Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

CLIMATE: We all need a ‘can do’ attitude

Letter by David L. Lambert, Tacoma on Jan. 4, 2012 at 11:48 am with 51 Comments »
January 4, 2012 12:56 pm

The article, “Volunteers document rising tides” (TNT, 1-1), was informative and thought-provoking.

I was particularly impressed with volunteer photographer Suzi Wong Swint, who lives on Camano Island and is deeply involved in helping document the rising tides on that island. Her “can do” attitude, healthy perspective and constructive actions are extremely admirable, given the tremendous challenge that climate change poses for all.

Swint provides a positive role model for each of us to do what we can in our individual lives to make a difference in acting to reduce the impacts on our ever-warming home planet.

Leave a comment Comments → 51
  1. ItalianSpring says:

    LOL. Global warming- hahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhaha

  2. Publico says:

    When an intelligent letter gets a response similar to the one posted by ItalianSpring we get a first hand look at what anti-intellectualism looks like.
    Laughing at global warming and the climate change that will be difficult for a lot of people does not present a reasoned approach.

  3. ItalianSpring says:

    ROFLMAO. hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

  4. concernedtacoma7 says:

    They were photographing an annual event caused by moon. Some eco-warrior.

    And how many times does global warming have to debunked? Even the radicals have switched to ‘climate change’, another mystical tale that cannot be proven by science.

    US produce less carbon in 2010 then in 2000. Find a new cause.

  5. Bandito says:

    This letter raises the bar. Volunteers should be acknowledged for their unselfish dedication. This is a welcome letter at a time when many of the letters are divisive and many of the posts to these letters juvenile.

  6. Pacman33 says:

    “They were photographing an annual event caused by moon. Some eco-warrior.”
    That’s good stuff right there. Too funny.
    The alarmists are reaching now. Can you blame them.

    These people developed a theory triggered by the warming trend that, in fact, debunked the old Ice Age Scare. To their chagrin there has been no warming of the planet since 1998, and instead a cooling period started in 2001 that continues to this day. The current cooling trend is now only 6 years shy in equaling the longevity of the warming period that the alarmists initially were reacting to.

    To add insult to injury, this cooling phase has taken place during a 5% increase in global CO2 emission. In addition, recent hurricane seasons have been graded as merely average. The global climate conditions have effectively exposed the alarmist as fearmongering imposters.

    Have they given up their disgraceful assault on science? Nope.

    The shameless alarmist would have the audacity to suggest the only notable impact they have made, the current third-world famine, was caused by …… you guessed it Global Climate Warming Change.

  7. concernedtacoma7 says:

    The result of the last ‘climate change’ conference? Another conference in an exotic locale.

    Al Gore should be proud while he spends he 1% monies.

  8. “During king tides, scientists can see how rising sea levels, caused by changes in the climate, could affect the state’s coastline. Ecology officials hope to document sea levels with the help of photographers around the state.”

    Congrats to concernedtacoma7 for not comprehending the value of the seasonal high tide. While it is true that tides are always higher during this time of the year, who would want to measure the impact of rising water during a low tide? It’s tough to measure a continually moving target.

  9. SadujTogracse says:

    Some people like being debunked over and over and over again.

  10. aislander says:

    So…did Chicken Little propose a solution to his perception that the sky was falling that involved empowering a dictatorial bureaucracy and wrecking the private economy, which is really the ONLY economy?

  11. journals.tdl.org/ICCE/article/download/1357/pdf_334

    Sometimes you miss what is right in your own backyard.

  12. Use the link as a search

  13. SandHills says:

    Self-righteous obsessives is a general description of all those who want everyone else to live “green”. Commonsense. Tells me that no matter what we do in the developed world to reduce our ” footprint” ((and all these batteries for cars, cellphones are not doing that) then the growing populations of the undeveloped or developing world is overtaking any of those efforts by just putting food in their mouths and breeding more.

  14. Spiderweb says:

    “Commonsense. Tells me that no matter what we do…”

    “Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.” Albert Einstein

    “wrecking the private economy” What was that about Chicken Little?

  15. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Since America is getting cleaner despite a growing population, the extremist talk of climate change has nothing to do us but taking our money.

    Anyone who has traveled to Asia or the Middle East can tell you it is obvious we are not the threat to the environment.

    Even if one is libertarian, they see the value in clean water and air, the need for regulations on industry. But there is a balance between cost/benefit that the environmentalists ignore.

  16. Global warming denial is a worldwide delusion spread by the scientifically illiterate on the scientifically underinformed, fueled by a million web pages that predict that nothing unusual is happening.

  17. BlaineCGarver says:

    Before AlGore ran with Clinton, he was in lockstep with a Conservative Tenn. When he saw an opportunity to cash in on a trend, he took it. He cannot be trusted to care about anything but his bottom line.

  18. BlaineCGarver says:

    The earth will warm and cool as it will, and Liberals might as well get used to the idea that we can’t do much about it. YES to a healthy earth, NO to this climate change BS.

  19. keepinitreal says:

    It is interesting that, since the dire predictions fail to come to fruition, they photograph the annual tides instead.
    I wonder how many of those photos will appear along side articles, and so forth, progating more alarmism about warming and rising tides.
    Six years ago, the United Nations issued a dramatic warning that the world would have to cope with 50 million climate refugees by 2010. But now that those migration flows have failed to materialize, the U.N. has distanced itself from the forecasts.

  20. Publico says:

    “Six years ago, the United Nations issued a dramatic warning that the world would have to cope with 50 million climate refugees by 2010. But now that those migration flows have failed to materialize, the U.N. has distanced itself from the forecasts.”
    Please provide a source. I think you have the wrong year.

  21. Publico says:

    We already have 25-40 million according to this and the map on the UN site was not a UN product, but it certainly was fun for a while for the deniers.
    The prediction I saw was for 2050. What does it matter when it happens except that time is runnning out to deal with the fact that it will happen?

  22. SandHills says:

    Spiderweb, Einstein may have been able to go through life without commonsense, the rest of us can’t. I’m not saying that I am against all studies speaking to the melting polar icecap (certainly polar bears mating with grizzlies are another indicator). I’m just not willing to join the crowd who believe that the developed world can change the tide – without getting a handle on population in the developing or undeveloped world – no matter how many Prius driving, Birkenstock wearing, vegans, tree-huggers, we have in the developed world.

    Commonsense also says all those iPhones, iPads, and iPods, and hybrid vehicles are just as responsible for global warming as a poor farmer in the Amazon cutting down more rainforest to feed his 10 kids. It’s just that the holier-than- thou crowd always crowing about global warming never want to forego their own modern conveniences – or look at over population of the human race as the main culprit. No, they want higher emission standards, outlawing older light bulbs, and a host of other restrictions in the developed world that are at best a drop in the ocean if all those gllobal warming predictions are true.

  23. aislander says:

    I’ve seen the Einstein quote posted before, by crafty or one of the other alts the _nos acolytes liked to use…

  24. “no matter how many Prius driving, Birkenstock wearing, vegans, tree-huggers, we have in the developed world.”

    It’s good to see you don’t stereotype. I drive a Ford, refuse to pay for Birks (don’t like them either), eat meat, have select cut trees and I still care about the environment.

  25. muckibr says:

    My wife drives the Prius. I drive my Dodge Dakota 5.9 litre V8 R/T and sometimes my Pontiac Grand Am. I like a good charbroiled steak as often as I can get one. Trees are trees. So what! I don’t go for this “Global Warming” stuff, but I know Climate change is real. It changes all the time. You’re stupid if you don’t believe that.

  26. keepinitreal says:

    Any body remember the South American Rain Forest scare tactics ?

  27. Many people who care about the environment and behave as good stewards of the planet were not sucked into the polar bear propaganda of the global warming scare. Al Gore as spokesman was the first clue for discerning thinkers. Good lord.

  28. Al Gore is an easy target for demonizing, but he’s not the hundreds or thousands of scientists that concur on the message Gore has chosen to speak for.

    National Geographic has been a respected source for ecological accuracy, but according to today’s naysayers, NatGeo is just a shill for making money.

    The Conservative (funny name for those who seek to avoid conservation, huh?) MO doesn’t change. Demonize those who you can’t dispute with facts.

  29. I don’t remember the South American Rain Forest scare tactics, but I remember when Morton, WA had slides from rainfall that shut off all major highways and access to the town. It seems the clear cutting allowed erosion to take over.

    The conservative newspaper publisher told Plum Creek that they’d never helicopter-log Peterman Hill as long as he was alive. Not a tree has been cut.

  30. aislander says:

    The Kyoto Protocol amounts to a huge transfer of wealth from our economy (mostly) to Third World economies. Bad for us, good for, say, Viet Nam. Cap-and-trade schemes are similarly destructive to our economic health.

    Not clear cutting a mountainside above a stream or town is not a valid analogy, since cause and effect are provable and obvious, while long-term climate variations are much more complex, and such changes have occurred in the past without any help from us.

    Besides, the economic devastation will have only a tiny effect on climate change, at best, according to all the stories I have encountered on the subject…

  31. SadujTogracse says:

    The conservative approach is to not fall for fear mongering (many of the dire predictions from the global warming folks have already been proven false) and to not take draconian, unecessary actions that would hurt an already failing economy. THAT IS THE CONSERVATIVE approach.

  32. keepinitreal says:

    Anybody remember the brilliant oceanologist, Ted Danson? Remember back in 1988 when he predicted that we only had ten years to live because the oceans were going to be dead and, if the oceans died, then we would soon follow.

    I do.

  33. Forbes magazine has honored the Republican presidential candidates by awarding them first place for “2011 Climate B.S.” (Bad Science)
    Forbes states, “In short, the choice among the Republican candidates on the issue of climate change is scientific ignorance, disdain for science, blatant misrepresentation of facts, or naked political expediency, any one of which would make the Republican candidates strong contenders for the 2011 Climate B.S. Award. Combined? They win hands down.”‘

    Second place for “The 2011 Climate B.S.” award was bestowed upon “Disinformation from Fox News and Murdoch’s News Corporation,” for their aggressive anti-science campaign.

    “In the scientific community, 97 to 98% of climate scientists accept human-caused climate change. This misinformation (from Fox News) has an effect: a study from Stanford University shows that Fox viewers are far more likely to be fundamentally misinformed about climate change than others. In short, frequent exposure to Murdoch news reporting can be hazardous to your understanding and knowledge of the real world.”

  34. Uh-oh cirrus!!! You have now besmirched the Holy Grail of the Right-Wing-Nut-Cakes. You dare say anything bad about Fox News and you incur their wrath.

    Good luck cirrus!!!

    p.s. Very nice post!

  35. I sure am truly tired of hearing about global warming if it really existed then why in the hell does the states and local government allow the homes being built to double in size it’s not like they are being occupied by more than one family, and why are we still building skyscrapers all which use more energy to heat and cool.
    I also recently heard that some of the wind farm are being shut down because of it may kill bird then we need to get rid of a whole lot of things.

  36. “You dare say anything bad about Fox News and you incur their wrath”

    I was but the messenger!

    I’ll plant a rumor via anonymous email to Murdoch of Fox, stating that executing messengers will cause taxes to rise. My hunch, is that my neck will then be saved.

  37. Spiderweb says:

    “Einstein may have been able to go through life without commonsense, the rest of us can’t”

    It’s possible for anyone to do, if one chooses. Skepticism is healthy…

  38. alindasue says:

    The climate is changing. It has changed before and it will change again. What really matters is how we adapt to that change.

    That said, each of us is responsible for the impact we each have on the earth. Basic “conservation” measures should be taken simply because it doesn’t make sense not to.

    Why harvest new materials and search for dump space for the used materials when we can recycle and reuse what has already been harvested?

    Why cut down forests to build new structures when we have houses and shopping centers already sitting half empty?

    Why spend millions to stabilize hills and flood plains when you can avoid the need by careful planning during construction to care for the natural vegetation?

    It just makes more sense to conserve the resources we already have than to waste time and money trying to make new ones.

  39. alindasue says:

    concernedtacoma7, “Since America is getting cleaner despite a growing population, the extremist talk of climate change has nothing to do us but taking our money.”

    Much has changed in the last few decades. The recycling I learned from my grandparents as a child is now so commonplace that it is as easy as throwing everything into a single collection bin to be picked up by the city utility. Anti-smog devices are now standard equipment on cars that run three times as long on a gallon of gas as their predecessors did. Refuse utilities, out of necessity, has found cleaner and safer methods than the old open-pit dumps of yesteryear. The result is that America is getting cleaner, as you say.

    The question is, how many of those positive changes would have occurred if it weren’t for the actions of us “tree hugger” types?

    The whole “global warming” and “green” movement may involve a lot of commercial hype but after all the hype has died down, basic responsible stewardship of our resources will always make sense.

  40. keepinitreal says:

    “Right-Wing-Nut-Cakes” hmmm, someone shpuld take their own advice. “I suggest we put a complete end to all the personal attacks. Can you go along with that idea?” ?

  41. muckibr says:

    “Right-Wing-Nut-Cakes” is a generalization covering a certain class of konservative-leaning-kookoo-birds. It is NOT a personal attack against any one person identified on this blog, or a personal attack against any person anywhere else.

    To help you understand, a “personal attack” is identified as a specific “attack” against a specific “person.”

    Does that clear it up for you? Can YOU go along with THAT idea?

  42. keepinitreal says:

    Oh KAY. MAYBE I should have said NAMECALLING.

    Carry on.

  43. concernedtacoma7 says:

    So it is just stereotyping. Got it.

    The science is not proven. Where are the facts and science coming out of Durban? All they did was find another exotic locale for next year’s ‘conference’.

    There is no doubt we impact the enviroment with most activities, economic or routine. The question is at what cost do we modify, prohibit, or ignore those impacts based on our need to produce and live? The extreme says we shhould drive cars with 50mpg ratings or only use mass transport, live in small apartments in urban settings, no plastic bags, etc. These would restictions on our LIBERTY.

    The other debate here is at what cost does the US correct the misdeeds of 3rd world nations?

    And I hate to remind everyone, we are $15tril in debt. Unless a green initiative can be found economical, the govt has to pay. We do not have the money. Stop the extremists from shutting down nuke plants (preventing their expansion), stopping hydro power projects, etc. We have been pushed into a situation where even attempts to make power ‘greener’ than existing methods are stopped due to extremists.

    A great example is Hawaii. 98% of power comes from oil. The hotels of Waikiki wanted to use offshore deep water to assist in the air conditioning. The environmentalists stopped it.

    The rest of the world takes common sense approaches to energy, while we stend billions to placate the true ‘nut jobs’.

  44. concernedtacoma7 says:


  45. keepinitreal says:

    So if I use a term like, say, ‘bedwetter’ to describe a bunch of lily livered looser libs (generally speaking of course), the moderator wouldn’t delete if it was flagged ?

    Sorry, I got pulled off topic.

  46. aislander says:

    It is curious that all the “solutions” the left proposes to combat climate change just HAPPEN to be consistent with the “solutions” lefties propose for EVERY problem they perceive…

  47. muckibr says:

    Well aislander, it’s kinda like, when you got a good idea you just go with it!!! So what’s your problem with that?

  48. muckibr says:

    P.S. aislander, can you possibly be a little more SPECIFIC and tell us exactly which lefty solutions you have a problem with?

    (And also, how about those dozens of Bible verses you mentioned you had on the other thread? Have you got any of those handy?)

  49. keepinitreal says:

    I think aislander is ignoring you…

  50. muckibr says:

    No, I think aislander just ran away to hide from me.

  51. keepinitreal says:

    I bet you do. Situational awarenenss doesn’t seem to be your strong suit.

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0