default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
Logout|My Dashboard

Global warming: Let's be clear about the likely cause

Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 10:00 pm

The editors of the Lodi News-Sentinel, normally wise people, recently published a misguided editorial claiming that global warming is not caused by human activity. They have gallantly allowed me to submit a corrective opinion.

There's little doubt that the globe is warming. Even the Lodi News-Sentinel admits this, somewhat reluctantly. We know it for many reasons.

Worldwide temperatures fluctuate quite a bit from place to place and year to year, but it's quite clear that long-term trend is upward - seriously and rapidly upward. Check the Intergovernmental Council on Climate Change.

Glaciers more 10,000 years old, such as those in Glacier National Park, Mount Kilimanjaro, and others, have shrunk rapidly in recent decades. You can find side-by-side comparison pictures on the Internet. The permafrost, frozen for more than 10,000 years, in northern Alaska and Siberia, is melting. You can read about that in any newspaper. The sea ice around northern Alaska, Canada and Greenland has shrunk and thinned to its lowest extent in recorded history.

As the trend continues, hundreds of millions of people will be displaced, while droughts and famines will devastate many others. Wars will be fought over refugees, cropland and water.

Doubters of human-caused global warming blame natural climate fluctuations, natural variations in the sun's output, and other causes far beyond human control. Could this be correct? Yes. Is this likely correct? No.

We know that human activity is the likely cause, for four reasons.

First, all scientists agree that carbon dioxide is a "greenhouse gas." Other factors being equal, increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide warm the earth by trapping heat from the sun. Ice cores and geological samples tell us that carbon dioxide concentrations have been much higher and much lower at various times, millions of years ago. When carbon dioxide concentrations have been higher than now, the average global temperature has been higher. When carbon dioxide was lower than now, global temperatures were quite cold.

Second, recent changes in carbon dioxide have not come from volcanoes, the oceans or anywhere else. It is true that ancient heat waves were caused by geologic activity, including massive volcanic eruptions. However, there has been no recent change in volcanic activity or ocean chemistry. The earth is gradually being deforested and urbanized, by humans, but this is not enough to account for the change, either. Carbon dioxide does not come from outer space. There's nowhere else all the extra carbon dioxide could have come from.

In addition, basic chemistry tells us where the extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has come from. Carbon dioxide from burned fossil fuel contains a distinctive combination of isotopes. Other sources produce a different isotope combination. Chemists tell us that the vast majority of excess carbon dioxide in today's atmosphere came from fossil fuel.

Third, increased solar radiation is not to blame for global warming. Scientists have carefully measured solar output for more than a century. There are tiny fluctuations, up and down, but nothing that can account for the rapidly warming globe.

Fourth, changes in earth's orbit are not to blame. Small fluctuations in earth's orbit partially account for past ice ages. However, these are well understood and highly predictable. There have been no unexpected changes, and the usual fluctuations do not predict a warming trend now, or in the centuries to come.

Is it possible that rapidly rising carbon dioxide and rapidly rising global temperatures are simply a coincidence? Is it possible that recently increased carbon dioxide is not trapping the sun's heat in the atmosphere, and that millions of tons of atmospheric carbon dioxide, bearing all the signs of human activity, have suddenly and invisibly erupted from some mysterious non-human source over the last century? Sure, it's possible. And, it's possible that "The Wizard of Oz" was a documentary film. It's possible, but not likely.

Alternately, the simplest, most obvious and most logical explanation is that carbon dioxide really is a greenhouse gas, and all the extra carbon dioxide that has entered the atmosphere in the past century has come from the vast quantities of oil and coal burned during that time.

Humanity has always had to face daunting challenges - famine, disease, barbarian hordes or thermonuclear weapons. Wishing them away has never worked. We can't wish global warming away, either. Our grandchildren will thank us for acknowledging the truth and taking corrective action while there still might be time to make a difference.

Dr. Timothy Miller is a Lodi resident and a licensed clinical psychologist.

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don’t pretend you’re someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don’t threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don’t insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the ‘Report’ link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.
  • 9 Don’t be a troll.
  • 10 Don’t reveal personal information about other commenters. You may reveal your own personal information, but we advise you not to do so.
  • 11 We reserve the right, at our discretion, to monitor, delete or choose not to post any comment. This may include removing or monitoring posts that we believe violate the spirit or letter of these rules, or that we otherwise determine at our discretion needs to be monitored, not posted, or deleted.

Welcome to the discussion.


  • posted at 2:33 pm on Sat, Nov 3, 2007.


    80% of man-made CO2 emissions occurred after 1940. But, most of all of this warming that we are all so excited about occurred "prior" to 1940 -- prior to the big rise in CO2.

    But the view on the street is that most of the warming came after the rise in CO2. Convenient, but not true.

    CA's recent drought, several of them, were caused by la Nina, a cooling of waters in the Pacific.

    Santigo Chile, just experiencd it coldest 3 months on record - 12 degrees below normal.

  • posted at 11:18 am on Sat, Nov 3, 2007.


    How do we know that now or 100 years ago is the ideal climate. How about this? All you doomsayers that believe the end is near with rising temps stop using energy completely. Everyone would be happier. It would mean cheaper energy and less dependence on foriegn oil for me and my horde of non-believers. You all can stop fretting over the sea levels hundreds of years from now and we global warming heratics can go about our day the way we want.

  • posted at 10:18 am on Sat, Nov 3, 2007.


    To wtf: your sources claim that the majority of climate scientists agree but they conveniently disregard conflicting opinions by fellow climate scientists as unqualified, while the converse could be applied to them.

  • posted at 9:15 pm on Fri, Nov 2, 2007.


    @People who think its the sun
    According to the Stanford Solar Center, at most 25% of recent global temperature variation can be attributed to solar irradiance. When the 11-year sun cycle is accounted for, there still remains a significant, 0.75 C (1.35 F) increase in recorded global temperatures

  • posted at 9:06 pm on Fri, Nov 2, 2007.


    I have evidence that the majority of climate scientists believe that the current global warming is caused by humans. Show me your evidence in your so called books.

  • posted at 8:55 pm on Fri, Nov 2, 2007.


    @John Brown
    Your quoting articles from 1975?

  • posted at 8:53 pm on Fri, Nov 2, 2007.


    @Audi 5000
    It is "very undecided" for people that are not climate scientists.
    See posts below.

  • posted at 8:47 pm on Fri, Nov 2, 2007.


    Report from Iron Mountain....
    However, it was not until five years later that the work was claimed a hoax. In 1972, fretting how the Pentagon Papers and other documents about the Vietnam War "read like parodies of Iron Mountain rather than the reverse", Lewin confessed in the March 19 New York Times Book Review that he had written the entire report. It was even listed in the Guinness Book of World Records as the "Most Successful Literary Hoax."

  • posted at 8:42 pm on Fri, Nov 2, 2007.


    I say we know it is a majority because
    A 2004 essay by Naomi Oreskes in the journal Science reported a survey of 928 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers related to global climate change in the ISI database.[21] Oreskes stated that "Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the "consensus" position. ... This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies"

  • posted at 8:59 am on Fri, Nov 2, 2007.


    I surmise T. Miller is twisting the hairs of his chin in amusement at the lab rats blogging here.

  • posted at 4:15 pm on Thu, Nov 1, 2007.


    The inhabitants of Earth will adapt, as they have for many millions of years. As long as it's cheaper to burn, people will burn. When provided economic incentives, people will quickly switch to using renewable energy. It is unlikely we will change GW -- regardless of the cause. It seems that GW is going to have serious effects, and because it will likely be changing our lives, I consider this question more relevant: Is mankind open to assistance with preserving habitats and adapting to changing habitats?

  • posted at 8:06 am on Tue, Oct 30, 2007.


    Dogbark: Only the True Believers fall for it. Thoughtful persons "get it" immediately.

  • posted at 7:19 am on Tue, Oct 30, 2007.


    Just because Al Gore seems to have the biggest microphone right now doesn't make him right. The source of global warming is very much undecided throughout the scientific community. Gore just happened to stumble over a hot button that is keeping him relevant

  • posted at 6:34 am on Tue, Oct 30, 2007.


    Billy your sarcasm sucked em in hook line and sinker.

  • posted at 4:39 am on Tue, Oct 30, 2007.


    Brian: Don't tell me that Ol' Dummy-U won't invoke Jesus Christ if he ever announces that he has used a nuclear bomb.

  • posted at 4:36 am on Tue, Oct 30, 2007.


    Kilio: I don't think anyone is claiming that man can physically destroy the planet either through nuclear war or global warming. My remark was in response to Crusader/Juhadi's earlier post.

  • posted at 3:41 am on Tue, Oct 30, 2007.


    To sound of one guy: yes, I noticed that too.

  • posted at 3:31 am on Tue, Oct 30, 2007.


    Leonard, Christian Jihadists? Now you're reaching. I doubt we'll ever see a nuke dropped in the name of Christianity. The Russians would be offended that their arsenal would be used in the name of Christianity.

  • posted at 1:12 am on Tue, Oct 30, 2007.


    Ah Leonard, there you go confusing your religions again. Christians are Crusaders not Jihadist. Big difference. As far as nuke. If every nuke went off all at once the planet would not be destroyed, just uninhabitable for man, big difference and it points to which points out the left's arrogance.

  • posted at 3:22 pm on Mon, Oct 29, 2007.


    your right about the bombs...Revelation says that unless those days be cut short the planet would be destroy. But man is not able to heat up the planet enough to hurt the planet. Global warming is all about money and power of the socialist movement.

  • posted at 1:49 pm on Mon, Oct 29, 2007.


    How are we going to stop this global warming hysteria when most people are so stupid that they think smoking causes cancer?

  • posted at 12:00 pm on Mon, Oct 29, 2007.


    Has anyone noticed that there are an awful lot of wing nut posts from first time posters and that these aforementioned posts all seem to be written in the same style with the same message?

  • posted at 9:47 am on Mon, Oct 29, 2007.


    Dr. Miller is simply wrong about this issue.

    First, the IPCC is a political, not a scientific organization.

    The Kilimanjaro glacier is melting because of land-use-change, not CO2.

    Miller misrepresents the prevalence of CO2 in the atmosphere. Human activity is responsible for, at most, ~100ppm of atmospheric CO2 and, in all likelihood, significantly less.

    Researchers like Dr. Henrik Svensmark (an astrophysicist, not a psychologist) have clearly documented the mechanism by which solar activity is the primary driver of Earth's climate changes.

  • posted at 7:53 am on Mon, Oct 29, 2007.


    Christian Jihadist: Given the fact that the combined nuclear arsenals of America and Russia contain enough bombs to burn every city on the planet with a population over 100,000, I think the argument that people are incapable of destroying the planet falls a little short.

  • posted at 7:50 am on Mon, Oct 29, 2007.


    Well, that's a new one. I have never before encountered a religious argument against taking care of the planet.

  • posted at 3:22 am on Mon, Oct 29, 2007.


    All you need to do is read Romans chapter 1. When man rejects God he will worship creation over the creator. They think man can destroy this planet, they worship nature and then they think they are the enlighten ones. Those who believe in God and trust in Him do not worry about saving the planet but rather saving of man's soul.

  • posted at 2:45 am on Mon, Oct 29, 2007.


    These so called scientists are the same people that claim that people start forest fires when it is clear to anyone with a brain that lightning causes forest fires. If nature causes some effect, you don't have to be a genius to know that people couldn't possibly cause the same effect.

  • posted at 2:18 am on Mon, Oct 29, 2007.


    To WTF: I am unsure of where your facts come from, but you are incorrect on the human factor, I suggest that you find a book, they keep them in buildings, sometimes called libraries...

  • posted at 6:05 pm on Sun, Oct 28, 2007.


    What?, WTF, and WF: Did you read my "Report from iron mountain letter," 6 months ago? The Office of Internal Intelligence was fighting with me.

  • posted at 6:03 pm on Sun, Oct 28, 2007.


    WTF, WF, and What?: I postulate that a high school education in the taxonomy of scientific thinking is enough to show that global warming is a political hoax. When I say "high school education," that would mean that the material is learned. I didn't mean that a high school student who merely saw it once, will quickly pick apart global warming theory. Maybe the teacher who is teaching the scientific method could figure it out.

  • posted at 5:58 pm on Sun, Oct 28, 2007.


    What?, WTF, and WF: I don't know that a majority agree. Did you even see my post that the UN didn't even get a consensus peer review? I will agree that liberal news media and talk shows say that scientists agree. Talk is cheap. Peer review? What peer review?

  • posted at 3:30 pm on Sun, Oct 28, 2007.


    Last but not least you make this
    financialy attractive to industry all
    over the world they will fall all over
    them selves to be the to dog and inturn
    they will solve the problem,that goes for China and India.You don't they
    wont...Fact there were far worse storms
    in the 30's than now...

  • posted at 3:18 pm on Sun, Oct 28, 2007.


    We all should know that you can't keep
    screwing with mother!!! At the same time
    you don't need Chicken little Gore
    running around screaming the earth is on
    fire,It's not...A sad fact is untill
    China and India get with the program what we do here wont amount to spit...
    Do you know that All of China's rivers
    are dead yes kiddies that is a big deal,
    want to buy your kids toys from china??

  • posted at 3:09 pm on Sun, Oct 28, 2007.


    Lets see if the warden lets this thru
    right now I'm 0 for 4...Ok folks it's
    getting warmer,SO!!Well what happens
    when the earth heats up for a period of
    time,right an Ice Age kids...1974 Time,
    Newsweek and Fortune all said we were
    heading for a big freeze...Say kids do
    you know that the bad boys,those nasty
    Vikings grew crops in Greenland,say how
    did Greenland get its name???

  • posted at 10:59 am on Sun, Oct 28, 2007.


    the Medieval Warm Period from about 900 AD to 1300 AD and the Little Ice Age from about 1500 to 1850. Both of these periods occurred long before the invention of the SUV or human industrial activity could have possibly impacted the Earths climate. In fact, scientists believe the Earth was warmer than today during the Medieval Warm Period, when the Vikings grew crops in Greenland.
    Climate alarmists have been attempting to erase the inconvenient Medieval Warm Period from the Earths climate history for at least a decade.

  • posted at 10:56 am on Sun, Oct 28, 2007.


    Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930s the media peddled a coming ice age.
    From the late 1920s until the 1960s they warned of global warming. From the 1950s until the 1970s they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth estates fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years.

  • posted at 10:38 am on Sun, Oct 28, 2007.


    Man is causing global warming? baloney.
    Do you ever hear anything about the scientists that documented the beginning of the breaking up of the mid 1800's? We have been coming out of an ice age since the last 12,000 years, interspersed with periodic cyclic intervals, occurring about 1000 years, peak to peak.
    The last global peak was 1000, last global cooling around 1600.
    Pulsating energy from the Sun is causing it. Approx 1000 year cyclic pulses.

  • posted at 6:41 am on Sun, Oct 28, 2007.


    To Office of Eye Eye, The GOP is not synonymous to "All are deniers of human caused global warming". Where is it written in stone that you have to have certain strict attributes to be with the GOP? We'll have to ask Zell Miller
    how he's gotten away with all his conservative views while maintainting
    his position as a senator of the Democratic party.

  • posted at 6:00 am on Sun, Oct 28, 2007.


    The Cooling World (Newsweek, Time, Fortune warn of possible Ice Age)
    1974/75 | Time/Newsweek/Fortune
    The truth is that historic climate patterns show that we are more likely to descend to an iceage from this point than to continue warming. Take a look at the last 450,000 years...
    So, if politicians and environmental scientists are going to continue preaching the end of the world by global warming, they need to present better evidence, and at least discuss the relevant past.

  • posted at 4:09 am on Sun, Oct 28, 2007.


    A clinical psychologist is now an expert on AGW? Like a political scientist, ala Algore, this has no credibility. AGW is a minor effect on the earth's climate, the Milankovitch cycles and the sun are the major ones, have been for 4.5 billion years, Dr. heal thy self. I'm a real paleoclimatologist, not some medical hack way out of his profession.

  • posted at 3:23 am on Sun, Oct 28, 2007.


    For what its worth, I am willing to testify to Brian's conservative credentials. I am just as baffled by his embrace of the truth regarding this issue as any of the Wing Nuts who have savaged him on this blog.

  • posted at 3:21 am on Sun, Oct 28, 2007.


    Brian: Perhaps you should write a letter to the Republican co sponsors of the Armenian Bill to inform them of your feelings on this issue.

  • posted at 12:17 am on Sun, Oct 28, 2007.


    The majority (and yes we know its a majority) of climate scientists agree that global warming is Primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation. Which this article descibes exactly. Yes its could be another cause but its probably not.

  • posted at 12:13 am on Sun, Oct 28, 2007.


    The majority of climate scientists (and yes we know its a majority) agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation. The conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity and will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. So why are you wasting your time bashing pyshcologist and the rest of the arm-chair quarterbacks.

  • posted at 3:18 pm on Sat, Oct 27, 2007.


    Oh, I forgot three years of studying the calculus and three years of statistics is not a requirement for Psych majors. Give me a break. I vote for three Mt. Pinatubos against one year of Al Gore blabbering away from his "non-polluting" private Gulfstream 400 jet, his 20,000 sq foot 20 room, eight bathroom "cottage" in Tennessee, his 4,000 square foot house in Arlington VA, and his 5,000 sq ft house in Carthage TN. Looks like a "carbon footprint" to me? LOL! Cry me a river. Can you spell "Hypocrite"?

  • posted at 3:16 pm on Sat, Oct 27, 2007.


    Are the subjects of Climatology, Physics, Geology and Paleontology taught in clinical psychology? You were trained to diagnose and treat crazies, not offer your opinion on long term planetary thermodynamics. Can we both discuss the concept of GIBBS Free energy? Please don't forget Euler's homogeneous function theorem.

  • posted at 2:45 pm on Sat, Oct 27, 2007.


    At least we're not writing resolutions about the Armenian genocide in 1915 (Pelosi) or saying that global warming is the cause of the fires in CA and then denying he said that shortly after
    when a reporter confronts him about it. (Reed).

  • posted at 2:44 pm on Sat, Oct 27, 2007.


    Leonard, this is one of the rare occasions that I take a position where I could be labeled a liberal. For the most part I am a died in the wool republican. The Harry and Nancy crowd will have to do a lot to redeem themselves in order to gain my confidence in them. Until then, I'll stick to the dark side, as you may call it. cont

  • posted at 12:22 pm on Sat, Oct 27, 2007.


    Boys, it looks like we have a GOP defector on our hands in the Phoenix sector. I want you to classify this "Brian" fellow as an domestic enemy combatant and schedule him for rendition to Bulgaria PRONTO!

  • posted at 5:46 am on Sat, Oct 27, 2007.


    Chuckle. I guess Brian is finally seeing what the Right does to its own when they stop drinking the Kool Aid. How's it feel to be on the other end of the politics of personal destruction? I see that one of your brethren even labeled you a "terrorist sympathizer". Who knows, my friend, perhaps when we both get to Gitmo we will get cells near each other. It would be nice to kick off the torture hang over with some lively debate.

  • posted at 5:32 am on Sat, Oct 27, 2007.


    Timothy, Thanks Again! And so you and I must endure "the brainwashed" that feel we must be liberals to acknowledge human caused global warming. There is politicization of the acknowledgement of human caused global warming by the left. However, the counter-politicization by the right that there is no human caused global warming worries me far more than what the left is doing. Who's burying their head in the sand here?

  • posted at 5:21 am on Sat, Oct 27, 2007.


    Duke, If we were to gather the scientists who have irrefutablle evidence that humans are playing a major role in global warming. Given the fact that many of these scientists don't understand liberalism. I doubt many of these scientists conclusions have been influenced at all by Al Gore.
    You keep on dreaming that global warming is a liberal invention and I'll keep on telling you about the scientists in other countries that aren't democracies who don't need a liberal agenda to prove the obvious.

  • posted at 3:43 am on Sat, Oct 27, 2007.


    to Brian, Obviously you don't read my posts on other blogs. I despise Al Franken and Michael Moore. They are the ultimate skum of the earth.

  • posted at 2:21 am on Sat, Oct 27, 2007.


    Nothing you post has ever been conservative,,what a phoney.Who writes your script,,,Michael Moore,,or Al Franken?

  • posted at 1:36 am on Sat, Oct 27, 2007.


    "The editors of the Lodi News-Sentinel, normally wise people, recently published a misguided editorial claiming that global warming is not caused by human activity. They have gallantly allowed me to submit a corrective opinion."

    'Normally wise' (condescending & patronizing)
    'Misguided' (ditto)
    'Gallantly' (ditto)
    'Corrective' (versus 'a differing opinion etc.)

    Al Gore "the dbate is over"

    Typical garbage comments used by the left that wants to control everything for the good of the people. (including things like the weather which they cannot control)

  • posted at 9:40 pm on Fri, Oct 26, 2007.


    Excellent summary. Ignore the whiners who want to convince others that the oil and coal companies could not possibly be trying to fool us.

  • posted at 7:48 pm on Fri, Oct 26, 2007.


    I'm so glad all the world's top scientists reviewed the UN IPCC report. I followed the link, and I saw how many of them agreed. Peer review? What peer review?

  • posted at 7:46 pm on Fri, Oct 26, 2007.


    IPCC Peer review? What peer review?

  • posted at 3:50 pm on Fri, Oct 26, 2007.


    Atta boy, we are having a discussion here on one issue, which is global warming. It is in my best interest to blog on this issue and not any other.
    What part of this is getting under your skin? You don't have to be a liberal to understand global warming. Most conservatives won't admit that they agree with human caused global warming.
    They fear they will be labeled a liberal. You are advancing the stereotype of the conservatives. Well, this conservative is contrary to that stereotype. Sorry to burst your bubble.

  • posted at 3:10 pm on Fri, Oct 26, 2007.


    As a "clinical" psychologist you should know that the "cure" is within each and everyone of us. Just think good thoughts, click your heels 3 times, close your eyes and repeat.. there`s no place like home, there`s no place like home...There! That oughtta do it!

  • posted at 12:10 pm on Fri, Oct 26, 2007.


    If this Brian character is a conservative than I am the Queen of Sheba. I pegged this character as an America hating Lib from the get go. I bet that if they search his house (which I urge them to do ASAP) they will find a Al Queda cell hiding in his basement

  • posted at 11:37 am on Fri, Oct 26, 2007.


    First they told us that tobacco causes cancer and now they say that we are heating the planet. Its all the same lie just in a different wrapping.

  • posted at 11:15 am on Fri, Oct 26, 2007.


    Liberal rubbish....

    thanks for playing..:)

  • posted at 9:44 am on Fri, Oct 26, 2007.


    Thank you Mr. Miller for a very well worded article proving manmade climate change is real. Too bad many of your skeptical readers apparently can't understand what they're reading....maybe you needed some pictures. I'll bet most of the skeptics still believe in 'Big Foot' and the moon landing was staged in a southwest desert.

  • posted at 8:39 am on Fri, Oct 26, 2007.


    Brian I find it amazing that your first posting stated that you are a consevative.Well buddy boy, on the blog you can say anything.The problem you have are the continual postings on this blog on this same issue.
    Consevative?Sorry you don't fit the bill.

  • posted at 7:34 am on Fri, Oct 26, 2007.


    Brian, stop calling me Billy Boy. You claim to be a conservative so act like one. Show me one high-profile conservative figure who agrees with you. You are not watching Fox, are you? You're probably watching MSNBC or some other liberal slant news. This is why I don't read the Sacto Bee and only take the Lodi News Sentinel. I need news I can depend on.

  • posted at 6:53 am on Fri, Oct 26, 2007.


    Hey folks, this guy is a clinical psychologist, not a scientist or climitoligist. He has no more knowledge on this subject than any other lay person. I think we all agree people can pollute the environment, but to take that all the way to global warming is questionable to say the least.

  • posted at 4:54 am on Fri, Oct 26, 2007.


    You think,(your quote) "it's possible that "The Wizard of Oz" was a documentary film." ??? No Timmy, it's not possible.
    It's also not possible to take the rest seriously.

  • posted at 3:03 am on Fri, Oct 26, 2007.


    It's a conspiracy Billy Boy. All of the scientific studies are based on liberal dogma according to you. Get a grip. We'll have to arrange an interview with all the scientists studying climate change and ask them what their political affilation is to make you happy. They are all democrats, Billy.
    Even those in countries that don't have democracies.

  • posted at 2:41 am on Fri, Oct 26, 2007.


    Billy Boy, I suggest you contact the Farm Bureau and ask them for an interview on the affects of pesticides
    on groundwater. The pesticide has to go somewhere. There is also irrefutable evidence that we as humans have a higher content of chemicals in our body than past generations. Have you checked some of the ingedients they put in our food? A lot of these chemicals comtaminate our body and cause health problems. Let's now look at the larger sphere of what chemicals do to our planet. But the world is flat, isn't it Billy Boy.

  • posted at 2:35 pm on Thu, Oct 25, 2007.


    But what about the solution: The solution is to identify the politicians that are behind the fraud.

  • posted at 2:34 pm on Thu, Oct 25, 2007.


    Billy Rubin: I appreciate your effort on this one. I can't help very much, because I'm giving people an education on Franklin High School.

  • posted at 2:33 pm on Thu, Oct 25, 2007.


    Timothy Miller: Your opinion is only by fraudulent justification in the IPCC, and it is trash.

  • posted at 2:18 pm on Thu, Oct 25, 2007.


    Here again I say is there a difference that a man made forest fire inflicts on the planet and a nature made forest fire? The brainwashing continues on the right that since the left feels global warming is human caused there can be no to reason to believe it. Of course the left doesn't believe it's all human's fault. The right is so afraid to admit there is climate change. The stubbornness on the right amazes me.

  • posted at 1:58 pm on Thu, Oct 25, 2007.


    I would like the author to explain why top scientist at the north pole infact are saying that the greenhouse effect has been slowly reversing the cycle, (correcting its self). This came from a "Yachts International" magazine article about a trip to the pole on a new ice class 285 ft steel yacht that is designed and rigged just for the exploration of global warming.

  • posted at 1:26 pm on Thu, Oct 25, 2007.


    All of you armchair scientists are right. We should all just go live in caves and eat bugs and grubs. Global warming is easy to fix, just stop doing whatever it is that you enjoy! Misery on a global scale is the answer!

  • posted at 12:46 pm on Thu, Oct 25, 2007.


    Actually bea, the world is round where I live, but where you live there may be dragons or some other faith based bogeyman to scare you. This has been going on for years. Scare the citizens and make them give up more of their freedoms. None of the past predictions of doom came to fruition and neither shall this one.

  • posted at 12:06 pm on Thu, Oct 25, 2007.


    Bea, Thank You! Are those people that believe the world is flat are the same that believe everything begins and ends in Lodi (PleasantVille)?

  • posted at 12:04 pm on Thu, Oct 25, 2007.


    Billy, there is irrefutable evidence that we can contaminate ground water, lakes, and rivers. There is also irrefutable evidence that man can change our climate. I am a conservative. However I'm not stupid enough to suggest man can't do harm to this planet. Deforestation is a good example of the harm man has done to this planet. Give me an example of how deforestation hasn't harmed our planet, Billy Boy?

  • posted at 11:18 am on Thu, Oct 25, 2007.


    Some of you posters are so ignorant and apparently uneducated it's frightening. Thanks again, Timothy, for your attempt to explain the obvious, but the world is still flat to half of the crew that surfs here.

  • posted at 8:04 am on Thu, Oct 25, 2007.


    The idea that humans can change the world's environment is ridiculous. That would mean measurable or even visible polution near reputed sources (cities and other industrial centers). What a laugh! Next they'll be saying mankind can contaminate rivers, lakes and ground water. I'm tired of these liberal screamers. Give me Fox News any day.

  • posted at 7:42 am on Thu, Oct 25, 2007.


    Tim, you are the typical "scientist" who believes in global warming. You have a psuedo-scientific degree which matches your belief system. Go read a couple of books (Unstoppable global warming, the politically incorrect guide, Chicken little, etc) and you will see how wrong you are. Maybe its all a big Oedipal complex like Freud though.

  • posted at 6:16 am on Thu, Oct 25, 2007.


    Thanks, Timothy. Great summary.

  • posted at 5:53 am on Thu, Oct 25, 2007.


    Who's to say what the optimal temperature of Earth is? Maybe earth will be a better place as a slightly warmer climate.

  • posted at 4:19 am on Thu, Oct 25, 2007.


    The genie is out of the bottle on this one people. Ain`t much we can do to stop global warming. Too many people, too few genuine "solutions". Maybe another mass extinction is what the Earth needs to cleanse itself of the human virus.

  • posted at 4:09 am on Thu, Oct 25, 2007.


    This global warming nonsense is just more junk science from the same people who told us that smoking causes cancer

  • posted at 3:47 am on Thu, Oct 25, 2007.


    Wow, a clinical psychologist who practices an inexact science at best now has all the answers.Give me a beak.

  • posted at 3:02 am on Thu, Oct 25, 2007.


    sorry, last line should read ...just NOT true!

  • posted at 2:57 am on Thu, Oct 25, 2007.


    Further ... the earth is resilient and according to ice core records, which A. Gore often refers to, he fails to mention there have been periods where the CO2 levels were 10x the current levels. CO2 doesn't float into the atmosphere and linger. Much of it is absorbed by plants. The earth is fine-tuned and adjusts to its circumstances, similar to the human body's metabolism. Human induced catastrophic global warming is just true.

  • posted at 2:50 am on Thu, Oct 25, 2007.


    The primary cause of global warming is not settled science. Variations in the sun's energy and magnetic activity is the prime cause, which is good because in the cyclical nature of Earth's climate, we are due for another ice age, so an increase in the sun's solar energy is a good thing. The last 150 years we went from cold to warm to cold to warm again. From 1945 to the late 1970s Earth actually cooled and we were worried about global cooling, remember?

  • posted at 2:45 am on Thu, Oct 25, 2007.


    A "corrective"response",,,get over yourself.

  • posted at 2:37 am on Thu, Oct 25, 2007.


    Assuming this is true, the logical solution is to limit the number of humans on the planet and restrict the resources they use. Who lives and who dies? Who procreates and who does not? Who can use resources and who lives in a world without modern convenience. There are about 7 Billion of us, who plays God in your world?

  • posted at 2:37 am on Thu, Oct 25, 2007.


    Timothy, Thanks for setting the record straight. As a conservative I grow more impatient by the day with the "bury the head in the sand mantra" I hear from conservative talk radio about global warming. This is a key issue
    I see conservatives being intellectually
    dishonest about. Perhaps it is their way of doing a "tit for tat" because of the stance democrats have taken on the war in Iraq. When the waters start encroaching on the delta will we then see a change in the consevatives attitude towards gloabl warming?


Recent Comments

Posted 1 hour ago by Shane Marcus.

article: Letter: The drought is punishment

Greg Myers, There are some truthful things in your comment. However, God isn't punishing anyone for certain sins. Homosexual marriage, (e…


Posted 2 hours ago by Shane Marcus.

article: HIREvent job fair in Stockton on Tuesday

O my, let me just rush over there


Posted 2 hours ago by Shane Marcus.

article: 133-year-old safe delivered to family o…

Keep trying you never know, it may just open one day


Posted 5 hours ago by Steve Schmidt.

Posted 12 hours ago by Christina Welch.

article: Letter: Large class sizes are good for …

Are you really serious, Mr Arthur? When was the last time you were ever in a classroom? [huh]



Popular Stories



Your News

News for the community, by the community.

Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists