Tuesday, December 18, 2007

Catastrophe Is Coming

The chart illustrated an article by Les Blumenthal in Sunday's McClatchy newspapers, under the headline "Oceans' growing acidity alarms scientists."
All things by immortal power,
Near or far,
To each other linked are,
That thou canst not stir a flower
Without troubling of a star.

---Francis Thompson

A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees.

---William Blake

When elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers.

---Kikuyu Proverb

Last week my wife of 25 years fired off a letter to the editor. She didn't used to do this kind of thing, but world developments in recent years have convinced her wake-up calls like this are crucial. She comes from a family tradition of citizen involvement in current affairs. There's a big difference between a demonstration with folk singers and the hard work of political organizing. Increasingly she's going to community meetings nearly every evening, some of which she chairs.

The letter went to our biweekly newspaper, The Athens News. It was about global warming. The editor, Terry Smith, emailed back saying the piece was too long for the letters feature, but offered to publish it in the occasional Reader's Forum on the Opinion Page. He asked her, though, to compose a blurb about who she is. Well, that's kind of hard to do so we sat down together and came up with something simple and to the point:

"Dana Carlson has been a teacher for 30 years. She's been an advocate for sane environmental policy even longer." Here's her article~~~

Is it possible to get Americans to care about global warming? How about James Lovelock’s terrifying forecast that ‘“We are on the edge of the greatest die-off humanity has ever seen, We will be lucky if 20% of us survive what is coming. We should be scared stiff.” (TimesONLINE, May 2007)

Lovelock forecasts the death of 6.5 BILLION people and 70% of species between now and the end of the century. By 2020 (12 years from now), drought and other extreme weather will be commonplace. Soon thereafter, the southern half of the United States will be unlivable desert, as will most of Europe, and all the rest of the tropical and formerly temperate regions of the world.

James Lovelock is the scientist who developed the theory of the Earth as a self-regulating super-organism---whose system of positive and negative feedbacks keep our planet habitable. Accepted as the basis of present climate science, this theory explains the rapid advance of melting Arctic ice (melting at a rate---not twice as fast---but 10 times as fast as predicted by computer models) and the failure of the oceans to absorb the carbon being put into the atmosphere.

What does that mean? Earth relies on a system of ocean and land carbon sinks to absorb excess carbon from the atmosphere. Recent research shows that the Southern Ocean’s ability to absorb carbon has seriously weakened, decreasing by 35% over the last 25 years. On, land, excessive droughts are decreasing the efficiency of plants to take up carbon. Since 2000, atmospheric carbon has increased 35% faster than expected---in large part because the system of carbon sinks is failing.

When carbon dioxide mixes with ocean water, the reaction produces carbonic acid. The oceans have increased in acidity by 30%---and the prediction is that acidity could increase by 150% by 2100. The acidification of the oceans will have devastating effects on marine life from the bottom (plankton) to the top (tuna and humans) of the food chain. Plankton take in huge amounts of carbon dioxide, using the carbon for growth, while releasing oxygen during the process of photosynthesis. When the plankton die off, that leaves more unabsorbed carbon in the oceans (increased acidification) and in the atmosphere (rapidly accelerating global warming). Plankton already have declined by up to 10% in some ocean basins over the last two decades.

The Arctic and Antarctic regions, when frozen and covered with snow, reflect back much of the sun’s heating radiation. As these areas melt, the darker water and land absorbs at least 90% of the sunlight, which greatly accelerates the rate of warming (you can feel this heat island effect in black-topped parking lots). Scientists now speculate that the Arctic may be ice-free in five years. Rising sea levels mean the loss of immense areas of coastline.

Permafrost in areas like Alaska, Siberia, and Greenland has acted as a carbon sink, keeping dead vegetation from rotting (and releasing carbon into the atmosphere). Now the permafrost is melting and, as micro-organisms break down this rotting vegetation, massive amounts of carbon dioxide and methane are released---and methane is 20 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

All these are examples of positive (accelerating) feedbacks. As one system fails, it contributes to the further destabilization of the entire system, until the system crashes.

It is amazing to what lengths people and national leaders will go to deny that the planetary organism is failing. The total ignorance of how humans depend on an adequately functioning environment, coupled with a need to maintain our wasteful American lifestyle at any cost, means we just can’t be bothered to care whether our children and grandchildren survive. Politicians claim that it is too expensive to change because they can’t be bothered to educate themselves about what inaction will cost.

While Republican senators shill for automakers and oil companies instead of passing an energy bill that would reduce carbon emissions by increasing fuel efficiency and increasing renewable energy, the Bush administration and China play the blame game, each accusing the other of not doing their part to cut emissions…and so neither country does anything but INCREASE its energy consumption. Rather than decrease US dependence on foreign oil (and so increase security) by mandating energy conservation and alternative renewable energy sources, the Bush administration has actually increased foreign oil imports. Instead of moving to renewable, carbonless sources of energy, power companies want to build more coal-fired plants that will spew even more carbon into the atmosphere.

This is insane. It’s suicide. If we don’t stop now, it will be too late. Demand immediate action by your senators, congressmen, and president.

And then, start looking at your own energy consumption and how you can decrease it significantly. You want to be patriotic? Change your light bulbs to compact fluorescents, weatherize your home, get rid of your gas-hog car, dry your clothes on a clothesline, turn off your energy-wasting appliances, and educate yourself on the global climate change. The future of your country and the lives of your children and grandchildren depend on it.



Anonymous said...

"Dana Carlson has been a teacher for 30 years. She's been an advocate for sane environmental policy even longer."

And so have many others. In various fields: advocacy, education, activism, governance (local/ international), biology, high-tech research, etc.

The greatest failing, alas, has been in the field of communication.

Especially mass-communication which is totally dominated by the current global corporate culture.

(Maybe, the internet, and related technological development, will change that.)

People are buzzy - we all are - and no one really followed-up on one of my earlier comments on Richard's previous post in which I was quoting Keith Obermann on corporate culture:

His point was that many of the people [the corporate sponsors] for whom he works have said to him, "You are saying things that I cannot say."

And he said:



I pointed out that this is the stuff schizophrenia is made of: the term schizophrenia comes from root words for "split mind," and refers to a fracture in the normal functioning of the brain. It sometimes manifest as a result of an irresolvable logical conflict between two or more psychological directives or moral imperatives which results in a total mental breakdown.

The problem here is not that people do not see the conflict. There is a huge gap between the way people would like to be able to live their lives, the things they believe in in their hearts, and the way people live their lives, the way they feel they have to live their lives. Some can hardly make it from month-end to month-end, and they are totally at the mercy of the system on which they depend for their livelihood (many of them would be the first one to suffer, if that system - no matter how artificial a construct it is, or how destructive of the environment - were to collapse.) And insofar as the big boys are concerned, they just seem more free, but this is just an illusion, they are caught in the same trap, they just happen to be playing in a bigger league, that's all, and if truth be told, I am not sure that they are happier than their less fortunate brethren.

What?... Yes, I hear you, Richard, this is madness!

Well, this is what Keith Obermann's comment was hinting at, isn't it?

The problem is not that people are not aware of the conflict, the problem is that they do not know how to cope. The problem is that what they are facing seems "irresolvable" to them. One of the psychological mechanisms by which the mind copes which the resulting pain and fear to which no form of adjustment seems possible is ....?


Evasion takes many forms.

Consumerism is one of them (buying happiness?): Compulsive buying is a definable clinical syndrome which displays features of both obsessive compulsive disorder and the impulse control disorders.

Denial is another one - way up there- it's a complex process by which even though a conscious knowledge of a difficult reality is present, somehow its emotional impact is repressed, or its logical consequences are obfuscated.

Sublimation too is another defense mechanism. This last one while usually more productive than, say, repression, or denial, often manifests through religion (used as an escape from suffering, as opposed to the spiritual activism of compassion and justice.) This helps explain the frequent resurgence of various forms of fundamentalism under the stress of trying circumstances at various points in time in the history of mankind:

The End is Near, but, hey, it's all good, it means that the "Rapture," the "ascension," the "harmonic convergence" or "whathaveyou" is coming.

Different beliefs reflect the paradigms of their times. As such, the techno-utopian libertarian/singulatarian meme is pretty big. Some singulatarians actually do foretell that a catastrophe is coming, but they reckon that all of that is irrelevant to the next stage of evolution (which is all that matter to them) as there will be enough life left to usher their coming techno-utopia in which mankind, as we know it, like most of life on Earth, will have become as anachronistic as the Dinosaurs of old. Life must go on. (I am simplifying a bit, but that's the general idea.) It is the technological/materialistic cousin of the spiritual-utopia ascendance found in the New Age movement, or even, though to a lesser degree, in the Christian rapture.

Charlie Kam, here, has written and recorded a humorous Singularitarian version of Gilbert & Sullivan's "I Am The Very Model of a Modern Major General," from the Gilbert & Sullivan opera, "The Pirates of Penzance":

I am the very model of a modern singulatarian video

And then, there is always the deep-end, of course.

The paradox is that telling people that "Catastrophe is Coming," when no visible concerted plan showing that the problem is taken seriously is in the making, only reinforces all of the above. People - most of them - are already aware at one level or another that the world is in trouble, though many are repressing it. They feel helpless about it. Although some of them have been going through the motions, they don't really believe that just driving a more fuel-efficient car or changing those light bulbs is really going to cut it. (They are wrong, of course, something - better than nothing - is the beginning of something, and some things will lead to better things, provided it is not just a fad of course, or an excuse for governments for doing nothing, or not taking actions on a larger scale where actions need to be taken.)

Issues that should be of major concerns to people are reduced to 10 second sound bites, where we hear political propaganda instead of constructive dialogue, and where politics is more about the cult of personality than the power of ideas.

Is it any surprise then that people feel less and less concerned with the world of politics which they assume "is not an important part of their world", making it thus a self-fulfilling prophecy, as decisions affecting their future are taken by a corporate elite more and more removed from the notion of a government of, by and for the people?

Nausicaa said...

As a matter of fact I had just been reading Jazzolog's posts going back to November while, probably, you were writing this comment. I think overwhelmed is an accurate description of the human response. I heard on the radio this morning there is a display at USC of posters regarding the environment, overpopulation, pollution, etc., going back 40 years. It's on the second floor of the Annenberg Building. So, of course, everyone in Los Angeles is going to line up around the block to see it, right? Just a little anecdote to underscore your comment. Thank you.

Quinty said...

I've only met Dana but I know she fights the good fight. And I suspect she has fought it a good long time.

About global warming I only know what the scientists tell me. Yes, I know they have been wrong at times. But if you look at those who rely upon this argument to discredit those scientists who warn against global warming you can quickly see that their motives are not often scientific.

Those right-wingers who sneer at science began sneering decades ago when their profits and freedom to pollute were threatened by "tree huggers," environmentalists, and those regulators trying to protect workers and the public. So deep was their original self interest that it has become second nature to the far right to sneer at science's claims. And of course there are those Christian fundamentalists who are unwilling to forgive science for Darwin and stem cell research.

So the motives for attacking science are not often scientific. What's more, can we risk being wrong about the warnings of science? Isn't it better to be safe than sorry? And, what’s more, what gives us the right to believe we can pollute and treat our environment like a vast public garbage dump anyway? A convenience for industry trying to cut costs?

Or is respecting Mother Nature just another tree hugger type of thing? A mere expression of weakness standing in the way of profit?

Quinty said...

Richard - you said this on your other site. (Is it safe to return?)

"What is the explanation of a culture that needs speed and noise---pumping them constantly. Is it not rage and resentment? "

I think there is a great deal of rage and resentment in our country. And a lot could be written about it.

I remember one evening many years ago shunting about on some rundown German trains trying to find a connection. I criss crossed many rural places until I finally got into Frankfurt. But on these "locals" I saw a great deal of misery in the faces of the farmers and working class men sitting in the cars. A great deal of smouldering hatred and resentment. As well as brutality: something I hadn't seen in the city. And I couldn't help think of that proletariat which backed Hitler in the thirties. They must have been filled with hatred and anger too.

As I said, you could write a book on this subject. But I see something similar in the United States, and, as we know, it has been around a long time. The "love it or leave it" hardhats who attacked college kids protesting the Vietnam War. Those nativists today expending a great deal of their energy attacking illegal migrants rather than complain about the genuinely large problems, such as global warming.

Much can be said on this. Gottago for now....

jazzolog said...

This is a comment in response to a number of challenges this post has produced at the site Quinty refers to---and asks whether it is "safe" to go back in there. My "speed and noise" remark over there produced some questions as to why this generation is so immature and how did we get so spoiled? What follows is what I wrote just now~~~

My mother's childhood was on a working family farm in Western New York in the 1920s. Cows to milk, garden to grow. I have treasured photos of the whole family, which consisted of 3 girls (Rhea, Leora, and Lucille) plus Grandfather Edward and Grandmother Dora, out digging potatoes, and preparing the buckboard to take any leftover produce 5 miles to Frewsburg to sell. Edward died on Mom's 13th birthday and the nation fell in the Great Depression. They moved into that little town, and the girls found work as best they could. Mom became a nurse and met my dad, who was working as an aide in the same hospital at which she got hired in nearby Jamestown. He barely had made it through school himself, as he needed to find work to help out the family during the mid-1930s. Grandfather John worked for the trolley company and later the post office I believe, while Grandmother Ada raised the 2 daughters, Marian and Allene---and another daughter who died from the flu---and Ralph. When Ralph and Rhea got married, and had me in 1940, we were headed for War and rationing. I remember rice, Spam, vegetables purchased from any door-to-door peddler (who might have a sidelot garden) and junket for dessert. Talk about recycling? We saved everything we could think of for the war effort. Kids brought in pennies at school to gradually buy US bonds. We had paper drives on the weekend. The country entered the war owing money to everyone. Soldiers coming home found a housing shortage.

When we entered the 1950s, everyone owed the US money. We had an economic boom. My mom and dad had never known meat on the table for every supper. You could have it for every meal! There were labor-saving devices for Mom. Ever clean your clothes with a wringer washer? OK, it's easier than a washboard and a tub...or rocks by the stream. When Dad brought an automatic washer to Mom for Christmas, it was like the caveman dragging home a mastodon. I remember Dad riding a bicycle to work at the war factory during gas rationing, but now we had a family car for rides on Sunday afternoon. It was luxury for all, and my generation got used to it. Mom and Dad never forgot the sacrifice required in youth, and tried to teach us to live economically---as they struggled with diets and trying to take that weight off. Nothing worked, and they suffered conditions caused by overweight---and my generation was said to have to learn everything the hard way. Not only that: we became Beat and rebels (with and without causes) and even Hippies. And jazz and rock.

I'd say the generation of us guys in our 60s and 70s doesn't really know any better. Mom and Dad tried to provide for us, used the boom years to do it, and ended up shielding us from some of the realities of life. They didn't mean to I think, but they did get lured by the ads for the new easy life. Everybody thought it would last forever---and that we deserved it!

Guys in their 50s may be worse off. They went to Viet Nam, made it home and scratched out for themselves a "piece of the dream." Now, with their rifles and gas-powered vehicles they stand guard---and give money to Ron Paul. You gonna tell that guy that tossing a piece of paper out his car window is littering? Just try.

jazzolog said...

Along the same lines, this is a comment at an About.com forum that my wife likes. It's in response to her post of the news article you all may have seen called The Artic Is Screaming---obviously about the Warming. Kennet, whose nickname at About is JokkMokk, is a research scientist in Sweden~~~

'Arctic Is Screaming,'
I feel like screaming. I've been at the conservative forum trying to calmly and rationally address this topic. I find myself contending with views ranging from "global warming is a hoax" to "its all just natural variation" to "its going to be beneficial" and then rather than conversion of the sceptics, usually end up at square one with the denial all over again.
Some people are never going to believe, let alone act. Some perceive (erroneously) the solutions to human contributions to global warming go against their own tangible self-interests. Others believe that the free market will cure all ills - people will conserve when they are forced to by rising costs.
I'm sure you have encountered the same. What to do but drive over them with their own Hummer? ;-)
IMO, we'll see a lot more converts in 2011. That's when the waning in the 11-yr solar sunspot cycle that has been shielding us from much of the impact of global warming these past years will turn. Next decade is going to be a tough one. However by then, our ability to prevent a lot of the very harmful consequences of global warming will be past.
I do commend you yanks who have taken very impressive steps at the local and state level. Much more impressive than many of my EU neighbor States have done. I am pessimistic about getting the USA to engage in this issue at the national level, so those efforts are all the more important. Keep up the good work!
BTW: armed with your last name and city, I found your husband's blog. It seems like your whole family is united in the cause, and that's where it all has to start.


Quinty said...

I suppose everyone has seen that the EPA has squelched the efforts many of the states are making to become energy clean?

The EPA claims it's better to have a single national standard. Never mind that there is an urgent need to move quickly on this and that California and other states are offering better, stricter measures.

The EPA's rationale only proves, yet once again, that the shelf on which the BS is kept has an endless supply.

A wringer washer, huh? I have a feint memory of having seen one. Down in the basement of my grandparents' house, along with the peddle operated sewing machine.

jazzolog said...

When we attended an EPA hearing...or listening session or something...in Meigs County, regarding construction of yet another coal-fired electric plant in this area along the Ohio, the agency representatives claimed they could not make a move unless their federal supervisors established a regulation. In some states the EPA will take initiative, but everything has to be from the top down---and all depends on what the head honcho wants to do. Here we see Bush has said the final word on carbon emissions for his last year in office (hopefully)~~~

WASHINGTON -- President Bush today defended the Environmental Protection Agency's decision to deny California's bid to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles, saying that a national strategy toward climate change is more effective than a state-by-state approach.

"The question is how to have an effective strategy," Bush said at a year-end news conference. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-epa21dec21,0,2062514.story?coll=la-home-center

Anonymous said...

The EPA duplicitous justifications for its decision to deny California permission to implement its own vehicle emission standards should be beyond belief (Some of the strictest standards to date in the world were to be enforced in California by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), following the 2002 enactment of California AB 1493, which includes regulation of greenhouse gases.)

... yet, why am I not surprised?

It's like deja-vu all over again. Different times, different issues, but the whole same dynamic.

Remember the Fugitive Slave Act, Richard? Only kidding - of course you don't, not personally, in any case. But, as your brief retrospective above served to remind me, it is a good thing to look back at history. And so, I was inspired to look even further back.

That Fugitive Slave Act era has so much in parallel with current disputes, having to do as they did then with the question of the relative powers of Congress and the States:

1850: California is admitted as free state. Utah and New Mexico are incorporated without restrictions. Domestic slave trade is prohibited in Washington DC. But the Fugitive Slave Act further strengthens Federal laws forcing free states to turn over fugitive slaves.

Southern Congressmen argued at the time that admission of California constituted a repeal of the Thomas amendment of 1820. The Fugitive Slave Act was a compromise by which the antislavery advocates gained the admission of California as a free state, and the prohibition of slave-trading in the District of Columbia. The slavery party received concessions with regard to slaveholding in Texas and the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act.

The rest is history. And (fast forwarding over the civil war) quite an uphill battle for the Civil Right Movement which eventually culminated with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

It is widely accepted nowadays - with a few rare exception - that we all are part of the human race and have equal rights, regardless of the color of our skins, and that no man is the property of any man.... right? (Hmm. Another can of worms altogether, here, when it comes to reality vs. practice.)

If you are not part of the human race, on the other hand: tough luck!

Hey, animals do not have the capacity to enter into a social contract, don't you know? Only human beings have duties. As Roger Scruton unfamously put it, "the corollary is inescapable: we alone have rights."

Some writers and animal rights groups have drawn a comparison between the treatment of animals and the Holocaust. Jewish Nobel Prize winner Isaac Bashevis Singer, wrote in Enemies, a Love Story:

As often as Herman had witnessed the slaughter of animals and fish, he always had the same thought: In their behavior toward creatures, all men were Nazis. The smugness with which man could do with other species as he pleased exemplified the most extreme racist theories, the principle that might is right.

Tom Bombadil said...

"We are very pleased with the EPA's decision to deny California's waiver application," AIAM just stated just a few hours ago, in support of Wednesday surprise announcement by Stephen Johnson.


I do not like greenhouse-gas emissions regulations
I would not like them here or there.
I would not like them anywhere.
I do not like green regulations and governor Harney
I do not like them AIAM I Am.

More about AIAM:
(In their own words):

The Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. (AIAM) is a trade association representing 14 international motor vehicle manufacturers who account for 40 percent of all passenger cars and light trucks sold annually in the United States. AIAM provides members with information, analysis and advocacy on a wide variety of legislative and regulatory issues impacting the auto sector. AIAM is dedicated to the promotion of free trade and to policies that enhance motor vehicle safety and the protection of the environment. Member companies include Aston Martin, Ferrari/Maserati, Honda, Hyundai, Isuzu, Kia, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Peugeot, Renault, Subaru, Suzuki and Toyota.

For more information, visit their website at http://www.aiam.org/.

AIAM they are!

Tom Bombadil said...

AIAM also stated that it "supports efforts to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and improve fuel economy" but believes strongly that it is the federal government's responsibility [not the States'] to establish the standards.


Well, if AIAM were so supportive of such efforts, wouldn't one expect AIAM to take the lead and show the way. Say, for instance:

"Everybody calm down, don't get your panties in a funch, people, AIAM is in fact so supportive of the need for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, that AIAM needs no stinky government regulation. As a matter of facts, the 14 international motor vehicle manufacturers of our trade association, are hereby announcing that they have unanimously decided to adopt even strictest standards than California was proposing. That's how much we care!"

Wouldn't that be some announcement?

I'd say!

(Libertarians, the whole world over, are cheering, tears in their eyes.)

On the other hand, one also can understand the reluctance of AIAM to adopt such a decision unilaterally, while their competitors remain free to do as they please. (A risky move, there. I don't know, I believe that it would be a fantastic marketing coup on the part of AIAM, and that it would ultimately pay of in the long term.)

In the meantime, people are still wondering...

Who Killed the Electric Car?

Quinty said...

Yeap. The rack on which the BS is stored has an endless supply.

Anonymous said...

Greetings Mrs. Dana Carlson,

I was pretty ticked off at your attack on me until I researched available information about your background. I surprisingly found that our viewpoints are more similar than I expected. You are apparently actively concerned about our environment, and I deeply respect that.

What you should know about me is that I'm Assistant Director for P.R.E.S.S., an anti-nuclear organization based in Portsmouth, Ohio. I'm a vegetarian. I own solar panels. I operate a no-kill, cage-free haven for homeless dogs. I recently completed the drafting of an Ohio Environmental Justice Bill in collaboration with 100's of environmentalists across Ohio and through Lois Gibbs' organization, OHEJ. And, I recently completed investigative work for Black Box Voting, a nonprofit that exposes election fraud.

I was a Democrat for 15 years until I recently switched to Republican simply to vote for Ron Paul. Ron Paul is the only candidate, Democrat or Republican that voted against The Iraq War, The Patriot Act and The Military Commissions Act. Ron Paul has never voted to fund the war, yet passed legislation to increase funding for our veterans. 70% of our troops support Ron Paul, as 70%of our troops know the war is bogus, and want the hell out of Iraq. Ron Paul is not a right wing neocon. He is a true Republican that respects the Constitution which expresses that Congress has the authority to declare war, not the President.

Regarding Global Warming. I initially bought the carbon dioxide induced global warming theory until I extensively researched both sides of the debate. Upon this research, I had to swallow my ego and admit that the science behind this theory is junk science perpetrated through scientists funded by grantors who basically say, "Here's a million dollars. Prove carbon dioxide induced global warming."

Why? Because these grantors are banks and governments with special interests in creating new taxes. The World Bank, in particular, and by the way with a horrible environmental track record, has set itself up to extract billions indefinitely off of commissions on taxes brokered on behalf of governments.

This royally ticks me off, as this is a major distraction from the largest, most mammoth polluters on the planet....banks and governments. Our own U.S. government takes the lead as the largest emmitter of mercury, hexafluoride, plutonium, depleted uranium and a host of other highly toxic and radioactive elements into the air, soil and water.

I'll forward you my original 6 page letter to the editor that is well footnoted with scientific fact.

One fact not included in this letter, as I recently discovered this, is that this is the coldest winter on record.

Maybe we can compare research over coffee at The Donkey or Village Bakery?

My hope is that we can work out our differences, and work together to fight real, human induced pollution, as I agree with you, we are walking on a tightrope.

Terri Ann Smith
(304) 429-2053

jazzolog said...

Well, is this a fine kettle of fish...or maybe, not to mix metaphors, is the sweater being knit by this thread going to be wearable? Once or twice I've been involved in fairly private disagreements on the Internet that have spilled out into public areas, but not quite anything like this. I'll split my remarks up into 3 comments, hopefully maintaining the stance of a historian rather than arbiter or anything like that.

First of all, there is Terry Smith and there is Terri Smith. Terry Smith is mentioned in the main article here, as editor of a twice-weekly newspaper in Athens, Ohio. Terri (Ann) Smith is the author of the comment just above...which may very well be a copy of a letter to Terry Smith.

What she is talking about is not the article Dana wrote last December, when this post showed up here, but a letter Dana wrote that appeared in the Athens News on Monday. That letter was a reply to one referred to by Ms. Smith that was published last month.

The Donkey and the Village Bakery are 2 local establishments that I'm sure we all agree should be recommended to any visitors to our town. Anyway---here, in 2 following comments, are the letters, Terri's first~~~

jazzolog said...

Letter: Look behind the global-warming movement, and be amazed
February 25, 2008

In 2003, Ron Paul didn’t buy the “consensus” of government scientists in the debate over weapons of mass destruction. Now, Ron Paul remains skeptical of the “consensus” of scientists pushing the theory of carbon dioxide induced global warming.

Ron Paul recognizes propaganda schemes perpetrated through regulatory capture. Regulatory capture is the process through which Big Business and Big Government collude to monopolize markets.

Regarding Iraq, lobbyists like the World Bank, Halliburton, etc., lobbied years in advance of the invasion. See PNAC (Project for a New American Century) documents signed by Dick Cheney, then Halliburton CEO (he still draws $100,000 pension), and Paul Wolfowitz, World Bank CEO. This policy ensured Halliburton’s no-bid contracts and the World Bank’s profits as the largest investor in fossil fuels.

Now, the stage is set again to cheat developed nations out of billions in carbon taxes, force developing nations out of their energy reserves through restrictions on development, and ironically promote nuclear power, not alternative energy.

Some facts:

Ice-core drilling research proves that increased carbon dioxide follows warming temperatures.

Some 19,000 scientists refute carbon dioxide-induced global warming. See: www.oism.org. These scientists outline evidence and the socioeconomic status of developing nations that can’t compete in the U.N.’s cap-and-trade system, either financially or under the strict regulations imposed.

The U.N.’s IPCC is fraudulently promoting that their 2,500 scientists confirm carbon-dioxide-induced global warming. Numerous IPCC scientists are not in agreement and have resigned.

The World Bank is the prime financier of the IPCC. In turn, the IPCC pimps the carbon tax while the World Bank appoints itself the world’s “official carbon tax broker,” and has positioned itself to extract billions from their 8 percent commission. Schizophrenically, the World Bank invests billions into fossil fuels.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) awards billions of tax dollars to institutions to promote the carbon tax. One example is Scripps Institute that claimed the global warming debate is over. Through the reversal of the scientific principle, Scripps announced their “conclusion” that carbon dioxide causes global warming, and that they’ll reveal their study soon.

Another example is the Virginia Institute of Marine Science that received a $4,290,000 NSF grant in 2003 to study global warming. This grant dwarfed their other grants combined for that year by millions.

Al Gore’s company, GIM, designed to broker carbon credits and invest in alternative energy, instead invests the majority of its holdings in pharmaceutical, insurance and nuclear technology. Gore’s book “Earth in Balance” touts “clean” nuclear energy. Al Gore is Oak Ridge National Laboratories’ tool for covering up the nuclear industry’s real damage to the ozone and phytoplankton cycles through massive releases of Freon in prior decades.

Terri Ann Smith

jazzolog said...

Letter: Global-warming skeptic relied on sketchy online misinformation
March 10, 2008

Where to start, to shine the light of actual fact on Ron Paul supporter and global-warming skeptic Terri Ann Smith and her mishmash of a letter (The Athens NEWS, Feb. 25)?

Let’s begin with that Web site she urged us to visit: www.oism.org. According to SourceWatch (Center for Media and Democracy), the so-called Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine is run by conservative Arthur Robinson – a biochemist, NOT a climate scientist, who is the only paid staff scientist. He and his home-schooled sons (also paid staff members) sell a home-schooling kit for “parents concerned about socialism in the public schools,” treatises on how to survive a nuclear war, and links to an online discussion group called RobinsonUsers4Christ and a creationist Web site.

Those “19,000 scientists” she cites as refuting carbon dioxide-induced global warming? Spice Girl Geri Halliwell was a signer – her field is “biology.” Other signers included Drs. Frank Burns, B.J. Honeycutt, and Benjamin Pierce (from the TV show “M*A*S*H”), and Al Caruba, a pesticide-industry public-relations man.

The whole petition is a joke: more than 10 years ago Arthur Robinson self-published a pseudopaper claiming that putting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere would be great for plants. OISM did a massive mailing, putting out a reprint – pretending it was associated with the National Academy of Sciences and had been peer reviewed – with a petition urging signers to reject the Kyoto Protocol. Other “co-authors” of the pseudo-paper were Robinson’s 22-year-old son Zackary, and Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon, both with deep ties to right-wing think tanks and oil corporations.

How about that claim that increased carbon dioxide is great for plant growth? According to research at Stanford University: “Researchers concluded that elevated atmospheric CO2 actually reduces plant growth when combined with other likely consequences of climate change – namely, higher temperatures, increased precipitation or increased nitrogen deposits in the soil.” – ScienceDaily, Dec. 6, 2002.

I won’t bother with the rest of Terri Ann’s “facts.” It’s not her fault the right-wing deniers do a bang up job of gluing complete fabrications together with smidgens of hyperbole and then getting bloggers to stick it all over the Internet, where poor, uneducated suckers swallow it hook, line, and sinker.

Wise up, people. Global warming isn’t going away just because you don’t want to believe in it.

Dana Carlson

Anonymous said...

1) Dennis Kucinich voted against the The Iraq War, The Patriot Act and The Military Commissions Act. If you're truly a Democrat, he should have been your candidate of choice. More than that, he advocated a Department of Peace- which I'm sure Ron Paul would have vetoed since he's against all federal government (though he accepts his Fed government salary)
Of course, Paul gets plenty of earmarks in for own district- in fact he leads the Houston area congressional delegation in earmarks. Can you say HYPOCRITE?

2) Reading government conspiracy websites IS NOT 'extensively researching both sides of the debate'. This debate is about science- and climate scientists who HAVEN'T been seduced by corporate payoffs. Real climatologists look at data- lots of data- and then report what they find- not what their whoremasters want them to find. Real climatologists are finding that the real data is even scarier than their computer models forecast- lots scarier.

3) Where did you get the 'fact' that this is 'the coldest winter on record'?

4) Per your phone message: don't you think Robinson probably removed the names from the petition after it was publicised that anybody and their aunt could (and did) add names?


Anonymous said...


Answers to your inquiries and assumptions:

1. I love Dennis Kucinich and planned whole-heartidly on devoting several days a week to his campaign. Then he came out with his legislation to ban handguns, and I had to drop him.
while I'm a nonviolent person, and won't even swat an insect (except fleas and mosquitoes), the reality is crime rates are statistically far greater in cities that don't allow their citizens fair protection against criminals. New York City & D.C., the latter with the highest violent crime rate per capita in the U.S. are telling examples. Many women pathetically sleep with clubs under their beds. Here in the U.S., I've been endangered three times by thugs, and had to solve the situations myself, as in all incidents, it took police over thiry minutes to arrive at the scenes. Back to Dennis, he dropped out and is not a candidate anymore, anyway. However, I still support most of his legislation. Regarding Ron Paul, Ron isn't against ALL Federal Government, he's against BIG Federal Government, which is why he's voted against all congressional salary increases throughout his twenty years in Congress, yet voted to substantially increase funding for veterans to match inflation.

2. It concerns me when you make unfounded assumptions regarding where I obtain my research. My original global warming analysis (with all the footnotes) that I offered to forward to you--if you offered your email--contains research from The Securities and Exchange Commission, Greenpeace, IPCC scientists, Scripps Institute, Al Gore, etc. Yes, I include evidence from both sides of the spectrum in attempts to view the fullest picture possible. It might benefit you to read the conclusions of Thomas Geilla, a climate scientist, a client of Erin Brokovich in a lawsuit against polluting corporations, and a global warming denier.

3. You asked where I got my fact that this is the coldest winter on record? The answer: MSNBC, CNN, REUTERS, ASSOCIATED PRESS, BBC & THE WEATHER CHANNEL. Yep, all conspiracy websites.

4. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine screens all signatories of their petition for credibility. Try signing it yourself and see if your name adheres immediately.

In closing, what happened to my last post?

Terri Ann Smith
(304) 429-2053

Anonymous said...


The New York Times and USA Today are also reporting this winter as unusually cold.

Terri Ann Smith
(304) 429-2053

jazzolog said...

This is to the Anonymous named Terri, regarding what happened to your "last post." I find the basic format here at Blogger or Blogspot, or whatever it's called, difficult and unpredictable compared to other such sites. It may be I could fashion this thing more to my liking if I took the time and learned more about how to work it. It might also help if I still weren't using dial-up (like most of the rest of the known world). Furthermore, at some point jazzoLOG stopped showing what dates the comments were posted...and only shows the time on the clock of the unknown day. I don't know how to fix that.

At any rate Terri before your replies just above, only the one post previous arrived here. It still stands above the 3 I added, 2 of which merely copied the letters in the Athens News.

I never click Publish Your Comment without copying what I wrote first, because half the time they don't show up and I have to try it again. Do you think there was one that you wrote that got lost that way?

Anonymous said...

I love Dennis Kucinich and planned whole-heartidly on devoting several days a week to his campaign. Then he came out with his legislation to ban handguns,and I had to drop him.while I'm a nonviolent person, and won't even swat an insect (except fleas and mosquitoes),

------- Oh- non-violent, indeed- until you start shooting...------

Regarding Ron Paul, Ron isn't against ALL Federal Government, he's against BIG Federal Government,

------ Right. He's not against earmarks for HIS constituents-- just against money for- say- rebulding New Orleans levees. That's despite the 10 EARMARKS IN THE WATER RESOURCES BILL FOR PTOJECTS IN HIS OWN DISTRICT.

Terri Ann- can you say 'hypocrite'?
Oh- probably not--------

My original global warming analysis (with all the footnotes) that I offered to forward to you--if you offered your email--contains research from The Securities and Exchange Commission, Greenpeace, IPCC scientists, Scripps Institute, Al Gore, etc.

--------so post it here. Or at least the URLs. (I'm not sending you my email address.)------

It might benefit you to read the conclusions of Thomas Geilla

-------I can't find anything online about such a person. Even when changing the spelling to Giella, all that appears is that he's a 'Retired Space & Atmospheric Weather Forecaster'and from his profile:'Summary: Meteorologist 35 years, weather observing hobbyist 43 years, ham radio operator 19 years.(a meterologist- not a climatologist)- and nowhere can I find that this GIELLA person has published in any peer-reviewed journals. (Though it appears you could care less whether your sources are legitimate or not- as long as they conform to your expectations)------

You asked where I got my fact that this is the coldest winter on record? The answer: MSNBC, CNN, REUTERS, ASSOCIATED PRESS, BBC & THE WEATHER CHANNEL. Yep, all conspiracy websites.

-------give me the links to articles that make such a statement- otherwise I'll be forced to think you have very faulty recollection------

The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine screens all signatories of their petition for credibility. Try signing it yourself and see if your name adheres immediately.

------I've already kicked your ass on OISM and its bullshit petition,Terri Ann. Read some more about it and weep:


The petition was sponsored by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM), which, according to PR Watch, describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine, and the molecular biology of aging." Arthur Robinson, who founded OISM, was the lead author of a paper accompanying the petition, which asserted that the effects of increased levels of carbon dioxide are "a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution." The Associated Press reported on April 30, 1998, that Robinson is "a physical chemist" who "acknowledges he has done no direct research into global warming." The New York Times reported on April 22, 1998, that the paper "was printed in a format and type face similar" to that of the journal of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) -- which subsequently disassociated itself from the paper, saying, "that the petition had 'nothing to do' with the academy and that the article was never published in the academy's journal," and clarifying that the petition "does not reflect the conclusion of expert reports of the academy."

Also circulated with the petition was a letter from Frederick Seitz, the former NAS president. Seitz's letter warned that "[t]he United States is very close to adopting" the Kyoto Protocol, which, according to Seitz, "would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds." Seitz added that "there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful." A June 5, 2000, item in Business Week reported that "[f]or 28 years, Seitz was also a paid director and shareholder of Ogden Corp., an operator of coal-burning power plants that stands to lose financially should the Kyoto Protocol become law." Business Week reported that Seitz "sold most of his 11,500 shares" of Ogden in 1999 -- after promoting the petition in 1998.

Further, as Media Matters has noted, many of the signatures on the petition apparently belong to people who are not climate experts. In its April 22, 1998, article, the Times reported, "Of the 15,000 signers of the petition [at the time], Dr. Robinson said, about 2,100 were physicists, geophysicists, climatologists and meteorologists, 'and of those the greatest number are physicists.' " According to a May 1, 1998, AP article, the petition at one time included the names, "Drs. 'Frank Burns,' 'Honeycutt' and 'Pierce' (Remember the trio from M*A*S*H?), not to mention the Spice Girl, a.k.a. Geraldine Halliwell, who was on the petition as 'Dr. Geri Halliwel' and again as simply 'Dr. Halliwell.' "

Anonymous said...

Hi Dana,

Reuters reports Afghanistan's coldest winter on record in 2008 (900 Dead):


If your in a hurry for the New York Times, USA Today and other articles, just google the name of the publication along with "coldest winter 2008".

This blog won't accomodate copy/paste, so it makes it a pain to forward info here. If you want to forward me a temporary hotmail address--you can create those in a few seconds--I'll send you answers for your newest assumptions and inquiries immediately.

If not, give me a couple of days to refute your latest attacks.

I've got a busy weekend ahead.


Terri Ann Smith
(304) 429-2053

Anonymous said...

Hi Dana,

It looks like the Reuters URL I posted was sliced off at the end during the transfer.

Well, just google "Reuters" "coldest winter Afghanistan", and it will come up.

Also, I think most of the mainstream media has recently covered China's, Canada's and other countries' record snowfalls and cold snaps.

It's all over the internet and broadcast news.


jazzolog said...

I'd like to congratulate Terri for continuing discussion this morning, following Dana's reply yesterday that contained language I consider unsuitable to this forum. When I spoke to Dana about it, she said she would have toned down the nature of her remarks by editing but this site provides deletion only which privilege I guess is for members alone. Apparently visitors can't do even that.

I consider hospitality to be the hallmark of civilized discussion and behavior, and I insist upon it at jazzoLOG. I realize tempers flare in the heat of argument, but the temptation for instant response on the Internet needs to be resisted...particularly if you can't edit. Generally the tone in blogs is more congenial than the rough and tumble of message boards, which is where Dana does most of her debating.

This is a valuable conversation, and I for one will be very interested to learn how this winter ranks in history and whether its weather is proof positive of global warming. They say Spring is coming next week.

Dana said...

Reuters reports Afghanistan's coldest winter on record in 2008 (900 Dead):

------No, Terri Ann, it isn't the coldest winter ON RECORD. From your article it says:

Afghanistan's harshest winter in recent living memory (Source: Reuters)

From another article: Coldest winter in 30 years (in Afghanistan)


This is why you have little credibility. You can't figure out that there IS a difference between 'coldest on record' and 'in recent living memory'or
'in 30 years'

But that's Afganistan. Let's look at Northern Europe, where they actually ARE having the WARMEST winter ON RECORD:

"It's the warmest winter ever" recorded, said John Ekwall of the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute.

In December, January and February, the average temperature in Stockholm was 36 degrees—the highest on record since record-keeping began in 1756.
(get that? warmest EVER recorded)


How about S. Florida? Second warmest on record:

South Florida is experiencing its warmest winter since 1932.

The National Weather Service reported Monday that the past three months represent the second-warmest winter on record in Miami and Fort Lauderdale. (Records in Miami go back to 1895)


And last year was the WARMEST on record worldwide:

World sees warmest winter ever
Associated Press
Saturday, March 17, 2007
WASHINGTON — This winter was the warmest on record worldwide,


Dana said...

Also, I think most of the mainstream media has recently covered China's, Canada's and other countries' record snowfalls

------- Increased snowfall is expected with global warming:


An increase in global temperatures will lead to an intensification of the hydrological cycle. This is because an increase in surface air temperature causes an increase in evaporation and generally higher levels of water vapor in the atmosphere. In addition, a warmer atmosphere is capable of holding more water vapor. The excess water vapor will in turn lead to more frequent heavy precipitation when atmospheric instability is sufficient to trigger precipitation events. Intense precipitation can result in flooding, soil erosion, landslides, and damage to structures and crops.

Parallel to the likely increase in heavy precipitation events in winter, increased temperatures will also amplify the drying out of soils and vegetation due to increased evaporation in the summer. This is likely to result in more severe and widespread droughts where and when atmospheric conditions do not favor precipitation (see Droughts and Wildfires).

The largest changes in precipitation are expected at mid- to- high latitudes (Kattenberg et al., 1996). Climate models predict an increase in average precipitation in winter at high latitudes due to poleward transport of evaporated moisture from lower latitudes. There is also an increase in the expected frequency and areal extent of intense precipitation over the continents. Predictions for soil moisture changes are less certain; however, models show an increase in soil moisture in high northern latitudes in winter.

Consistent with model predictions, weather observations over the last century indeed indicate an increase in precipitation over land in the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere (Nicholls et al., 1996). For the United States, precipitation since 1970 has averaged about 5% more than in the previous 70 years (Karl et al., 1996), and cold season precipitation has increased by almost 10% during the last century. Over the period 1950 to 1990, annual snowfall increased by about 20% over northern Canada and by about 11% over Alaska (Groisman and Easterling, 1994). An increase in snowfall was also observed in the 1960s and 1970s in China. A recent analysis indicates a trend toward increasing streamflow in most regions of the United States (Lins and Slack, 1999), consistent with the observations of a wetter climate.

Some regions have also experienced an increase in extreme precipitation events, as predicted in model simulations (Nicholls et al., 1996). Observations for the last 100 years indicate that extreme precipitation events (more than 2 inches in 24 hours) in the United States have increased by about 20% (Karl and Knight, 1998). Increases in heavy precipitation have also been reported for Japan and northeastern Australia. An increase in the intensity of precipitation increases flood potential. Although streamflow has increased significantly in the United States since the 1940s, however, there has been no increase in peak flows (Lins and Slack, 1999). Further analysis is needed to reconcile the discrepancy between the findings that the increase in US precipitation has been due primarily to an increase in heavy precipitation (Karl and Knight, 1998) and the analysis that streamflows have become less extreme (Lins and Slack, 1999).

Although it is impossible to link a particular weather event directly to increased greenhouse gases, the heavy precipitation events highlighted on the map are examples of the kind of situations that are expected to become more frequent as climate warms. The magnitude of the human influence relative to natural variability is much larger for temperature compared to precipitation and atmospheric circulation, meaning that a "fingerprint" of anthropogenic warming in precipitation records will emerge much more slowly (Wigley et al., 1999). It may be decades before an unmistakable human signal emerges from the natural background noise.

Groisman P.Y. and D.R Easterling, 1994. Variability and trends of precipitation and snowfall over the United States and Canada, Journal of Climate 7, 184-205.

Karl, T. R, R.W. Knight, D.R. Easterling, and R.G. Quayle, 1996. Indices of climate change for the United States, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 77 (2), 279-292.

Karl, T.R. and R.W. Knight, 1998. Secular trends of precipitation amount, frequency, and intensity in the United States., Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 79 (2), 231-241.

Kattenberg, A., F. Giorgi, H. Grassl, G.A. Meehl, J.F.B. Mitchell, R.J. Stouffer, T. Tokioka, A.J. Weaver, and T.M.L. Wigley, 1996. Climate models - projections of future climate, in Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change, 285-357, (Eds J. T. Houghton, L. G. M. Filho, B. A. Callander, N. Harris, A. Kattenberg, and K. Maskell) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Lins, H.F. and J.R. Slack, 1999. Streamflow trends in the United States, Geophysical Research Letters 26 (2), 227-230.

Nicholls, N., G.V. Gruza, J. Jouzel, T.R. Karl, L.A. Ogallo, and D.E. Parker, 1996. Observed climate variability and change, in Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change, (Eds J.T. Houghton, L.G.M. Filho, B.A. Callander, N. Harris, A. Kattenberg, and K. Maskell), 133-192, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Wigley, T.M.L., 1999. The Science of Climate Change: Global and U.S. Perspectives. Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Arlington, Virginia, 48 p.

Anonymous said...

Hi Dana,

Good point about Afghanistan's "coldest winter on record". You are right about this, I missed "recent" in "recent living memory". Insigificant, honest mistakes hardly detract from credibility, and being able to admit mistakes aids to a more expedient path to enlightenment.

Yes, as you have proven, this is the coldest winter in Afghanistan in thiry years (900 dead). So, can give you me a scientific explanation, when carbon dioxide is constantly increasing in the atmosphere?

As per your preferred scientists' uncertain predictions regarding increased precipitation, my question to you is the same as my question is to any supporter of the carbon dioxide induced global warming theory: CAN YOU REFER ME TO AN ABSOLUTE SCIENTIFIC CONCLUSION BASED ON THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD THAT SHOWS CARBON DIOXIDE INCREASES AIR OR WATER TEMPERATURES IN A CONTROLLED SETTING? MOST OF THE "SCIENCE" SUPPORTING THIS THEORY IS BASED ON COMPUTER MODELS, NOT REAL LIFE.

Also, why is it that after I refered you to mainstream news articles reporting China's coldest winter in 100 years, and Afghanistan's coldest winter in 30 years, that you rebutt with the the a couple of cities that had slightly warmer than usual temperatures? Do you have any significant rebuttals? If so, please forward.

As per your attack on the only man fit to be President, Ron Paul, your insults are unresearched and unfounded. You called Ron a hypocrite because he accepts earmarks for his congressional district, yet votes against the policy of earmarks, as he's voted down every appropriations bill throughout his 20 years in Congress. If you thought this through, you would understand that regardless of Ron Paul's stance on appropriations, Congress continues to suppport the bills, and forces the taxpayers to pay for them. This includes the taxpayers in Ron Paul's district. So, Paul is legitimately demanding back funds for his constituents that he considers stolen in the first place. It's like, let's say, I'm opposed to the policy of social security--because it's widely mismanaged and unfair--well, the government still forces me (basically at gun point) to turn over thousands of dollars every year for the program, so yah, when it's my turn to collect it, your darn right I'm going to.

So, do you have any significant argument against The Ron Paul Campaign? If so, please forward.

By the way, Did you know that Ron Paul is receiving the same congressional salary he did 20 years ago despite his opportunity to accept several raises? And, did you know that Ron refuses the congressional pension plan?

He's so awesome. I love him.

In closing, is there a way to copy/paste on this blog?

I'd love to forward numerous references, but I really don't have the time to retype them all.

Have you considered forwarding me a temporary email address yet?



jazzolog said...

Am I in the room? Since neither Dana nor Terri is acknowledging my little interjections, I think I'll just stay out of this---unless fur starts flying again.

Terri, copy and paste works fine in the comment box. Of course anybody who has a lot to say can set up her own blog here or somewhere. It can be fun!

Anonymous said...

Hi Dana,

Media Matters has a history of reporting leftist disinfo and spinning, and has misquoted Dr. Robinson of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. The New York times is notoriously leftist, and can't be relied on to tell the complete truth about conservatives, much like FOX can't be relied on to report the complete truth about liberals.

If you review the signatories on OISM'S petition, AND UPON YOUR OWN RESEARCH, you will find that, indeed, 19,000 scientists refute carbon dioxide induced global warming.

Your argument against Seitz makes no sense, as you admit he dropped the coal company conflict of interest to fight the global warming hoax.

Regarding Thomas Giella, he is a climateologist, along with several years expertise in other atmospheric sciences. Did you review his conclusions? They're based on the scientific method, not computer models. And, he is a client of Erin Brokovich in a lawsuit against polluting corporations, which is a good indicator that he has no ties to industry.

And, have you checked with The Securities and Exchange Commission about Al Gore's carbon brokerage company, GIM? GIM invests in insurance megacorps, pharmacutical megacorps and GE for nuclear technology. Where's the investment in alternative energy?

Dana, if you try real hard, swallow your ego, and follow the money, you can figure out that this this global warming hysteria is promoted by scientists that are in turn heavily funded by central banks and the governments that they own. These central banks, (primarily The World Bank) stand to make billions indefinitely off of you, me and every other taxpayer on the globe through their commissions on the coming global carbon tax. Our representatives are ready extract money from everyone based on their carbon footprint. We are being set up to be taxed for the very air that we exhale, and the gas that plants and forests thrive on.
Carbon Dioxide is a natural atmospheric gas, not a pollutant.



Anonymous said...

Mr. Carlson,

Thank you for you objective mediation! I haven't lost any more posts per your recommendations. It may be my antique Windows 98 that won't let me copy/paste on this particular blog. Maybe I'll try a friend's updated computer.


Dana said...

Media Matters has a history of reporting leftist disinfo and spinning, and has misquoted Dr. Robinson of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. The New York times is notoriously leftist, and can't be relied on to tell the complete truth about conservatives, much like FOX can't be relied on to report the complete truth about liberals.

-------- I pity you, Terri Ann. A rightwing dupe isn't a pretty sight. I've wasted enough time on your absurdity.

Dana said...

A parting gift:

Winter has been warmer than average
By Randolph E. Schmid, AP Science Writer | March 13, 2008

WASHINGTON --Winter storms and snow notwithstanding, this winter was still warmer than average worldwide, the government reported Thursday.

The global temperature for meteorological winter -- December, January and February -- averaged 54.38 degrees Fahrenheit, 0.58 degrees warmer than normal for the last century, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported.

Temperatures have been rising over recent years, raising concerns about the effects of global warming, generally attributed to human-induced impacts on the atmosphere.

While it was warmer than normal, the just completed winter was the coolest since 2000-2001, which climate experts attributed to the presence of moderate-to-strong La Nina, or cooling of the tropical Pacific Ocean, which can affect conditions around the world.

For the United States, this winter's average temperature was 33.2 degrees, 0.2 degrees above the 20th century average.

NOAA's National Climatic Data Center said winter temperatures were warmer than average from Texas to the Southeast and along the Eastern Seaboard, while cooler-than-average temperatures stretched from much of the upper Midwest to the West Coast.

The agency said the winter was unusual for the above average rain and snowfall in the Southwest, where La Nina usually brings drier-than-average conditions.

For example, in January 170 inches of snow fell at the Alta ski area near Salt Lake City, Utah, more than twice the normal amount for the month, topping the record of 168 inches that fell in 1967.

Mountain snowpack exceeded 150 percent of average in large parts of Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, and Oregon at the end of February. Spring run-off from the above average snowpack in the West is expected to be beneficial in drought plagued areas.

In the Northeast, February rain and snow helped make the winter the fifth wettest on record for the region. New York had its wettest winter, while Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Vermont, and Colorado to the West, had their second wettest.

Some locations had record winter snow totals including Burlington, Vt., which received 103.2 inches, 6.3 inches above the previous record set during the winter of 1970-71.

Global winter highlights included:

-- Severe winter storms struck southern China; the causes are still under study.

-- Record Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent in January was followed by unusually high temperatures across much of the mid- and high-latitude areas of the Northern Hemisphere in February, reducing the snow cover. By the end of February, snow cover extent was below average in many parts of the hemisphere.

-- February was the 61st warmest in the contiguous U.S. and 15th warmest globally on record

Anonymous said...

Hi Dana,

Here's my parting gift:

Wow, what a spin job by the government junk scientists.

I'm impressed.

So, the government scientists have proven this winter is the coldest in the U.S. since 2001, but that the average temperature based on the overall century's stats in the U.S. has increased by a fifth of a degree. This is alarming.

Tell me Dana--oh wait, your done with me, so anyone else viewing who can tell me--has anyone died yet from this fifth of a degree increase? Can this fifth of a degree increase in the U.S. really be called global warming when the massive country, China, just reported their coldest winter in 100 years? Is there any provable detriment to mankind from this fifth of a degree increase in the U.S.?

Yah, Dana's good buddies at NOAA seem to be stumped about this China business. They'll be working all week to try to come up with some good story. They're probably manipulating their computer models as we speak. Can't lose that grant money!

I can't wait for the upcoming fairy tale.


Terri Ann Smith
(304) 429-2053

jazzolog said...

I gather Dana will not be continuing discussion here so, Ms. Smith, I'll add something at this point. I take a little different approach to conservatives, Libertarians, and Evangelicals than my wife. I've found over the years that, while a basic difference exists in our outlook at humanity, there are many bridges to build in areas where we find agreement. I think that is true today more than ever. It was Libertarians and the Green Party, and not Democrats, who joined together in 2004 to protest possible corruption of that Presidential election.

Eventually we must go toe to toe over whether or not government and regulation are good or evil. But in the meantime there is plenty of room for agreement as to what the basic problems are for our society and the world. I cannot bring myself to question whether global warming exists. Any day of the week I can open an online edition of a major world newspaper and find new evidence. If I look in Sunday's UK Independent I find immediately a story about glaciers melting. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/glacier-ice-loss-at-record-levels-796623.html I don't doubt the planet goes through warming cycles, but never before has such a thing occured so quickly. Nor do I doubt that human industrialization has caused as yet untolled effects upon our physical and psychological makeup---to say nothing of the Earth. It's a complicated subject, and it does require some study to understand. People who simply step outside the front door, stick a finger up in the air, and then mock us tree-huggers just don't get it---and are an increasing liability.

I'm not sure where you're located...as your letters say Athens, your phone is West Virginia, and you say you work in Portsmouth. But whatever the situation, I hope we do meet up someday. I guess Dana doesn't approve of an appointment or something, but I'm sure the conversation we would have would be pleasant and productive. Thanks for livening up the olde jazzoLOG.

Anonymous said...

Greetings Richard Carlson,

I'm in Athens half of the time, and Huntington half of the time, as my mother lives in Huntington. I travel to Portsmouth periodically to volunteer for P.R.E.S.S. (Portsmouth/Piketon Residents for Environmental Safety and Security) to help protest and investigate the massive DOE nuclear operation there, and its polluting, transnational mega-corporation "revoling door" cronies.

Regarding global warming, there is no doubt that all of the planets in the solar system have warmed slightly this last century due to a doubling of sunspot activity according to NASA.

As of a few months ago, NASA has reported a decrease in sunspot activity, and thus the ensuing cooler temperatures this year, and a return of ice to the polar regions.

Regarding the damage to the ocean's plankton, it's not carbonic acid, as carbonic acid is a necessity for ocean plantlife, just as carbon dioxide is a necessity for land plantlife.

Phytoplankton damage is caused by a significant inrease of UVB rays that is in turn caused by a thinning of the ozone that is again in turn caused by the careless releases of Freon from the Nuclear Industry throughout the 60's, 70's and 80's.

This is why this carbon dioxide issue annoys the genuinely independent scientists that are free from pecuniary interests in nuclear industry, government or the central banks promoting the "carbon dioxide induced" global warming theory and the lucrative carbon tax. It isn't simply a right/left political issue. It's a "follow the money" issue.

A fun documentary to view is THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE on google video. It's only 50 minutes or so, and contains interviews with former IPCC scientists, the Founder of Greenpeace, NASA scientists and more.

Check it out when you have time, and let me know what you think!



jazzolog said...

Thanks Terri for continuing the dialogue. What I've learned is the major symptom of Climate Change ("global warming" is probably a confusing term for it) is radical weather developments. These are things we CAN observe by looking out the window or stepping out one's front door. If the temperature is jumping up and down 40 degrees day after day, something different is happening.

The news the past couple days has been about the disappearance of "old" sea ice. Among those most naturally concerned are residents on both sides of the Barent Strait. Here's something from the Russian side~~~ http://www.barentsobserver.com/old-arctic-ice-vanishing.4469033-16149.html

The BBC is carrying the same story~~~ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7303385.stm

Grist has other details~~~ http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/20/124455/687

There's a blog at The New York Times where evidence also mounts, but you'll find doubts registered in the comments. For someone with your concerns, this might be a valuable resource for us to watch day by day~~~ http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/a-farewell-to-ice/?hp

A Good Friday to you and Happy Birthday Bach!

Blogger said...

You might qualify for a new government sponsored solar energy rebate program.
Discover if you are eligble now!