Letters posted here are associated with the following article:

445
Letters
Monday, June 30, 2008 12:00 AM

Anti-science conservatives must be stopped

Americans must not allow global warming deniers to block the policies needed to avert catastrophic climate change. Our future is at stake.

The letters thread is now closed.

View:
Tuesday, July 1, 2008 07:47 PM

Delosgatos.

Delosgatos.

Climate and weather……….a distinction without a difference.

I know, I know….. you guys make a distinction….like it matters…..as if they are two different things……please.

A weatherman is a weatherman…not a “Climatologists” or “Meteorologist”. The guys who pickup the trash at the end of the driveway are trash men, not “Sanitation Workers”.

You see, if you put lipstick on a pig you still end up with a pig, (not to disparage pigs or trash men, these labels and nuances are really meaningless).

Geez, get over yourselves.

Affecting/Controlling the weather…..errr…..”climate”:

You and your buddies believe that if human produced CO2 is halted or curtailed you will stop weather or “climate” events from happening, (I've got news for you; these WEATHER events will, have and will continue to happen even if you cross your fingers, close your eyes and wish really hard). You seem to be obsessed with some magic power that mankind has over the atmosphere.

What egotism! To put it bluntly; you ain’t all that.

Remember: Thou art mortal. Thou art mortal.

Tuesday, July 1, 2008 07:58 PM

Brute at least you got that much correct

Brute: "A weatherman is a weatherman…not a “Climatologists”"

Hey, we agree on something: a weatherman is not a climatologist.

Just as climatologist is not a weatherman.

This is because climate and weather are not the same things.

Tuesday, July 1, 2008 08:07 PM

Sulzer

Sulzer,

You wrote:

Let's also take a look at the recent temperature data that you claim implies that global warming is over. First this means that you recognize that global warming is a fact (or was).

For the purposes of this discussion I used the term "global warming" meaning the recent rise in temperature that Alarmists attribute to Anthropomorphic "Climate Change", (a term everyone knows well). You’re correct, I should have been precise.

The planet has been “warming” in fits and starts since the last ice age and most recently since the end of the “Little Ice Age”. Glaciers have (generally) been retreating (with periods of advancement), since that time. The ice caps have expanded and retreated numerous times in Earth’s history.

I don’t believe that is in dispute here. I think the dispute is what has caused the .6 degree rise in temperature over the last +/- 100 years?

You seem to think it comes from the tailpipe of my car. I think that the ENORMOUS NUCLEAR FURACE at the middle of our solar system may be responsible. The funny thing is, solar activity has been weak recently and global temperatures have leveled……. and all the while CO2 levels continued to rise.

CO2 is the odd man out. You’re looking in the wrong place for your ½ degree.

Tuesday, July 1, 2008 08:09 PM

Et tu, brute?

Climate and weather……….a distinction without a difference.

Wow... people who don't know the difference between climate and weather think their opinions on global climate change should be taken seriously?

That's like someone who doesn't know the difference between day trading and long term investing asking to join Warren Buffet's team.

You and your buddies believe that if human produced CO2 is halted or curtailed you will stop weather or “climate” events from happening

Man, you are way off in la-la land now. No one said anything of the sort.

Tuesday, July 1, 2008 08:19 PM

Climate and weather

In his infinite wisdom, good ol’ publicola informed us: “This is because climate and weather are not the same things.”

Duh!

We all know the difference, publicola.

There is even a formula. It is known as the “inverse C:W relationship”.

When it is Cooling, it is Weather.

When it is Warming, it is Climate.

Simple, no?

Tuesday, July 1, 2008 08:21 PM

Global Warming Is Not Primarily Driven By The Sun

Brute: "I think that the ENORMOUS NUCLEAR FURACE at the middle of our solar system may be responsible."

RealClimate.org:

The sunspot record and neutron monitor data (which can be compared with radionuclide records) show that solar activity has not increased since the 1950s and is therefore unlikely to be able to explain the recent warming.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/did-the-sun-hit-record-highs-over-the-last-few-decades/

More info here:

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11650

Tuesday, July 1, 2008 08:22 PM

Tobbar/Stat

Tobbar,

You wrote:

“the plataeu is a temporary trend before the temperatures continue to increase.”

Another prognostication, (and reversal of earlier prediction). Bring facts. When your models actually predict the weather successfully, then we can talk.

Stat writes:

"Warming greater than 2 degrees C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive."

“Projected”, (a guess). The temperature dropped 5 degrees here in two hours…..no dead animals or lifeless plants. We seemed to manage alright.

Stat continues:

"Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections."

Or not. More guesswork. This quote admits to climate model uncertainty.

Hurry up, let’s rearrange the world economy based on “climate projections that we know are flawed. Sounds like a great plan!

Tuesday, July 1, 2008 08:29 PM

Publicola

"and is therefore unlikely to be able to explain the recent warming."

Unlikely......sounds like a definite maybe. More precision to base our economic future on. What is it with you guys and “maybe” , “could be” and “sometimes”. I have better odds at the track.

Tuesday, July 1, 2008 08:56 PM

If Global Warming Deniers Applied Their Rhetoric To The Terrorist Threat (Cont'd.)

"and invading Iraq is therefore unlikely to be able to prevent more terrorist attacks."

Unlikely......sounds like a definite maybe. More precision to base our economic future on. What is it with you guys and "maybe", "could be" and "sometimes". I have better odds at the track.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Spelling it out for the sarcasm-impaired:

A: A primary position of global warming deniers is that we don't know with 100% certainty what's going on with respect to global warming, so let's wait until we are 100% sure before we act on it.

B: When addressing substantive threats however that position is absurd: to wait until you are 100% sure of what will happen before you act to address it is to wait until it's too late to do anything about it.

C: This absurdity applies to addressing any future threat, including terrorist attacks and global warming.

Tuesday, July 1, 2008 09:09 PM

manacker vs brute, smackdown at 11

manacker wrote:

In his infinite wisdom, good ol’ publicola informed us: “This is because climate and weather are not the same things.”

Duh!

We all know the difference, publicola.

Brute wrote:

Climate and weather……….a distinction without a difference.

The number of you two who is/are confused is greater than zero.

Most Active Letters Threads

436

The Washington establishment suffers a serious defeat

Approval of the Paul/Grayson bill to audit the Fed is both rare and important in several ways
415

The administration guts its own argument for 9/11 trials

If some detainees get military commissions or indefinite detention, how can 9/11 trials be justified?
226

A letter to readers

On my current condition: Definitely treatable, definitely uncertain
211

Rule-of-law extremism engulfs primitive Eastern Europe

Why would the new President of Lithuania demand investigations of CIA black sites in her country?
179

More GOP lies about healthcare reform

Republicans who know better falsely claim that the panel recommending fewer mammograms is a Dem plan for rationing

View all »

Letters Help

Currently in Salon