Weather reports of historic proportions
By Ken Conklin
I hate to admit this, but occasionally I find myself talking to my television. During my most recent episode, witnessed by my wife, I was adding an exasperated one-sided color commentary to a Brian Williams’ “NBC Nightly News” weather segment reminding him: “It’s winter, not history! In the winter, it snows; sometimes it becomes a blizzard, the roads get icy and it gets really cold! Something like this happens every winter!”
Conklin, of Daleville, is a manager in the technology industry.
February 16, 2013 - 12:04 AM
It’s the mainstream effort to convince you that “man-made” global warming (oops, scratch that…..we call it climate change now) is real and it’s your fault Ken! That’s why they’ve started naming winter storms now too. They’re scarier when they have names or we repeatedly say “super storm” over and over
Well, Bill, for laymen like you and me it’s hard to know what metric to use to judge either the existence of climate change or its severity. I suppose you could read some articles from the Journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, but who has the time for that, and besides we all know they’re biased, right? Even the Pentagon, that bastion of liberal values, is starting to take climate change seriously enough to start planning for the eventual consequences.
Then hows about we use money to measure the impact of climate change? Everybody understands that, right? I believe the insurance companies, as well as the companies who insure the insurance companies against catastrophic losses are taking climate change pretty seriously at this point for one very simple reason: it’s affecting their bottom line.
#1, actually, storms have been named since the 1940′s (and since the 1800′s in some parts of the world)…long before your suspected Liberal conspiracy theory re: global climate started. And it’s not about “fault,” but more about cause & effect.
Global climate change is real. There have been many such cycles over the history of the earth; this most recent cycle is indeed attributable to conditions caused by human action (the Industrial Revolution). That’s not a hippy-liberal conspiracy theory, it’s just a scientific fact. Burning coal and the exhaust from internal combustion engines means more “green house gases” are emitted into the atmosphere, which increases the atmospheric temperature, which causes the global climate to change. Add to that the deforestation which reduces the environment’s ability to “scrub” the air of pollutants.
The real question is why people reject so vehemently these simple facts. Several centuries ago, people reacted much the same way to the scientific facts presented by Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton. Those deniers are long gone, and the truths discovered by those individuals still stand as fact. The same will be true of global climate change: the conspiracy theorists will fade into history and the scientific facts will stand.
Read my friends, I said “man-made”. So #3 you believe on a millions of years old planet, barely a 100 years of industrialization (on a fraction of the planet) has ruined it all? Earth Day started in the mid 70′s and we’ve been cleaning up every since but to no avail? Might want to consider it is the natural flow of the solar system and ease up on your arrogance that mere men are capable of destroying what was here long before they walked the Earth.
Might also be a little more believeable if main stream research methods were used for data collection and so many people weren’t lining their pockets on our Lemming-Like beliefs!
#4, sigh…please reread more carefully what I wrote. Nowhere do I refer to human action having “ruined it all.” I stated that human action has impacted the environment, causing a trend in global climate change. Nothing is “ruined” or “destroyed” but indeed impacted negatively, altered, for humankind. The Earth will survive, it has survived far worse environmental change than what we humans can throw at it. the Big Question is what will be the effect on human civilizations?
And, if you look at the history more carefully, the Industrial Revolution began around 1750, so we’re actually looking at just over 250 years of industrial production based on the burning of fossil fuels, not “barely 100 years.” Furthermore, the earth is billions of years old (4.5 billion) not just millions.
And, quite frankly, the opposition to the scientific facts of global climate change might have a bit more credence (but probably not) if it weren’t lining its pockets with the sale of the very fossil fuels that are causing the change!
Here is a chart from The National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration
http://www.climate.gov/#climateWatch
Scientific data speaks more loudly than conspiracy theory rhetoric.
Pre-industrial co2 concentration was about 280 ppm. Current levels are approaching 400. Other than burning fossil fuels at a prodigious rates, there’s no other viable explanation for that increase. As for the “natural flow of the solar system”, if you mean cyclical solar radiation output, that would be counter-intuitive, since temperatures have been rising despite diminished solar output.
As far as “main stream research methods” not being used, one simply does not get published in Science or Nature or any other mainstream journal without using those methods. That’s part of peer-review. You may not like the way that science works, but science doesn’t care, and neither does reality. The insurance companies have to deal with reality, not ideology.
maybe it is the increase in people, they exhale co2 too………..should we eliminate some of them in the name of science?
#8 “maybe it is the increase in people, they exhale co2 too…”
…but not nearly to the degree that our heavy industries and vehicles do.
However, you do raise a good point about overpopulation; I think comprehensive access to birth control and properly detailed sex-education classes would go a long way toward addressing that problem.
Climate change happens. Its a natural thing.
Remember the scientists, including our own government scientists, that did not know what would happen with Y2K?
If you feel strongly about it, then eliminate your carbon footprint. When Al Gore downsizes, I will take notice.
#10 you state “Climate change happens. Its a natural thing” Yes, there have many documented global climate changes over the lifespan of the earth. No one is disputing that. Those climate changes had a direct, negative effect on the living organisms of the earth. This current change is directly attributable to human action, and there are many who are taking the lessons of the past and working toward a solution to avoid the same result on the current residents of the earth. That’s called learning from history.
Y2K has nothing to do with global climate change. That was a concern that computers would reset themselves to read “1900″ instead of “2000″ thus causing chaos in the banking and financial industries. This current concern over the documented, scientifically validated rise in green house gas emissions and its effects on the environment and those effects on human civilizations.
I have indeed taken many steps to reduce my carbon footprint. It is nearly impossible to “eliminate” an individual’s carbon footprint. What we are looking at is reducing the industrial carbon footprint, as that is the major contributor to the current global climate change. I’m glad to see you too are willing to make changes for the betterment of all, although your conditions for doing so seem politically motivated rather than altruistic, but I’m still happy that you’re open to change!
#8 Bill, you state “maybe it is the increase in people, they exhale co2 too………..should we eliminate some of them in the name of science?” Yes, we Radical Hippy Liberal Pinko Commie Treehuggers have a list of those that should be eliminated…we’ll be in touch soon.
Just kidding. have a great day!