaluating the sensibility of any comment Frank posts here.”–Comment by Dano
“Dan, personally, I respect Frank’s points in #2 and #5. His views reflect the industrialists and pro-growth focus that I describe in category 2. Compliance with the California regulations does increase cost in the immediate term.
In his dry whit, he makes clear that he thinks allow of those issues, including global warming are overhyped and no more deserve to be called a looming catastrophe than California regulations.
Well put, Frank. I guess a little to subtle for some folks.” -Comment by MarkJ
Dano = PWNED
hey dano,
You, and your ILK obviously don’t know what a terrorist attack looks like, and when one does happen… and kills us…, you, and your ILK, look for the politically expedient response FIRST, and stick to it for weeks, until, well, you can’t. Prime examples are Fort Hood, and of course Behghazi.
“hey dano,
You, and your ILK obviously don’t know what a terrorist attack looks like, and when one does happen… and kills us…, you, and your ILK, look for the politically expedient response FIRST, and stick to it for weeks, until, well, you can’t. Prime examples are Fort Hood, and of course Behghazi.”
Of course, Frank has forgotten all about 9/11. That’s because it occurred on his hero GWB’s watch.
How do you spell “My Pet Goat?” !
hey dano,
We all know you are grasping at straws, and comin’ up with zero, zilch, nada…nothin’ but air. The very first thing that crosses you and your ILKs’ minds when an attack happens is that it WASN’T caused by a terrorist.
In the case of Benghazi, you and your ILKs’ response was, “oh no….i hate me”!… and, “it was the work of a dastardly unstable American film -maker….and NOT terrorism”!
Idiots. Shameful.
Frank, we’re a month out from the election. Let’s engage in a friendly and fair lunch wager, on the outcome (popular vote) of the election, using the current RCP average as “the spread.”
You give me 1 point, and I’ll bet Obama wins and you take Romney.
The loser of the bet will have to buy the winner lunch.
If you’re confident of the polls and the direction they’re heading, you should snap up that bet.
Are we on?
hey dano, Oh yes, I have confidence in the poll’s trajectory. However, I don’t wager. But, I do look forward to the election, and, for what I believe will happen in the aftermath. Also, it wouldn’t surprise me one iota to see obuma dropping bombs over in Syria sometime before the election.
By the way, why don’t you treat yourself and family to another round at the New Yorker this week-end, and hopefully you can take that old, venerable Roanoke institution off your hit list. Those folks work hard out there, dano, and, well, every now and then in our lives, we do get disappointed. I hope you can soon, publicly, take the New Yorker off that list of your’s.
Then again, maybe you should do take out, under a false name. No sense wondering what the cooks might do to your pastrami, to “make it” taste better, eh?
Ah, I thought so!
Frank would rather deny The New Yorker the opportunity to have me buy him lunch there, than he would risk a friendly wager on the outcome of the election.
Obviously, Frank has no confidence in the numbers he’s crowing about.
Does any other RWer want to step in and put up Frank’s side of the friendly wager on those terms?
Wow! I thought we were talking about shrinking Glacial Ice not politics! Why is it that if regardless of the subject, the comments always seem to quickly revolve to Obamacare, or the “Libs” agenda?
Hey DaveH,
Yes, we were talking about Glacial Ice/global warming, which unfortunately is not without it’s politics. In fact many would say, I included, that “global warming” is completely driven by politics, and the money to be gained by the parties during the battle, and presumably to the ultimate victor…if there is one. In my back-and-forth with MarkJ, I did mention a political hot-button issue by making a disparaging remark about California’s politicians, along with a reference to what I think California’s gasoline regulations.
MarkJ was a gentleman about it, and supported what I had to say.
Hovever, ol’ dano will have none of that on his blog, and jumped right in to challenge me to a bet about the election, for goodness sake! Yeah, I turned him down.
By the way, ol’ dano should fear not, as Terps has accepted dano’s “who’s gonna win the election” offer with a little counter. I say good for Terps. My only suggestion to Terps is, please avoid accepting any “lunch date” with dano to the New Yorker, at least until ol’ dano publicly takes the New Yorker off his hit list…
#20 Although you seem to think otherwise, Frank, there are far more people in the Roanoke area who don’t read this blog than ones who do. There are very few people who are aware of Dan’s “hit list” as you call it. Sorry to disappoint you, but no one cares.
Mark, that the best, short, concise summaries of global warming and the issues/groups on this issue.
I’m certainly not an expert on this issue but you asked my opinion. I believe global warming is real. The evidence is solid and overwhelming. I believe carbon based omissions contributed but I’m not convinced to what extent. I’m all for reducing carbon sbased omissions using green alternatives. I’m for that mainly because if we develop viable alternatives to oil, I believe we could reduce and maybe eliminate the US and actually the world’s dependence on oil. I believe that would solve a lot of problems including any contribution to global warming.
I am very concerned with an environmental issue here in Virginia. That issue is potential uranium mining in a certain part of the State. I believe this has the potential to ruin the water shed for the Chesapeake and Virginia Beach area and cause significant, generations to come, pollution for this and other parts of the State. Te Republicans seem to be all for rolling the dice on this one. In my humble opinion, the risk is too great for the potential rewards and side effects.
All very complex problems!
Hey MarkJ,
I enjoyed reading what you had to say in your 2 essays back in 2010. They both are thought-provoking, and I am glad I had the chance to read them.
Below is an interesting piece I came across today, and thought you might find it interesting as well.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released–chart-prove-it.html