Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

CLIMATE: Higher tides don’t mean rising seas

Letter by Jerry R. Ogden, Tacoma on Jan. 11, 2012 at 12:37 pm with 145 Comments »
January 11, 2012 2:38 pm

“The oceans are rising, and we don’t have much time.”

Those are the words of Al Gore – a pseudo scientist, the very type of person he recently warned us about. This was also the theme of an article appearing in The News Tribune – “Volunteers document rising tides” (1-1).

Prompted by the state Department of Ecology, volunteers are taking pictures of king tides. The fallacy of this project is that merely photographing higher-than-normal tides, which naturally occur, does not verify rising seas as the article intimates. Rising tides are different from rising seas.

Over a four-year span, I have measured tides in the Tacoma area at my own tidal measuring site. Because of eight to 10 natural influences, an accurate scenario can only be achieved by averaging the data over time.

On Nov. 7, 1940 “Galloping Gertie” collapsed into the Tacoma Narrows at 11:08 a.m. prior to a high tide of 11.3 feet at 11:36 a.m. One only has to look at the pictures of the moment to see the tide line on the piers of the bridge, which are visible today and part of the 1950 bridge.

Compare those pictures to today’s tide line during a like tide and weather. You will see a very consistent level over a 70-year span. That proves to me, as my own measurements have, that the seas are not rising.

Taking pictures is one thing, measuring is everything.

Leave a comment Comments → 145
  1. keepinitreal says:

    What taking those pictures does do is adds to the “file photo” library that will be used in future propoganda stories. Sorta like pictures of polar bears doing what they do naturally… floating on ice and swimming.

  2. Please don’t mess with the beloved panic button of the global warming crowd. There MUST be a catastrophe going on and it MUST be caused by consumers. Those are the rules. It’s like oxygen to those folks.

  3. aislander says:

    The road across an island with which I am familiar goes across a very low area where the island nearly becomes two islands. Occasionally, over the years, I have seen Puget Sound lap up toward the center of the road at high tides, especially during storms.

    Old timers on the island tell me they have seen it even deeper in the past, actually inundating that road to a depth of a couple of inches.

    What rising sea levels?

  4. ManuelMartini says:

    Maybe one of the deniers or the letter writer can explain what is happening in Tokeland, Washington.

  5. keepinitreal says:

    We have escaped global warming but Tokeland hasn’t ?

  6. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Thanks for the laugh, Keep.

  7. Jerry, tides are higher since 1940 according to scientific measurements. You might want to read the information here before you write anything about this again.
    The deniers can just skip it because their minds have already been hijacked.

  8. Let’s put the majority of the scientific evidence aside, and rely on the quack-science of the conservative-right for solutions. We’ll super glue the panic button closed, then replace science with creationism, and satellite measurement of ocean levels with aislander’s eyeballs and his yardstick, which will surely verify the lapping-water tales of island old timers.

    If the con-science proves false and Christians are wrong about the “end times” being at hand.., So what? We can “make men” out of future generations by forcing the filthy, polluted, cooking planet on to them, along with the national debt.

    Party on!!!

  9. keepinitreal says:

    WTH are you babbling about c?

  10. took14theteam says:

    I want to see proof that Publico and cirrus are living their lives like the people of the 7th century did since they are so concerned about glowball warming.

    If they themselves are not practicing what they advocate the rest of us do, then they are, say it with me, HYPOCRITES…

    Please send us videos or other data to prove that you are not using electricity of any form, you do not go anywhere if it isn’t walking, biking or roller skating or any other human powered method. You only use sunlight by day and you are a sleep by night. You do everything you want to force upon the rest of us in order to stop that nasty glowball warming.

    Wait, you posted a comment on a blog that required you to use items that cause glowball warming.

    I guess I can officially label you two HYPOCRITES…

  11. aislander says:

    Who ya gonna believe–lefty scientists or your own lyin’ eyes? Let’s call East Anglia…THEY won’t lie!

  12. Bitter much cirrus? Don’t feel bad that the scare tactics failed…again.

  13. aislander says:

    What’s happening in Tokeland? I think the name explains it all…

  14. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    I suggest the usual alarmist suspects do a bit of research on the Ross-Lempriere Sea Level Benchmark before further popping off. It absolutely confirms what Jerry is saying, but over a period of about 150 years rather than his 72-year reference.

    Google works just fine.

  15. took14theteam? Relax… just reducing usage makes a big difference. Your fallacy of an either/ or existence leaves little room for higher level thinking and rationale.

  16. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Excuses. Live like you preach before you limit my freedoms.

    Climategate showed the world the scam of climate change (or are we back to global warming?). These guys are letting politics run their science (like Krugman).

    The East Coast off on NY is cleaner with more wildlife than the last 50 years. Foss waterway is cleaner than it has been in my lifetime. Great, we are improving. Now stop the assault on commerce and the wealth re-distibution.

  17. ManuelMartini says:

    I’m feeling much better that the deniers have no answer for what is happening in Tokeland.

  18. ManuelMartini says:

    concernedtacoma7, are you saying that ecological sanity isn’t possible without “assault on commerce”? Is the only route to profitability via pollution?

  19. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    I’m feeling much better that the deniers have no answer for what is happening in Tokeland.

    Gee Kardy, cute new screen name. When you have finished kissing your mirror, you may want to read what our own state has to say about your MMCCC wannabe theory-by-implication:

    • Jetties caused beaches to grow and possibly erode
Jetties have influenced accretion and possibly erosion patterns on the beaches over distances of 12 miles (20 kilometers) or more.
    • Dams on the Columbia River have reduced the sand supply 

    Dams on the Columbia River have reduced the sand supply to coastal beaches by two thirds.
    • Beach growth has slowed 

    Accretion rates along the coast have slowed dramatically over the past few decades.
    • Beaches that once grew rapidly are now eroding
High rates of erosion are occurring along sections of beach that previously grew most rapidly.
    • El Niño impacts the shoreline 

    El Niño, a recurring atmospheric phenomenon, can bring higher sea levels, intense storms, and extreme high waves from the southwest.
    • Earthquakes hit Washington’s coast
Large earthquakes in the past caused the coast to sink 3 to 6 feet suddenly (1 to 2 meters).
    • Columbia River sand built beaches and barriers

    Supplied by sand from the Columbia River, beaches on the Long Beach Peninsula grew for 4,000 to 5,000 years.


    Hmmmm, missed the part about Man Made Catastrophic Climate Change being responsible.


    It’s okay, Kardy, your mirror still loves you – carry-on.

  20. What’s happening in Tokeland? I hear it’s falling into the sea. There, satisfied?

  21. ManuelMartini says:

    Voxwhatever, are you part of the “take14keepinitaislandernowvox” Sybilian comment cluster?

    Whichever name you use,


    includes issues about “storms”. Storms are a result of climate change.

    Bottom line, it’s happening whether you choose to recognize it or not.

    I like your name also, take14keepinitaislandernowvox.

    A voice crying in the wilderness, indeed. Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing

  22. ManuelMartini says:

    sozo – No. The sea is overtaking the land. Big difference.

    I noted your answer for gay marriage starts with “God”. You might want to consult “God” about the possibility of rising seas. I understand He performed that trick once.

  23. ManuelMartini says:

    The interesting part of all of this is that a real conservative would rule out nothing in terms of the possibility of origin for these problems.

  24. MM – keepinitlarryjim isn’t aislander, he just wants to be aislander when he grows up. When I first started posting here his aspirations were to be citylies.

    The deniers use the same tactics that big tobacco used and even use some of the same people who were involved in tobacco’s efforts at sowing doubt about the science. Part of these efforts are to make the claim that there is a vast conspiracy that was hatched about fifty years ago by Al Gore to create a scare that he could cash in on through monopolizing the carbon credit market. Pure free market guys make the complaint that attempted solutions are being proposed based upon the Market. Their conspiracy theory doesn’t hold up to Occam’s Razor so they have to keep insisting that “algore’s” big house and East Anglia emails prove that the conspirators are out there.

  25. MM – keepinitlarryjim isn’t aislander, he just wants to be aislander when he grows up. When I first started posting here his aspirations were to be citylies.

    VERY GOOD beerBoy!!! You get a blog-Pulitzer-prize for that one!

  26. Personally, I have never been fully convinced as to the absolute truth of Global Warming or Global Climate Change being caused almost completely by mankind’s pollution of the Earth.

    When you look at the history of weather cycles on this planet, long before man existed, even starting before the shifting of the tectonic plate shifts that created the continents, you see that there have been periods of extreme heat followed by periods of extreme cold, alternating back and forth long before humankind even existed. At least, that’s what scientists have determined from geological studies and studies of atmosphere trapped in Arctic and Antarctic ice cores.

    However, no one can dispute the fact that man made pollution is bad.

    It makes the air bad to breath, it’s an eyesore to see, and it can be a very bad health hazard depending upon what kind of pollution it is.

    QUESTION: Is manmade pollution causing Global Climate Change.

    No, it’s not causing it, but it probably is contributing to it.

    QUESTION: Is Global Climate Change causing the ocean level to rise because of the melting of the ice sheet?

    Maybe. If that ice melts the water has to go somewhere, that’s only logical.

    QUESTION: Would this be happening anyway even if man were not here to pollute the Earth?

    Probably, sooner or later, because the temperature of the Earth changes in cycles over time, as it has throughout Earth’s longer than human history.

    QUESTION: Can man do anything to stop Global Climate Change?

    Probably not.

    QUESTION: Then, what’s the point?

    Well, here’s at least one point: Mankind should clean up after itself instead of just treating the Earth like one big garbage dump. For example, there are man-made islands of floating garbage in the Pacific and now also the Atlantic oceans, made up of thrown away plastic bottles and other garbage that’s just been dumped in the oceans.

    QUESTION: Why doesn’t somebody do something about that?

  27. Oh and VOX, the Ross-Lempriere Sea Level Benchmark case is NOT resolved, but if you want to believe in a fairy tale effort that is not repeatable because both Ross and Lempriere are long dead, go ahead. You do know that science means an experiment can be reliably repeated and the results remain the same. A mark on a rock is not an experiment.

  28. aislander says:

    You don’t want to challenge religious dogma, vox–you’ll simply evoke the emotional responses you see on this thread.

    Just because we have TWO points of reference (one of seven decades standing and the other twice that), well those mean NOTHING if they contradict lefty scripture…

  29. ManuelMartini says:

    religious dogma = “God told me so”

  30. aislander says:

    That would be small “g”…

  31. MarksonofDarwin says:


    I have never heard about the great conspiracy theory that you’re ascribing to people you refer to as “deniers”, but we’ll leave that aside for now.

    What caught my attention was your assertion that the “solutions” to global warming are “market” based.
    Say what?
    I’m very interested to learn what those market based solutions would be. I’m genuinely curious, because I’ve yet to hear anything of the sort.**

    **You can’t be referring to a government created pseudo market in carbon, where the government tightly controls the entire process….you just can’t be. If you are, you really should know better than to call that a “market” solution.

  32. If God decides to make the seas rise, there’s nothing you or Al Gore can do about it Manuel.

  33. True sozo, but didn’t God give us the rainbow as a reminder that He would never again use world-wide flooding on His people?

  34. keepnitreal says:

    Good, so we can finally lay to rest the silly scare tactics empoyed by Al and his disciples.

  35. took14theteam says:

    God gave us the rainbow so we would know where to find the pot of gold.

  36. took… that only applies if you are Irish and in Ireland at the time.

  37. aislander says:

    MoD: Good to see you again…

  38. aislander says:

    I wouldn’t look for a response to your query, MoD. I think you preempted the answer that was coming…

  39. took14theteam says:

    wow! My comment about keepinit and me switching screen names fast was deleted awfully quick.

  40. keepnitreal says:

    Kooky huh ?

  41. ManuelMartini says:

    You have to love this as a counter against scientific data:

    “If God decides to make the seas rise, there’s nothing you or Al Gore can do about it Manuel.”

    And if Swamipastrami says God didn’t decide anything, there is nothing you can do about it, sozo.

  42. ManuelMartini says:

    Anyone remember when they denied that a river could catch fire?

  43. aislander says:

    I think I recognize SilliCavilli…Now THAT’S kooky!

  44. took14theteam says:

    I now see that the “moniker” impostor is at it again.

    Which begs me to ask this question:

    How did the short lived X6 (aka LPH, or actually known as…) know the email address that was used by another poster that they registered with? Unless X6, aka LPH has hacked into the TNT website, or X6, aka LPH is part of the TNT website.

    Which to me presents an issue that needs to be addressed by the organization hosting this site.

  45. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Careful, t14t, someone very close to me was banned for making the very same observation in a long-ago thread.

    I think MoD might remember.

  46. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    … the Ross-Lempriere Sea Level Benchmark case is NOT resolved…

    Ohhhh, but global warming is… okey-dokey.

    … but if you want to believe in a fairy tale effort that is not repeatable

    You mean like climate modeling?

    … because both Ross and Lempriere are long dead…

    WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China, let alone the fact that the mark they placed on a rock is still in the exact location relative to sea level, 125 years later?

    You do know that science means an experiment can be reliably repeated and the results remain the same.

    Hello? Climate modeling?

    A mark on a rock is not an experiment.

    It was in 1888, and it seems to be proving more reliable than the pseudo-scientific modeling you worship.

    You know what they say, pub; want to know the weather – look out the window.

  47. “The fallacy of this project is that merely photographing higher-than-normal tides, which naturally occur, does not verify rising seas as the article intimates”

    Really? Where exactly did the article “intimate” anything of the kind?

  48. “What’s happening in Tokeland? I think the name explains it all…”

    How very elitist of you.

  49. I have visited the exact same place in the Florida Keys since 1973 where the tides are very slight. No difference.

  50. MoD – Cap and Trade is an attempt to use the Market to reward lower carbon output. For the record – I don’t think Cap and Trade is good policy.

    The “vast conspiracy” that has been imagined is that the motivation for scientists, governments and “algore” to pull a big hoax by over the public in order to:
    1) Reduce their freedoms
    2) Make lots of money through Cap and Trade.

  51. beerBoy, if left alone “the market,” as in Big Business America, would turn the US into the polluted mess that China is becoming due to their lack of controls over industry, which is turning the air in Beijing into unbreathable toxic floating sludge. Our salvation here in the US, and the main reason we have relatively clean air to breath and clean water to drink is thanks to The EPA and government regulation that prohibits business from simply destroying an environment and moving on, which is what they would do if they could.

    Cap and Trade and Energy Credits may not be strictly “Market Based ” solutions, because they are government initiated, but without them there would be no “Market Based” incentives whatsoever to keep big business from destroying our environment. C&T and EC may not be the best solutions, but they are better than nothing, right?

    And, for the record, I don’t buy into Global Warming and/or Climate Change being solely the fault of mankind, but it is a plain and simple fact that mankind has been polluting this planet and that really needs to stop. We need to stop treating the Earth like a big garbage dump. Where else are we going to live if we screw this place up too badly?

  52. ManuelMartini says:

    “How did the short lived X6 (aka LPH, or actually known as…) know the email address that was used by another poster that they registered with? Unless X6, aka LPH has hacked into the TNT website, or X6, aka LPH is part of the TNT website.”

    Or maybe X6 is the ever-famous “Kardnos”, who seems to be everyone that a certain “group” disagrees with.

    The drama continues. This is better than a daytime soap.

  53. ManuelMartini says:

    Christian Science Monitor:

    Waters around the Florida Keys are nine inches higher than a century ago. Efforts to battle rising sea levels make the Keys ‘a canary in the coal mine,’ an indicator of what other areas might need to prepare for.

    ghhs – you might want to check your measuring device.

  54. Nice choice for a reference: Christian Science Monitor

    Who can argue with that/them?

    As I said earlier, if the ice caps are melting, that water has got to go somewhere. It seems it’s washing up on the Florida shores, and probably everywhere else, so how about measurements in other places?

    It’s pretty clear the ice at the poles is melting. But, who says it won’t star refreezing again before the great flood happens, that some say is coming?

  55. MarksonofDarwin says:

    Hi ai! Thanks! It’s been rather hectic around here with our kids in high school. My grandma always said that kids probably needed you more at 16 years, than they ever did at 16 months….she was right! Priorities…how do they work? haha

    Vox, I do remember. Tell our friend hi for me, and that I appreciate the “bread crumbs” he left so that he doesn’t completely disappear!
    I don’t know why I’m still astonished that someone who is a completely insane dry drunk is allowed to rile up regular posters…and THEY are the ones who get the ban hammer. *shrug* Another reason to not waste my time here. It’s unprofessional and naive.

    bB, I think you’ve got it all wrong. I do understand how you’re trying to equate cap & trade as a market based solution, but it just doesn’t work.
    Cap & trade is simply the government picking winners and losers. Guess which companies are able to comply with this and thrive? I know you sincerely understand the corrupting influence of big corporations on big government, but I wonder if you understand HOW those corps. got so big and influential?
    btw, I know you don’t agree with this solution, and there’s our common ground, but you will never convince me or anyone who understands the market that this is anything other than a power grab by the government, and a money grab by big corps.

  56. ManuelMartini says:

    Facinating how these monikers resurface for a little conversation with the currents.

  57. aislander says:

    See, you’re late here, MM. Effective Alinskyites make their phony accusations before their victims have a chance to accuse them

  58. Vox, poor Vox: “Ohhhh, but global warming is… okey-dokey.”
    Nobody said the effects of global warming were resolved nor how much global warming there will finally be. Ross and Lempriere are both dead. What they actually marked will remain unknown.
    “You mean like climate modeling?”
    Climate modeling is only a part of the process and it is updated as new information is gained. Parts of climate modeling vary slightly as parameters change, but capable scientists are able to take the same raw data and analyze it with whatever techniques they have and come up with the same or similar results. The mark on a rock cannot ever be confirmed as accurate for anything.
    It is an easy conclusion that you have no idea what the scientific method is nor do you have any idea how to use logical reasoning to determine whether something CAN be true or false.

  59. aislander says:

    It IS logical not to take dramatic actions based on incomplete (put kindly) information…

  60. See, you’re late here, MM. Effective Alinskyites make their phony accusations before their victims have a chance to accuse them…

    Effective Goehringites keep repeating the same nonsense over and over until the Big Lie technique works.

    If there’s smoke there is aislander trying to send smoke signals up your behind.

  61. Higher tides could mean the ice caps are melting.

    It could mean the tectonic plates, that make up the continents, are sinking.

    It could also mean the gravitational pull of the moon is getting stronger.

    Has anyone remeasured the distance between the Earth and the Moon recently?

    Just asking.

  62. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    So what are you saying pub, is that someone doctored the data by fudging the sea mark on the Isle of the Dead?

    Gee… why does that sound familiar.

    And how does that deniers shoe feel, pub?

    And the fact that the benchmark, along with Lempriere’ records, is being used by the likes of the University of Canberra, the University of Tasmania and CSIRO in their attempts to document rising sea levels over the last 160 years “makes it an easy conclusion that you have no idea what scientific method is nor do you have any idea how to use logical reasoning to determine whether something CAN be true or false.“

    But then… you are the expert – the consummate anonymous internet scientist – I bow to you.

  63. ManuelMartini says:

    There are “scientists” that will avow that fracking causes no problem to water sources.

    There are people in those areas that can light the water coming out of their tap in their homes.

    Now, you can deny that fracking is the cause because a scientist on the dole from the energy industry says so, or you can acknowledge that you saw the flame coming out of a water faucet.

    American citizens have nothing to lose by the government holding business accountable for the environment, but American businesses will lose that extra percent or two of profits

    Who stands to lose the most by fabricating data about climate change?

  64. aislander says:

    I think you may have meant “Goebbelsite,” beerBoy, and HE credited his techniques to the progressive Wilson administration…

    On a topic completely unrelated to that and climate-change “science,” have you heard about the Great Red-Wine Affair? Seems all that foofaraw about the health benefits of red wine…completely made up. By a scientist…

  65. ManuelMartini says:

    aislander – you are using a case of the wine industry perpetuating health benefits as an example of bad data to benefit the bottom line.

  66. aislander says:

    Yeah, all those scientist vying for government funding are completely selfless and trustworthy. Please…

  67. aislander says:

    Should have read, “scientists…”

  68. I think you may have meant “Goebbelsite,” beerBoy, and HE credited his techniques to the progressive Wilson administration…

    I’m thinking that “Goebbelarian” would probably be a better term.

    You got a citation for that Goebbel citing Wilson’s Administration?

  69. Yeah, all those scientist vying for government funding are completely selfless and trustworthy. Please…

    There is a big difference between knowing and expecting some scientists to be selfish and untrustworthy and expecting the vast majority of them to be so – especially since there are big career costs when one gets caught faking results.

  70. Vox says: “So what are you saying pub, is that someone doctored the data by fudging the sea mark on the Isle of the Dead?”
    I said no such thing and I did not even imply it. The fact that you needed to make something up tells us even more about you.
    “….benchmark, along with Lempriere’ records, is being used by the likes of the University of Canberra, the University of Tasmania and CSIRO in their attempts to document rising sea levels over the last 160 years….”
    It is the deniers who are trying to use the benchmark with an interpretation that fits their denier needs. The university interest is in examining if the benchmark can ever be used for more than a simple interesting piece of history. Not knowing what those two guys actually measured takes it out of the realm of useful scientific information.
    This is more in line with what is actually happening: “Higher temperatures are expected to further raise sea level by expanding ocean water, melting mountain glaciers and small ice caps, and causing portions of Greenland and the Antarctic ice sheets to melt. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that the global average sea level will rise between 0.6 and 2 feet (0.18 to 0.59 meters) in the next century (IPCC, 2007).
    The range reflects uncertainty about global temperature projections and how rapidly ice sheets will melt or slide into the ocean in response to the warmer temperatures. Furthermore, some processes affecting sea level have long (centuries and longer) time-scales, so that current sea level change is also related to past climate change, and some relevant processes are not determined solely by climate. Climate models, satellite data and hydrographic observations demonstrate that sea level is not rising uniformly around the world. Depending on the region, sea level has risen several times the global mean rise, or has actually fallen (IPCC, 2007). While current model projections indicate substantial variability in future sea level rise at regional and local scales, the IPCC has concluded that the impacts are “virtually certain to be overwhelmingly negative” (IPCC, 2007).”

  71. aislander says:

    beerBoy writes: “…especially since there are big career costs when one gets caught faking results.”

    Not with apologists such as–well, I never mean to be offensive, so no accusations–willing to jump in to defend them…

  72. aislander says:

    Publico writes: “’virtually certain to be overwhelmingly negative…’”

    And virtual sex is certain to be as satisfying as actual sex. It isn’t…

  73. aislander says:

    beerBoy: This is just wiki, but I know I saw a quote attributed to Goebbels in which he credits the Creel Committee and Committee on Public Information of the Wilson admin for laying out the principles that he employed so well and for which he seems to receive all the credit.

    This wiki article mentions that Hitler was impressed, but is not as complete in that regard as the quote I can’t find.

    However, if you read the article with an open mind, it does give some insight into the very fascistic Wilson government.

    It’s a rather long article, so just plug “Wilson” into your browser’s “find” utility and it’ll go right to the section I referred to…


  74. aislander – I did plug in “Joseph Goebbels Wilson” to google and found this:

    Glenn Beck Falsely Claims that Nazis Learned Propaganda Use from Progressives

    In a speech on propaganda in 1934, Goebbels listed those he viewed as propagandists, “ If the fine gentlemen say: “You are only a propagandist,” the answer is this: “Was Christ any different? Did he not make propaganda? Did he write books, or did he preach? Was Mohammed any different? Did he write learned essays, or did he go to the people and say what he wanted to say? Were not Buddha and Zarathustra propagandists?”

    He continued, “True, the philosophers of the French Revolution built their intellectual foundations. But who got things moving? Robespierre, Danton, and the others. Did these men write books, or did they speak in popular meetings? Look around today. Is Mussolini more an author or a great speaker? When Lenin took the train from Zurich to Petersburg, did he repair to his study and write a book, or did he speak to thousands? Fascism and Bolshevism were built by great speakers, by masters of the spoken word! There is no difference between the politician and the speaker. History proves that great politicians were always great speakers: Napoleon, Caesar, Alexander, Mussolini, Lenin, name whomever you want. They were all great speakers and great organizers. If a person combines rhetorical talent, organizational ability, and philosophical ability, if he has the ability to transmit knowledge and to gather people under his banner, then he is a brilliant statesman.”


  75. I found this about Edward L. Bernays

    As a matter of fact, so impressed was he with Bernays’ early works Crystallizing Public Opinion (1923) and Propaganda (1928) that Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels relied heavily upon them for his own dubious inspiration in the 1930s. Apparently, that Bernays was a Jew mattered little to Goebbels….


    But I see no evidence that Bernays created the BIG LIE that Goebbels devised.

    I also see no evidence that use of propaganda is somehow inherently a progressive trait – after all, advertising in America has been in place since the colonial days.

  76. beerBoy, I had to get in on this issue, as it really interests me.

    In Hitler’s own words from Mein Kampf, “Propaganda must not investigate the truth objectively and, in so far as it is favourable to the other side, present it according to the theoretical rules of justice; yet it must present only that aspect of the truth which is favourable to its own side. ”

    Thus, aislander, obviously a student and practitioner of propaganda techniques as can be deduced by his many comments on the subject, gives you the part of the truth that is favorable to his view, by directing you to the Wilson quote.

    But also, what aislander does NOT do, is suggest you read the entire Wikipedia page that he directed you to, in which you would also read this…

    “Propaganda has been a human activity as far back as reliable recorded evidence exists. The Behistun Inscription (c. 515 BC) detailing the rise of Darius I to the Persian throne is viewed by most historians as an early example of propaganda.[19]”


    The particular brand of propaganda promoted by Hitler and practiced by Goebbels is described in Hitler’s book, Mein Kampf, just as this passage from another Wikipedia page describes as follows:

    “Nazi leader Adolf Hitler devoted two chapters of his 1925/26 work Mein Kampf, itself a propaganda tool, to the study and practice of propaganda.[2] He claimed to have learnt the value of propaganda as a World War I infantryman exposed to very effective British and ineffectual German propaganda.[3] The argument that Germany lost the war largely because of British propaganda efforts, expounded at length in Mein Kampf, reflected then-common German nationalist claims. Although untrue – German propaganda during World War I was mostly more advanced than that of the British – it became the official truth of Nazi Germany thanks to its reception by Hitler.[4]”


    I had a college prof., who also served in WW-II in the O.S.S., stated that Joseph Goebbels methods of Nazi propaganda boiled-down to simply this: “In Goebbels view, if you tell a lie long enough and loud enough, eventually enough people will begin to believe it is the truth, even though it is not the truth and never will be.”

    That’s kind of the m.o. (modus operandi) aislander likes to use in many of his comments, I think.

    But, that’s only my opinion, except that I did back-up that opinion on one thread by posting the numerous times aislander simply posted, with regard to same-sex couples and EBM, “There is no discrimination.” For me at least, aislander has not repeated that statement enough to make it true, yet.

  77. aislander says:

    wiki doesn’t provide a citation for this, but Glenn Beck is not he only one who noted the connection between Nazi propaganda and the Wilson admin: “The war propaganda campaign of Lippmann and Bernays produced within six months such an intense anti-German hysteria as to permanently impress American business (and Adolf Hitler, among others) with the potential of large-scale propaganda to control public opinion.”

    Parenthetically, it seems as though YOU guys are more ego-involved with this question than am I…

  78. “Parenthetically, it seems as though YOU guys are more ego-involved with this question than am I…”

    Don’t know about beerBoy, but I would say I am intellectually-involved in this subject as well as others.

    However, I would have to give it to you aislander as being the most experienced practitioner of these propaganda techniques, and as such, you are far more ego-involved on a daily basis than I. How many times have you reference Alinsky and the other guy? A lot!!!

  79. aislander says:

    “Goebbels, said Wiegand, was using my book Crystallizing Public Opinion as a basis for his destructive campaign against the Jews of Germany.”

    Edward Bernays, Wilson administration

  80. You’re cherry-picking now aislander!

  81. AND, you are deflecting aislander! The topic here is CLIMATE: Higher tides don’t mean rising seas.

    What does Bernays sauce have to do with the CLIMATE or rising tides?

  82. aislander says:

    If you guys are all THAT interested, do your own research and note particularly how the progressives were pushing for US involvement in WWI and how they didn’t have much trust in the ability of people to govern themselves. I think the latter MAY strike a chord of commonality with some contemporary progressives–perhaps even some who post on this forum…

  83. aislander says:

    The progs did SEEM willing to pursue that topic until the facts turned against them, but then it became time to change the subject…

  84. Now it seems as though you are projecting aislander.

    Perhaps it’s time to return to the ON TOPIC discussion?

  85. aislander says:

    …and, going back over the thread, it would appear you progs have devoted AT LEAST as many words to this tangent as I have, beyond which, beerBoy meant to bring Goebbels into the discussion, even if he didn’t succeed in doing so. And, going all the way back to the fork in the road, ManuelMartini made the accusation that opened it all up.

  86. aislander, are you still trying to divert this discussion away from the real topic?

    After all it was your comment today (JAN 14) @ 10:34 PM that YOU wrote:

    “On a topic completely unrelated to that and climate-change “science,” have you heard about the Great Red-Wine Affair? Seems all that foofaraw about the health benefits of red wine…completely made up. By a scientist…”

    See your deflection/diversion there?

    And every comment you have made since that one has been Off Topic, continuing the deflection/diversion. Kind of like hanging wallpaper, one might say.

    BTW, you were the first to mention Goebbels in your 10:34 AM post.

    Isn’t it about time to end this diversion and get back to the issue of CLIMATE?

  87. I know it’s implied in my previous comment, but I thought it should be spelled out.

    aislander, YOU STARTED THIS DEFLECTION/DIVERSION no matter how many off topic words it has cost us.

    Are you ready to end it, or do you want to try to continue it?

  88. Oh, I’m sure you know I meant 10:34 AM. It was simply a typo. No need to get so upset about a little thing like that.

    As far as getting back on the topic, the conversation should not have deflected or diverted off of the topic in the first place. Right?

    I don’t believe I was losing the war of words. We simply exhausted the off topic discussion on propaganda and I felt we should probably get back to the real topic of this thread.

    It seems like you may be projecting a bit.

    Be that as it may.

    Can we go back the topic of CLIMATE and Higher Tides? I forgot, do you support the concept of Global Climate Change. Or, are you a denier?

  89. aislander says:

    beerBoy: I didn’t write anything about the advent of the big-lie technique or where Goebbels may have gotten the inspiration for it, but the fact that various Nazis credited Bernays for the propaganda methods they used at least points in that direction…

  90. So, you prefer to continue the deflection.

    Does anyone else wish to discuss the topic for a change?

  91. aislander – intentional obtuseness…..is that an Alinsky or a Goebbels tactic.

    I brought the Goebbels reference (though I got the wrong guy – Goering) into the thread as a response to you yet again making an “Alinskyite” comment. This was clearly to state that I feel like you are making use of the Big Lie technique coined by Goebbels – and – because what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If you are going to attempt to demonize others by shouting “Alinsky, Alinsky, Alinsky” then is seems appropriate to point at you and shout “Goebbels”.

  92. took14theteam says:

    And, going all the way back to the fork in the road, ManuelMartini made the accusation that opened it all up.

    Typical MO of the man behind the newest Moniker of ManuelMartini…


  93. tookybird, you really need to document your charge against Manuel, because I just looked through ALL of Manuel’s posts on this thread, every dang one of them, and there is NOT a single one that I can find with regard to the diversion and deflection that aislander STARTED with his 10:34 AM post yesterday where aislander specifically wrote:

    “On a topic completely unrelated to that and climate-change “science,”.

    That was the FORK IN THE ROAD unless you can prove to the contrary with an actual specific date and time and comment of a Manuel post that you claim was the fork.

    tookybird, you are wrong again, and OFF TOPIC! Are you trying to hi-jack this topic?

    This is about CLIMATE: Higher tides not THREADS: Hi-Jacking. Right?

    Now, has anyone got any WORTHWHILE COMMENTS to add to this discussion.

    If you need to, go to comments PRIOR to aislander’s JAN 14 @ 10:34 AM deflecting/diverting comment to review real comments if you need help refreshing your memory as to what this topic is about.

  94. “the man behind the newest Moniker of ManuelMartini”

    Another mind-reader. LOL

  95. took14theteam says:

    Thank you O’ thread police.

    It only needs to get back “on topic” when you decide it is not going your way. Otherwise you are the king of “off topic” diversions.

    As for as calling me tookybird, why don’t you re-read a comment from yourself on another thread that I just stumbled across this morning.

    P.S. I have no goal on these blogs. And I really really hate name-calling okay Scorpy!

    That came from the following if you are interested:

    TACOMA: Occupy camp a bad introduction


  96. took14theteam says:

    Nice to see you back, ehill…


  97. Yo tookybird! (Whos cal is real loud: “Oooh! Oooh! – Aaah! Aaah! – Tooky! Tooky!”)

    You are CHERRY PICKIN’ again you Ol’ Cherry Picker you!

    Yes, I know what I wrote on JAN. 10, 2012 AT 3:03 PM  
    Which began with

    “Well, you and some of the others here may be just too paranoid to accept someone like me.”

    and ended with, as you cherry-pick posted,

    “P.S. I have no goal on these blogs. And I really really hate name-calling okay Scorpy!”

    But tooky,,, you conveniently overlooked the comment I made on the topic of VOTING: The big lie about voter fraud, on JAN. 12, 2012 AT 12:30 PM  (TWO DAYS after the quote you conveniently selected)

    “SCORP, in case you hadn’t noticed, I gave up on lecturing anyone about name-calling a long time back. I mention it now and then, but I NEVER lecture. My supposed lecturing hasn’t stopped you or any of your pals from calling me names, so like Mitt Romney said the other day, “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.”

    And like I said them to SCORPY …

    That okay with you tookybird?

    HMMM? Are tookybirds related to geese, gooses, ganders?

    Now, as far as being the “thread police.” THANK YOU! Somebody has to, otherwise you guys would hijack all these threads for your own personal demagoguery. YOU ARE BUSTED!

    Now, can we FINALLY get back ON TOPIC and debate about CLIMATE: Higher tides etc… ?

  98. ehill, tookybird likes you now, hence the cutsey smiley face little love-note he sent you. I think he like you now mostly because he hates me more, and would like to get you on his side against me.

    Just know one thing. I’m not going to try and get you to join my side against anyone, because I have no side and I am not against anyone on these threads.

    Think for yourself, and do what you feel is right and honest. That’s all I ask of anyone, including tooky…, aislander, SCORPY and all the rest of the gang here.

    Just be honest and stop all the other junk.

    Now, back to our TOPIC…

    I think Jerry is full of beans, because in his letter he criticizes people for taking pictures of the shoreline in the 3rd para of his letter, but then in the 6th para he uses the pictures to prove his own measurements.

    Jerry claims Al Gore to be a pseudo scientist, but Jerry is even less than that with his “measurements.”

    At least Big Al has received a number of awards including the Nobel Peace Prize (2007), a Grammy (2009) a Primetime Emmy (2007), and a Webby Award (2005). Gore was also the subject of the OSCAR winning (2007) documentary An Inconvenient Truth in 2006.

    What awards does Jerry have?

  99. Oh wait! Is tookybird accusing me of also being ManuelMartini?

    Sorry tooky… I post under the name muckibr. That’s it.

    Believe it, or not!

  100. took14theteam says:

    Nothing like being “on topic” with all that wasted bandwidth above….

  101. Don’t even go there tookybird! In case you hadn’t noticed, I am the one person on this thread in the last several comments who tried hardest to get it back on topic, while you and your ilk have attempted and are still attempting to hijack it.

    Stop the diversion and deflection that you guys are so used to doing and just get back on topic, will you? Please, at least in your insincere attempts to criticize, try to inject at least a little tiny bit of HONESTY, or is that a totally foreign concept to you?

  102. Yo tookybird! (Whos cal is real loud: “Oooh! Oooh! – Aaah! Aaah! – Tooky! Tooky!”)

    Love the George of the Jungle reference…


  103. aislander says:

    Wasn’t the Nobel Peace Prize completely devalued in 2009 after being made grotesque in 1994?

  104. You are deflecting again aislander. CLIMATE! CLIMATE! CLIMATE! Remember?

  105. aislander says:

    beerBoy: The Alinsky technique that precipitated my remark is that of accusing one’s opponent of doing that which oneself does–preferably before he can make the warranted accusation…

    …and MY remark was warranted…

  106. aislander, Alinsky technique has little or nothing to do with CLIMATE, higher tides, rising seas. Please don’t try to drag the conversation back to your obsession and fixation on propaganda. Do you have anything to contribute to the real subject matter here?

  107. aislander says:

    beerBoy: Apropos of nothing at all, members of this forum have a right to respond to comments made to them or about them, but I DO think it is special that someone with obvious limitations attempts to break through those natural constraints to arrogate to himself the role of auxiliary board nanny.

    It may be better for his obviously fragile mental state if, instead of worrying about what others do, he develops some self control. But, if the manner of conversation that has prevailed over the last several years that I have been on this forum is SO objectionable, perhaps he should seek a different venue. And I say that only out of fellow feeling…

  108. “Apropos of nothing at all,” translation: This is completely off topic. (As usual!)

    “members of this forum have a right to respond to comments made to them or about them,” Ahem! Members of this forum have the right to comment on ANY comments posted on this forum. Freedom of Speech, don’cha know guv’ner!

    “someone with obvious limitations” aislander must be projecting, or talking about himself here.

    “to arrogate to himself the role of auxiliary board nanny.”

    arrogate = verb [ trans. ]
    take or claim (something) for oneself without justification

    WHOA!!! aislander, you are so wrong!!! YOUR BUDDY tookybird was the one who awarded me the title of thread police! In his comment above at 8:50 AM today when he wrote to me “Thank you O’ thread police.” You need to get your FACTS straight aislander.

    “It may be better..blah blah blah” Hey aislander, what really may be better is if you quit deflecting and just get back to the real topic. Or, here’s a real genuine alternative for you to consider: If you want to continue harping on propaganda, why not take your lack of self-control on that issue over to the thread entitled POLITICS: A political new year, where your comments may actually fit that topic for a change of pace.

    “if the manner of conversation that has prevailed over the last several years that I have been on this forum is SO objectionable, perhaps he should seek a different venue.”

    aislander, maybe you have just been here too long. You think? Because I have only been posting here since the end of November, and I’m still having fun with it.

    I don’t find the “manner of conversation” “objectionable” at all. I just find some of the really silly off topic things some of you, and you in particular, post to be really humorous at times. If anyone needs to leave these threads, maybe it’s you!

    “And I say that only out of fellow feeling…” – Ditto!

    NOW can we get back to THE TOPIC?

  109. aislander says:

    t14t: Ever hear about Mike the Chicken? Apparently, as a result of climate change, he had most of his head chopped off, but lived for another eighteen months only to choke to death.

    He was mortally wounded and didn’t even know it…

  110. Sorry aislander, you are still deflecting and diverting this thread to off topic nonsense.

    Miracle Mike’s head was NOT chopped off as a result of climate change. Just as a result of suppertime.

    But hey, at least you’re not harping about Goebbels and propaganda, so we are making some progress with you.

    Keep worining on it. Eventually you may find your way back to the topic.

    FYI as regards aislander’s lame attempt at humor, or was it supposed to be some kind of insult?

    “On September 10, 1945, farmer Lloyd Olsen of Fruita, Colorado, United States, had his mother-in-law around for supper and was sent out to the yard by his wife to bring back a chicken. Olsen chose a five-and-a-half-month-old cockerel named Mike. The axe missed the jugular vein, leaving one ear and most of the brain stem intact.[2][3]”


    As far as being “wounded.” If I were you aislander I would worry about how the real monitors view your comment on JAN 14. at 8:04 PM when they get into work Monday morning. I think you know what I mean.

    NOW, CAN WE ALL get back to the topic?

  111. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    The hyper-link to the study done by Hunter, Coleman, and Pugh (second link in my above post) does not work. To go to the page you will have to cut-and-paste the whole url – both lines – to your browser. But judging from you previous post, Pub, that should be no problem for you.

    BTW, why no citation on that one, Pub? Is it from some squishy “green” site or something?

    Nah, you would never include bias in a scientific discussion… would ya’?

  112. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Oops, I missed the attribution to “IPCC 2007″, LMAO. You mean the increasingly discredited 2007 IPCC report, prepared by the near-universally discredited United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?

    Yep, just like I though, no bias there.

  113. MarksonofDarwin says:

    Vox, I think you just hit on the obvious disconnect that some have regarding this subject. The IPCC has taken a huge hit in their credibility. This is Undeniable, but many refuse to accept this truth. We all are subject to, and succumb to confirmation bias, but it seems to me that this particular subject is where people are most prone to it. Add to that the fact that the climate modeling is more than troubling with all the deviations from the predictions and also the near religious zeal of AGW supporters, and it seems we all end up “chasing our tails” over it! I’m still waiting for them to release the computer code for their modeling so that we could get back to the scientific method and allow other scientists try to replicate the experiments. Without that, this is all meaningless “is too, is not” arguing.

    Also, I have to make it known that I am probably the one who goes off topic more than anybody…ever! In honor of this important title of Off Topic Queen, (that I just bestowed upon myself) I believe it’s way past time for me to share some music with my friend bB. (something I like to do every now and then)

    My new favorite R&B artist, Jill Scott:


    (Absolutely beautiful)

  114. took14theteam says:

    To Muckibird

    An “on topic” comment.

    Liberals believe in the religion of glowball warming. Conservatives believe that things may change, the earth goes through cycles as has been researched and, a carbon tax isn’t going to change Mother Nature. A carbon tax will only dictate how one is to live their life.

  115. Thank you took14theteam! Good comment.

    So, based on your assessment of liberals versus conservatives, and my original comment on this topic on JAN 12 @ 9:27 AM, then I apparently agree with …..


    How can that be, since all you guys keep calling me a prog and a liberal and whatever?

    See, I told you! I am an Independent, and sometimes I side with the Dems/Libs and other times I am with the Reps/Cons, like I am on this particular issue.

    Hey! If you don’t believe me, go upthread and read my comment on 1/12 @ 9:27 AM.

  116. took14theteam says:

    I concur with what you wrote upstream regarding this topic. You implied that you have other thoughts about this topic.

    I was most likely projecting your aura from other letters here and that is why you assumed I thought you were someone else and far left.

    My bad.

  117. took14fortheteam, Sometimes you and I are going to disagree, that’s a given. Sometimes, we will probably agree, that’s only probable, but likely. All I really ask is that you be honest with me, I will be honest with you, we give each other and everyone else a fair shot, and then see where we stand on the issues. (It’s not my aura, it’s just my words.)

    Now, if you would like to see how I also can be convinced that I am occasionally wrong, and I can change my opinion, then go to the topic “MARINES: Their leaders are the ones to blame.” I started there with one fairly hardline position, but have been convinced by other commenters that I was at least partially wrong. I can be convinced, but I cannot be coerced. I happen to believe that you getter better results trying to convince people of your position, rather than trying to force people to accepting your position. I know that some people don’t see it that way here.

    I think we essentially agree on this Climate issue. I appreciate your position on it. Thanks for sharing it and explaining it well in your post at 4:13 PM.

  118. ManuelMartini says:

    Muckibr – of course my comments weren’t off topic.

    Took14theteam and its “alt”, Pacman, have decided that I am now “Kardy” and you are no longer the target. I think you are ehill or ehill is you and I might be ehill, but of course I’m Kardy so that would make ehill Kardy.

    I left this thread because those who deny the climate issues always resort to personal attacks and the proverbial fingers in the ears LALALALALA on this subject. They’ll learn soon enough, unfortunately we will learn along with them.

    If they would spend as much time researching climate change as they do worrying about “kardy”, they might actually learn something on the subject. Instead they deny it happening, attack Al Gore (as if Gore was something more than a message carrier) and think that is the answer to the problem.

  119. took14theteam,

    I also was convinced to change my opinion in the topic “BUDGET: Legislature doesn’t seem to have a clue”, but that took much less convincing.

    (And to correct a typos above: “took14fortheteam” should have been “took14theteam”, and “getter” should be just “get”. Sorry about that.)

    Apologies to others for the off topic aside. Back to the topic now.

  120. Manuel, you may be right about the alts and global warming, etc., but your are incorrect about at least one thing.

    “those who deny the climate issues always resort to personal attacks ”

    I haven’t made any personal attacks against anyone who believes in Global Warming and/or Global Climate Change being caused by mankind. I disagree with those positions, but you know I have not personally attacked anyone over it, don’t you?

  121. took14theteam says:

    My email address isn’t the name of someone here. And if you can tell me what my email address is, then you are hacking into this website, or you are apart of this website abusing the privacy rules.

    So what is my email address if you claim I am Pacman?

    I will be waiting MMLPH…..

  122. Vox, the fact remains, no matter one’s bias, that knowing for certain what those fellows measured, when even today measuring sea levels is difficult, is probably unknowable. For anyone to pursue it is pure folly. Current technology is capable of much better measuring and in time we will know for sure whether the best estimates are going to pan out or not. I put my vote behind all the people who are working as scientists to find the answer as best they can so that the world does not enter into an irreversably bad situation. Denying that global warming is taking place and that we have something to do with it and that it will change the climate worldwide does nothing for anyone in the long term and you must remember the word irreversable.
    Are you willing to take that chance? I’m not.

  123. “The Alinsky technique”

    Looks like someone checks under their bed every night for Alinskies. LOL

  124. Speaking of calling each other names:

    Hitler finds out Americans are calling each other Nazis

  125. Come on guys. This thread was already diverted for way too long on that propaganda name-calling crap. Can we stay with the real issue for a while? Please!

  126. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Again, pub, you seem to be saying that regardless of the fact that the Hunter, Coleman, Pugh, et al, study (in which the Ross-Lempriere was first used by alarmists to show a 13 centimeter rise in sea level) has been so shredded – in the same manner as much alarmist modeling has – we should not only now ignore the very benchmark they used, but we should put all of our trust in this type of… science. You would have been a great citizen of Germany in the early 30’s.

    “Denying that global warming is taking place… ”

    Wow, we’re lowering the bar from the new generic “climate change” back to the old Global Warming tag? Okey-dokey.

    “… and that we have something to do with it and that it will change the climate worldwide does nothing for anyone in the long term and you must remember the word irreversable.”

    Few, if anyone, is denying that global warming is occurring/ has occurred/ will continue to occur – as will global cooling. But there are many scientists who believe in anthropomorphic global warming who also recognize that the theory has been seized by the overwhelmingly left-leaning wing of climate research, as well as organizations such as the IPCC, for purely political reasons. And many of these same climate researchers do not agree with all of the dire predictions, nor the notion of irreversability.

  127. aislander says:

    There may well BE climate change, but there it is not persuasive that radically changing our economic model (as the left insists we must do) will have a mitigating effect on that change.

    Actionable science on this subject? It doesn’t exist…

  128. aislander says:

    Missed my insertion point: “…but it is not persuasive that radically changing our economic model…”

  129. Here is a very helpful source for those who do not fully understand what is happening regarding sea level changes brought on by global warming and the resulting climate changes.
    It is a lot more scientifically inclined than looking at a forever debatable mark on a rock.

  130. I hope Vox can read and understand graphical presentations.

  131. aislander says:

    So…Pub…If there IS climate change as indicated by rising sea levels–let’s just stipulate everything you say is happening–what would you have us DO about it?

  132. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    And I hope Pub can understand hypocrisy. The very same so-called “debatable mark on a rock” was just fine with alarmists like him (not to mention Hunter, Coleman, Pugh, et al) when it was used to support their theories. But now that the study in question has been ripped apart for shoddy modeling, misuse/ neglect of existing data and records, etc, the Ross-Lempriere benchmark has been reduced, in Pub’s… mind, to a useless “mark on a rock”.

    Tell that to the folks who are documenting the supposedly rising tides in Puget Sound – to whom the letter writers was responding. But then… photographs by amateur volunteers will somehow prove to be more “useful scientific information” than a 170 year old benchmark. And never mind the 18 1/2 year lunar cycles.

  133. radically changing our economic model

    Again the radical reactionary utilizes histrionic hyperbole. Exactly where in any of the proposals has there been that “the left insists” that Capitalism be radically changed?

    The basic concept involves two parties, the governing body and the regulated companies or units emitting pollution. The government sets a cap on pollution, limiting the amount of carbon dioxide and other harmful output that companies, or other groups, are allowed to release. The government then issues credits which allow companies to pollute a certain amount, as long as the aggregate pollution equals less than the set cap.

    Since some companies can reduce polluting emissions more inexpensively than other companies, they may engage in trading any extra permits. Companies that can more efficiently reduce pollution sell permits to companies that cannot easily afford to reduce pollution. The companies that sell the permits are rewarded while those that purchase permits must pay for their negative impact. Applied to climate change, this system would theoretically reduce carbon emissions at the lowest total cost.

    The US government already taxes businesses and already regulates pollutants. The only aspect could possibly be seen as a “radical change” is allowing corporations to trade/sell credits to companies who find it economically unfeasible to reduce their carbon emissions significantly enough to meet the caps – but that seems to be providing more flexibility under the regulations rather than less so I’m not sure why that should bother you.

    I reiterate – I don’t think cap and trade is a good solution – but your statement about “the Left” destroying our economic system is just a bunch of Chicken Little ravings.

  134. aislander says:

    Way to slide by the point, beerBoy. My question is twofold: Is the science persuasive enough to be actionable, and will the proposed action have the desired effect–or ANY effect–on the perceived problem?

  135. MarksonofDarwin says:

    Hilarious bB!

    “I could have had a normal mustache all this time, like Stalin”

    Loved it! ahaha

  136. In the first place, as I said above: I do not buy into the claims that Global Climate Change is caused entirely or even significantly by man-made pollution. But, I do agree that made-made pollution is a bad thing that should be at least controlled if it cannot be completely ended.

    Having said that, I would NOT put it past certain governmental agencies or political leaders to use the FEAR of Global Climate Change as a tactic in order to pass anti-pollution laws and restrictions. (On either side, because let’s all remember it was Nixon who was able to implement significant clean air and water laws and he established the EPA.)

    Now, as far as what is causing the ocean waters to rise. We have considered that some of it may be due to:

    1. Melting of the Ice Sheets and Glaciers (perhaps due to Global Warming)

    2. Sinking of the continental tectonic plates (It’s possible!)

    3. Changes in the moon’s gravitational effect on the Earth’s tides (Yes! This could be happening too.)

    or how about we also consider…

    4. Rampant building and paving-over of land that is causing more water to runoff back out to the oceans that was previously being trapped in underground aquifers.

    Or how about this!

    Do you recall the story of Archimedes discovering displacement by filling his bathtub full of water? When he sat down in it he noticed that water spilled over the sides, so he jumped out and ran naked through the streets of Syracuse yelling “Eureka!” Because of that discovery we now know that: When you put a solid object into a container of water, then the level of water will rise to accommodate the displacement of space taken up by that object.

    5. Have you ever thought about how many thousands of ships have sunk in the oceans, or lava flows from places like Hawaii have oozed into those waters, or even landslides off the edges of the continents have splashed into the seas.

    What I am saying, folks, is that sometimes you have to expand your thinking and consider ALL other alternatives before you pin all your arguments on just one.

    Therefore, there are at least 5 contributing factors to the reason why the water level of the oceans on Earth is changing. Right?

    So, what’s all the fuss about. Stuff happens. Things change. Deal with it!

  137. P.S. Oh! And maybe the waters aren’t actually rising. Maybe it’s just the Moon thing with gravity and the tides, or perhaps the tectonic plates are floating and not sinking, and … Well, you get my point, right?

  138. MarksonofDarwin says:


    “Have you ever thought about how many thousands of ships have sunk in the oceans, or lava flows from places like Hawaii have oozed into those waters, or even landslides off the edges of the continents have splashed into the seas.”

    Makes total sense.
    Your ideas are intriguing, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

  139. Marks… I wish I had a newsletter, but for now this is all I got. But, thanks!

  140. MarksonofDarwin says:

    MBR, Just a joke, but I did find that idea interesting. No doubt some scientist somewhere has thought of the same thing….one would hope anyway!

  141. Marks…, Have you ever watched the TV show The Big Bang Theory? I watch the reruns whenever I can, when there’s nothing else worth watching, which is most of the time. I really like the show, because it’s hilarious. It’s all about scientists, who are obviously brilliant in their fields, but haven’t got a lick of common sense. That’s why it’s so funny, and I think why I also like watching reruns of Frasier.

    Watching these geniuses, who can’t think their way out of everyday situations, is a real life occurrence. These people are so brilliant, yet they can’t see the basic problems or figure out the simple solutions right in front of them.

    I see a lot of that on these blogs too. A lot of very smart people here, obviously. Yet no one has figured out, so far, what the basic point of the letter at the top of this thread is really about.

    That’s why I asked in my 11:32 AM comment…

    Well, you get my point, right?

    No one has yet.

  142. aislander says:

    So…the climatopaths are looking at one variable, whereas there are actually several of them. I do detect a bit of proprietary interest, though…

  143. took14theteam says:

    Still waiting Manuel…..

  144. took14theteam, it doesn’t look like you’re going to be getting an answer from ManuelMartini on your email address question. Just like Manuel is apparently not going to get an answer from Vox_ about his “forced name change” and I am apparently not going to get an answer from anyone about the sum_nos and other keystroke saving names.

    Isn’t it kind of odd that on a site dedicated to communcation, there are these circumstances that come up when people refuse to communicate?

    Oh well! C’est la vie

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