Indexes
February 9th, 2010
February 8th, 2010
February 6th, 2010
February 5th, 2010
February 4th, 2010
February 3rd, 2010
February 2nd, 2010
The following stories have received the most reader comments during the last 7 days.
- Will terrorists be given Miranda warnings? (75)
- Lodi Unified School District president issues warning to speakers over cuts (64)
- President Obama's first year (45)
- Many reject the politics of 'no' (45)
- Islamic symbol in mosaic — what is all the fuss? (44)
- Writer comments on Neely column (42)
- The Home Depot hopes to join Costco at Reynolds Ranch (41)
- Time to shed the convenient sham of 'Don't ask, don't tell' policy (34)
- We need to conduct respectful conversations (30)
- Tasered suspect claims he is Yosemite Sam (25)
ADVERTISEMENT
Politics won't change the realities in nature
Wednesday, October 28, 2009 6:30 AM PDT
In the paper, Oct. 14, you printed an editorial by Debra J. Saunders pointing out a number of scientists claiming to debunk the theories of global warming.
They claim we are headed for a cooling period, not warming. I'm sure it reassured "ostriches" everywhere. But the editorial failed to report that a good number of the scientists and foundations involved are in some measure funded by energy companies who just might have a vested interest in things staying as they are.
Now, I'm not an Al Gore fan in any way. But his movie had a very appropriate title: "An Inconvenient Truth." The inconvenience of it all makes it very understandable why people would want to deny the warnings. But Mother Nature isn't cooperating with the debunkers.
For the last two years, the Northwest Passage, the sea along Canada's northern coast between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, has been nearly clear of ice during the peak of summer. A recent study has found significant thinning of the ice at the edges of the Antarctic ice cap. And now the Catlin Arctic Survey has returned from a trek across the ice of the Beaufort Sea area of the North Pole showing that most of the ice in the area is what is referred to as a "first year ice," about six feet deep, and so more vulnerable to summer melt. Their data supports theories that the Arctic could be ice free during summers within 20 years.
Basic science: Ice doesn't melt when the oceans get colder. These measurements of thinning ice are cold, hard, verifiable facts. Not theories.
All the philosophical and political arguments in the world, from either side, aren't going to change the reality of what is happening in nature.
Jason Tiede
Lodi
Search for Ads 
Today’s Print Ads 
RSS Feeds
Reader Feedback
Gator wrote on Oct 30, 2009 8:36 AM:
Warming is unavoidable. Sorry Climate change!! First and foremost AlGore
has refused to debate key opposition scientist. Like I said about Gore follow
the money it speaks volumes. I pointed out the Russian scientist mainly
Because you Voter said most of the opposition was financed by big oil. The
Russians on the other hand have no dog in the fight. Their study covers a
Broader spectrum of time I doubt you even looked up the article From Pravda. Yes I understand the difference Macro and micro I have my own
Weather reporting station. I have been interested in weather for over 20 years. Weather every 6 days a minor change every 72 days a major change
A very simple formula to forecast weather. 31 years ago 4/28/75 the cover
Of Newsweek, Our Cooling World.. "
Billy Rubin wrote on Oct 30, 2009 4:21 AM:
Others analyze geology and imagery and core samples to prove glaciers that once held ice tens of thousands of years old have melted away and are now just creeks trickling through scoured, dry valleys. "
voter wrote on Oct 29, 2009 8:57 PM:
You don't understand Leonard's explanation of macro vs. micro. Let me break it down into simpler terms. An analogy. Sometimes we have drought years. All sane individuals know it's a drought year. We can track the rainfall over the entire season to date to see that it is far below normal. But even in a severe drought, it's not unusual for there to be at least one big storm. How silly would it be for someone to say, "It's not a a drought year because look how much rain fell last Tuesday."
You have come to the same erroneous conclusion regarding climate. Even in a warming trend, there will be areas of the planet that have cool seasons or years. It does not change the trend any more than one rainstorm in a long drought season. "
Gator wrote on Oct 29, 2009 3:51 PM:
Gator wrote on Oct 29, 2009 3:46 PM:
Gator wrote on Oct 29, 2009 3:45 PM:
your opinion I just choose not to by into it.. In the last ten years the earth
Has cooled .5 degrees centigrade. Last winter in Idaho was the coldest
In ten years and we had what they refer to as an artic blast which occurs
about every ten years.. "
voter wrote on Oct 29, 2009 3:08 PM:
As for the shape of the world, that was put to rest centuries before the Apollo missions. LOL. But some people chose to stick with the "Truth" in the Bible which claimed the world was flat until someone shoved a photograph in their faces. Were you one of those? "
SportsGuru wrote on Oct 29, 2009 12:51 PM:
Man, this letter is ridiculous. I find it funny to read rants from people who think they know the climate trends of this planet over the last 100 million years, and speak so SPECIFICALLY about how the so called "experts" know exactly what is going on.
The REAL TRUTH is that mankind's knowledge of earth and climates is based on about 100 years of real, quantifiable information.
That is a SPECK on the timeline of earth's existence.
To so assertively speak as if ANYONE knows what is really going on is a FARCE at best, as SCAM (e.g. Al Gore) at worst.
Year after year, science proves that whare were once "rock solid" theories end up being untrue, primarily because MORE INFORMATION becomes available for analysis.
Remember, man once thought the world was FLAT .. and after THOUSANDS of years of debate, it was once and for all put to rest when Apollo 11 sent back pictures of the earth from space (thus PROVING the earth was not flat).
Man doesn't know as much as man thinks... any man that claims to know what is on Mother Nature's mind is a con artist. "
Brian wrote on Oct 29, 2009 8:46 AM:
" Jerome Kinderman is so right.
There is ample proof that human activity simply cannot change the atmosphere; it it were true, you would be able to see polutants in the air over large metropolitan areas and the rain would change in chemistry.
If glaciers were melting, there would be photographic evidence of it, not just those liberal photoshop tricks that MSNBC uses to fool their insipid viewers.
I admire Jerome Kinderman's thinking on polution and water conservation: Polute all you want because no matter how toxic a mess you make it has no impact on the environment and water waste has no connection with conservation.
Now that that's settled, let's get busy and destroy the earth that god gave us - Jesus is coming. "
-Another spectacular assessment from the King of mockery. :) "
danielh wrote on Oct 28, 2009 10:36 PM:
I think this is a dead horse that has already been beat to death. "
Leonard wrote on Oct 28, 2009 10:15 PM:
" I have a question, if computer models are so accurate in predicting Climate
Change why can’t they give an accurate weather forecast for more than 7 days?
Its the difference between micro and macro. I can't tell you what the temperature in Billings is going to be next Tuesday but I will bet you that it is going to snow this winter.
Why is that, I wonder? "
Leonard wrote on Oct 28, 2009 10:07 PM:
As far as global temps - it was warmer 800 year ago than it is now - they used to grow wine in England
Chuckle... you really aren't a native Lodian, are you?
First of all, you don't grow wine, you grow grapes and make them into wine.
Secondly, they still make wine in England and even in Wales.
http://www.denbiesvineyard.co.uk/ "
voter wrote on Oct 28, 2009 9:19 PM:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/26/tech/main5423035.shtml "
mike wrote on Oct 28, 2009 9:13 PM:
Gator wrote on Oct 28, 2009 9:05 PM:
Change why can’t they give an accurate weather forecast for more than 7 days? The Bering sea had a deeper intrusion of sea Ice, thicker and further
Into the sea it’s self this past Opilio crab season.. The Fisherman reported
It was the heaviest in 10 years.. The earth Has been slowly starting to cool
In the past 10 years. Now I’m not saying we shouldn’t go out of our way
to avoid polluting the planet, far from it. I’m saying the Earth and nature
will do what it chooses and the human race will see just how insignificant
We really are… "
voter wrote on Oct 28, 2009 9:03 PM:
voter wrote on Oct 28, 2009 8:56 PM:
dogs4you wrote on Oct 28, 2009 6:06 PM:
t jefferson wrote on Oct 28, 2009 3:04 PM:
smokeater8 wrote on Oct 28, 2009 2:35 PM:
Aas for my daughter, she is an expert and is working for one of the top researchers on a project studying thinning ice sheets in the Arctic (Bering Sea to be specific). I hardly need to get a refund on her education as she went to a top flight college on a full ride scholarship.
You, by you own comments, are making this a political argument. That is another subject. And, I am not worrying about destroying the planet...it will suvive whether we do anything or not. The question is will humans survive and that is questionable! "
dogs4you wrote on Oct 28, 2009 2:15 PM:
dogs4you wrote on Oct 28, 2009 2:14 PM:
Not being a religious guy, perhaps you can answer a question for me, you state Jesus is coming, OK fine. How will I know him if I see him since thousands of people already claim to be Jesus. I hope he can wait a few more years since I don`t need saving and would prefer to live out my life the way I want. "
Billy Rubin wrote on Oct 28, 2009 12:54 PM:
There is ample proof that human activity simply cannot change the atmosphere; it it were true, you would be able to see polutants in the air over large metropolitan areas and the rain would change in chemistry.
If glaciers were melting, there would be photographic evidence of it, not just those liberal photoshop tricks that MSNBC uses to fool their insipid viewers.
I admire Jerome Kinderman's thinking on polution and water conservation: Polute all you want because no matter how toxic a mess you make it has no impact on the environment and water waste has no connection with conservation.
Now that that's settled, let's get busy and destroy the earth that god gave us - Jesus is coming. "
t jefferson wrote on Oct 28, 2009 11:14 AM:
Twist, twist twist when the facts don't fit your world. Wouldn't except more from a progressive child.
PS Watch out when you go to Wikipedia to find fact about environmental issues. Wiki has been proven to be extremely biased to the progressive movement by some of the editors. Quoting them is a little akin to quoting Mao on political power. "
RV wrote on Oct 28, 2009 10:02 AM:
Lodian wrote on Oct 28, 2009 9:53 AM:
jeff wrote on Oct 28, 2009 8:51 AM:
Some experts have argued that restrictions placed on the agricultural use of DDT have increased its effectiveness as a tool for battling malaria. According to pro-DDT advocate Amir Attaran the result of the 2004 Stockholm Convention banning DDT's use in agriculture "is arguably better than the status quo ... For the first time, there is now an insecticide which is restricted to vector control only, meaning that the selection of resistant mosquitoes will be slower than before." But though Carson's legacy has been closely tied to DDT, Roger Bate of the DDT advocacy organization Africa Fighting Malaria warns that "A lot of people have used Carson to push their own agendas. We just have to be a little careful when you're talking about someone who died in 1964."'
Very narrow minded view as to the ramifications of Rachel Carson's work. "
t jefferson wrote on Oct 28, 2009 8:15 AM:
Stop parroting your hero in the White House it is beneath even progressive (or maybe it isn't). Adults look at the evidence and make their own conclusion, children depend on others for their info. Stop being a child.
"Reserchers" have for years been getting thing wrong, ever heard of Rachel Carson - the person responsible for 10 of millions of deaths in Africa?
If your daughter is caught up in the politics of climate change of course she is going to believe as the current admin does, but then again for them it is not about the climate it is about control. Are you saying your daughter is a progressive control freak that wants to run my life? Wow you really need to get your money back. Go back to the sandbox, child. "
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Oct 28, 2009 7:51 AM:
Good grief, the author of this letter points to a two-year period where ice may or may not be melting due to so-called "global warming." Just how old is this planet? Along with Al Gore's mistake-laden film we're going to base our lives on a two-year window? Silly no matter how that's sliced.
The point I got from the letter is that yes, the earth changes - so what? Do we think we can actually change it; and if we could, would we be doing the right things? The "fact" is climates have changed since the beginning of time; it's only been over the last few decades where we've invented some pretty cool toys that we've begun to blame ourselves for the phenomena that millions of people before us have observed without seriously believing that "the sky is falling!"
Should we be good stewards of our environment? Absolutely! Should we believe we have the power to destroy the planet? No way. "
smokeater8 wrote on Oct 28, 2009 7:38 AM:
t jefferson wrote on Oct 28, 2009 6:29 AM:
Look at all the evidence before you jump on the latest bandwagon, you may be surprised at what you find. "
Comments on this story are now closed.