Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

CLIMATE: Don’t ignore the naysayers

Letter by John E. Clark, Roy on Jan. 16, 2012 at 4:07 pm with 33 Comments »
January 16, 2012 4:07 pm

Several months ago, The News Tribune featured an in-depth article about the shrinking glaciers on Mount Rainier, endorsing the “scientific theory” that most of this problem is manmade. More recently the TNT has printed an article about shrinking glaciers at Mount Adams and Mount Hood in Oregon.

Why don’t the media pay any attention to the “other view”? Numerous scientists explain that we are experiencing “climate change” and that man is not necessarily totally to blame.

For the past 21 years a glacier has been growing at Mount St Helens and has encapsulated the dome. It is estimated to be 600 feet thick and is continuing to grow northward. I can only assume that since Mount St Helen’s advancing glacier doesn’t fit the global warming theory, this story is deliberately ignored.

When the Mount St Helen’s Visitor’s Center opens next spring, take time to visit and listen to the ranger’s informative talk. I visit often and have yet to hear anything mentioned about the advancing glacier. I purposely ask the question to ensure those in attendance hear some glacier facts that the global warming “experts” don’t mention.

Leave a comment Comments → 33
  1. I can only assume that since Mount St Helen’s advancing glacier doesn’t fit the global warming theory, this story is deliberately ignored.

    Yet another conspiracy theory from a denier.

    Again: Local phenomena is not global.

  2. “I can only assume that since Mount St Helen’s advancing glacier doesn’t fit the global warming theory, this story is deliberately ignored.”
    Now there is a good example of faulty reasoning done by someone who does not understand what global warming and climate change are all about. Read my friend, read.
    Start here: http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/index.cfm#seaLevel

  3. bobcat1a says:

    Numerous scientists explain that we are experiencing “climate change” and that man is not necessarily totally to blame.”

    Man may not be “totally” to blame, but maybe we could try to fix the part that we are to blame for. This letter exemplifies the currently popular notion that anything that’s not perfect is worthless. That’s a recipe for disaster.

  4. ReadNLearn says:

    There’s a new warning we’ll be facing 3 to 7 inches of Global Warming tomorrow, depending on where you live. That’s reality. Cold in winter.

  5. ReadNLearn – Again, Local phenomenal is not global.

  6. “For the past 21 years a glacier has been growing at Mount St Helens”

    It’s actually 31 years, not 21. And gee, do ya thing that something might have happened 31 years ago to melt the glacier? Something like … oh, I don’t know … a volcanic eruption?

  7. “Numerous scientists” promote “the other view”?
    Really? First off, NO self-respecting climatologist would argue against the fact that humans are the sole contributor to ACCELERATED global climate-change.
    You may find a “scientist”, but not a climatologist. And if such a person does exist outside of Fox News circles, then why do you fail to show proof of this.
    No names. No links. No facts.
    Vague anecdotal anecdotes do not constitute a valid case.
    What? do you think that global warming means that every day will be warmer that the last day, in perpetude?
    If ever there was an example of simpleton-theory…

  8. This is not an either/or situation is it? Sure, humans are lousy stewards of the planet and that should change. Sure, they contribute to the problems and should be admonished to live less selfishly. Fine.

    MY complaint, and the complaint of many is the melodrama around the subject– and the fact that politicians and money grubbers like Al Gore turned it into a huge crisis, one in which “man” is portrayed as a nature-hating murderer-of-baby bears! And kids are scared to death.

    And bBoy, applying negative labels to people…as in “deniers” does nothing to elevate the dialogue here. Once again, you disclose the fact that you are part of the problem rather than part of the solution when it comes to reasonable discussion.

  9. “man is not necessarily totally to blame.” Not totally totally, just partially totally.

  10. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    NO self-respecting climatologist would argue against the fact that humans are the sole contributor to ACCELERATED global climate-change. You may find a “scientist”, but not a climatologist.

    Really? Typical alarmist unsubstantiated internet bravado. I would bet there are a few amongst this group who would not agree with you, jellee:

    More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. – including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties – have signed a petition rejecting “global warming,” the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth’s climate.


    But then… they probably are lacking in “self respect“.

    “First they ignore you, then they mock you, then they fight you, then you win.” – Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

  11. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    And then there is this, just for Pub, RE the IPCC:

    “I personally could not in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”

    Dr Chris Landsea, meteorologist, following his resignation from the IPCC.

    “It’s not 2,500 people offering their consensus, I participated in that. Each person who is an author writes one or two pages in conjunction with someone else. They travel around the world several times a year for several years to write it and the summary for policymakers has the input of a handful of scientists, but ultimately, it is written by representatives of governments, and of environmental organizations, each pushing their own agenda.”

    MIT’s Professor of Atmospheric Science Dr. Richard Lindzen on the IPCC report, also following his resignation from the IPCC.

    The IPCC claims that more than 2,500 respected scientists and policy makers collaborate to write its climate change assessments but less than a tenth of these “experts” actually hold qualifications in climatology, most were in fact educated in the political and social sciences. The panel that edits and approves the reports is appointed by the United Nations, and more than half are actually UN officials.

    Back-door wealth redistribution on a world-wide scale anyone?

  12. sandblower says:

    Vox poor vox. The so-called petition has been successfully debunked many times over and Mr. Lindzen’s status of being in the pockets of the energy industry has been documented time after time.
    The real problem for you though is that there is no other comprehensive explanation for the rise in temperatures world wide that can explain away the corresponding rise in CO2 in the atmosphere. Disjointed bits and pieces do not make a theory and bits and pieces is all your group of deniers has. To believe in a conspiracy in the scientific community so vast, as this one must be to fit your definition, really questions the rationality of everyone who holds on to the denier’s position.

  13. Local phenomena is not global, whether on Mt. Rainier OR MT. St.Helens. I think that’s basically what Mr. Clark was saying.

  14. SandHills says:

    Two words, well make that three: unabated population growth

    Both sides of the climate argument are in the same boat (literally and figuratively – our Earth). That life boat does not have infinite resources to support infinite growth of human population.

    The argument that climate change is just a natural cycle will have the same result as those who blame it on the human footprint. Any climate change that will impact the amount of arable land will serve to hasten the inevitable dilema of feeding an ever growing population that continue to eat up resources and pollute. And yes, even the Prius driving ultra-green among us are probably contibuting just as much to the problem as an individual in Bangladesh – one by more consumption the other by procreating more mouths to feed.

    The growing human footprint, in and of itself, poses the root cause of the greatest risk to human existance. Some may debate the finer points about global warming, while ignoring that elephant in the room. I guess those who delight in this back-and-forth debate would be the same ones rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

  15. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    blower, poor blower, you sound an awful lot like Pub, poor Pub.

    Perhaps if you had taken the time to read anything I have ever written, here, about the subject of climate change – including and especially the above post – you might have noted that I have never denied the earth is in a warming cycle, and I have never stated, absolutely, that man has nothing to do with climate change. But please, feel free to attempt to make me a liar.

    My beef is with alarmists who are clearly using the subject for political reasons. Since Pub had the gall to cite the 2007 IPCC report in an earlier thread, it just seemed appropriate to remind him, and you, of what a political sham this whole debate has become.

    So be a good little alarmist lemming, and follow the IPCC over the cliff to serfdom if you like. I will remain forever cautious and skeptical for you.

  16. SandHills says:

    muckibr – you and your wife have a vehicle each, plus at least the computer you are typing on – and I would have to assume a home to live in. In terms of being a consumer, you probably are using much more of the earth’s resources than a typical couple in the Third World. Their only pastime besides basic survival is procreating for their version of social security.

    What I am saying is both are examples of burning the candle at both ends (use of limited resources and growing population) – splitting hairs about you and your wife cancelling each other out of this equation is sort of the point I was making about rearranging the deck chairs.

    As an added point the resources needed obtain the raw materials for production of that Prius battery (not to mention disposal issues at some point down the road) may not be as much of a negative impact as you may be hoping for. Bottomline it is still a resource that becomes more and more scarce as a growing population will need ever more resources.

  17. SandHills, we also have another car and a motorcycle, plus another computer, iPods, iPad, etc… We do not live in a grass shack on the beach, yet. But, that’s neither here nor there.

    I do not buy-into the Global Climate Change being all caused by mankind. I think mankind has contributed to it, but Global Warming and Global Cooling are pretty much natural cycles the Earth has gone through for eons. (Mars even goes through cooling and warming cycles like the Earth does, and their ain’t no polluters on Mars, yet!)

    I wrote a whole long deal about this on another thread, but won’t repeat it here. Unless, it’s necessary.

    I really feel that the big issue is POLLUTION itself. And, some politicians and government agencies, backed up by some scientists who have their own agendas, are using the Global Warming and Climate Change arguments as FEAR issues to get people to go along with anti-pollution measures.

    If that’s true, and if that works, I guess it’s effective, but I just don’t think it’s right. The ends, never justify the means. We should not be lied to to get us to quit polluting.

    Mankind needs to stop treating the Earth like one big garbage dump, and stop the pollution. If that is the real goal, as I think it is, then they (whoever “they” are) should be truthful with us and say that. Don’t give us this Global whatever fear-mongering, just tell it like it is.

  18. “My beef is with alarmists who are clearly using the subject for political reasons.”

    Mine too vox.

  19. SandHills says:

    Muckibr, As you should note, i certainly wasn ‘t trying to make any point either way on regards to global warming. My point was the candle burning at both ends. And if you think all the consumer products we all live with does not create some pollution down the line then that is sort of naive. If you also think that anyone of us using the right types of light bulbs, driving a Prius, and do our own little bit here in the West is going to stop the candle burning on our side enough ( with still a whole lot of consumming) that is naive as well – but to ignore that other end of the candle burning ( population growth – particularly in the 3rd world) then I will repeat, again my main point that its all about rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic if population of the human race isn’t controlled.

  20. SandHills, no, I understand you as regards the candle and population growth. That’s really another subject, but a good point to tag on climate and recycling and conservation, and a lot of stuff we can do, and should be doing to quit screwing-up this planet.

    My point is, on this topic at least, for people in positions of influence to start telling the truth instead of creating fear.

  21. I’m against global warming.

  22. gonefishin69690 says:

    Well, today’s weather should help

  23. I’m against GLOBAL SNOWING!!!

  24. Interesting how people who detest the Fairness Doctrine complain how unfair it is that their minority opinion doesn’t get equal press…..

  25. ReadNLearn says:

    Today, just look out the window when the company enviro nut job is around and smirk, “Global Warming, eh”.

  26. redneckbuck says:

    All energy originates in the form of radiant energy. All energy terminates in the form of thermal energy. Physics!

  27. aislander says:

    Lord Monckton debated the merits of global warming at the Oxford Union with a number of Koolaid drinkers…er…eminent climatologists. The motion was “That this House would put economic growth before combating climate change,” and Monckton won the debate on the pro-economic growth side 135 votes to 110.

    So…apparently there ARE arguments to be made against putting a gun to our own heads and forcing ourselves back into the stone age…

  28. aislander, could you at least supply a date when this global warming debate was supposed to have occurred? A full reference might be nice, but you never do that, so I’ll settle for a MM/DD/YY on this one.

  29. aislander says:

    For those whose ability to use Google I overestimated, the debate occurred in May of 2010…

    Here’s one link: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/24/lord-monckton-wins-global-warming-debate-at-oxford-union/

  30. aislander links a weatherman (aka – tv person who reads the reports he gets from real meteorologists) who has a site focused on “debunking” climate change. His “about” page says – I’m not a scientist but Al Gore isn’t one either.

    The win granted by college undergraduates represents Monckton’s skills and/or the biases of the audience.

    This is as important to actual science as the vast numbers of uninformed USans who insist that Creationism/Intelligent Design is viable science and that there is an actual scientific debate questioning the theory of Evolution and there is no proof that tobacco causes lung cancer.

    aislander’s cited debate IS important to public perception and public policy but has nothing to do with science.

  31. beerBoy, You think the above is a strange link. You should go over to topic WORK: Over 55 and see the link he has posted for YOU there. Wowzers!

  32. aislander says:

    Oh, come ON, beerBoy–TRY to be honest! I didn’t choose that link because of the site, but only because it led to the Oxford Union debate. Anyway, are we back to that stale tactic of impeaching arguments based on who MAKES them rather than the logic of the argument?

    As for the link to the economic-freedom study (still rattling around in the old cerebellum, am I?), as I think I stated, that is the only study I could find on the subject. I would be happy to look at any others you can find. So…in what way IS that study in error?

  33. Chuckle

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