Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

CLIMATE: Thoughtful article sure to goad the deniers

Letter by David C. Erickson, Tacoma on April 19, 2012 at 9:40 am with 51 Comments »
April 19, 2012 9:40 am

Re: “Politics and profits interfere with action to halt global warming” (TNT, 4-18).

Thank you for publishing Peter Goldmark’s thoughtful article about climate change and the efforts of corporations to obscure the facts. I am looking forward to being entertained by the letters from the deniers. Hopefully, some of them will actually use their own words and refer to their own studies, rather than parrot some carbon-funded blog.

Leave a comment Comments → 51
  1. Ortingmom says:

    And do you have your own studies? hmmmmmm

  2. volvo1999 says:

    Yeah David, show us your own studies, ha, can’t believe you even took the time to write the letter

  3. So now we have a former N.Y State budget director and newspaper man presuming to be an expert on “global warming”, (snicker, snicker). The last time I visited Westport to do a little fishing, I noticed that the town wasn’t flooded, the beach is the same as it was when I first went there in 1975. If the oceans are rising as these loons say, wouldn’t it be just a little bit noticeable in areas surrounded by the ocean? huh?

  4. aislander says:

    The use of the word “deniers” militates in favor of the idea that Goldmark and Erickson are on a religious crusade…

    I’m not a “denier,” but, since even the climate-change enthusiasts admit that their proposed nostrums will have no effect on mitigating projected changes–but WILL HAVE a dramatically negative effect on the economy at a time when we can least afford that, I have to ask: what is the real agenda?

  5. LornaDoone says:

    “The last time I visited Westport to do a little fishing, I noticed that the town wasn’t flooded, the beach is the same as it was when I first went there in 1975. If the oceans are rising as these loons say, wouldn’t it be just a little bit noticeable in areas surrounded by the ocean? huh?”

    But if you drive south on Hwy 105 to Tokeland you are confronted with the exact issue that you claim isn’t happening.

    Your assessment reminds me of a couple coming out from a pile of rubble after a tornado saying “well, at least the wind ain’t blowin'”.

  6. sumyungboi says:

    ailander: “The use of the word “deniers” militates in favor of the idea that Goldmark and Erickson are on a religious crusade…”

    Funny you mention that, there’s a good column in today’s ed section regarding the religion of environmentalism. And it _is_ a religion.

  7. averageJoseph says:

    Ever since Al Gore’s propoganda “documentary” was widely debunked and we found out research was being manipulated, this whole global warming scare tactic has really been losing steam. What a con.

  8. Well Dave, Mission Accomplished. The deniers are out in force spinning, twisting, flipping and flopping.

  9. Misunderestimated says:

    Global warming again? ROFLMAO!!!!!
    Come on everyone, we are supposed to believe this made up science with “facts” presented by “experts?”
    Oh but my ribs are starting to hurt, my eyes are tearing, this is just too much…soo much stupidity; so little time…
    We’re all gonna die!!! lol, lmao, ROFLMAO!!!

  10. Candles16 says:

    Its humorous how our conservative corporate media has made ‘Climate Change’ a dirty word and convinced so many low information tv viewers its all a hoax. It is a spectacularly successful media blitzkreig pulled off by the oil companies and their minions. News coverage of climate change has dropped dramatically in the last few years. Out of sight – out of mind.

    Unfortunately the insurance companies didn’t get the memo. Climate change puts more moisture into the atmosphere and can cause much of the drastic weather events of late.

    Insurance companies and their actuarial teams are not in denial. Its likely that climate change might make property insurance unavailable in the future. Already Florida residents are finding out hurricane insurance is exorbitant.

    http://www.ctmirror.org/story/15818/connecticut-insurers-take-risky-challenges-climate-change
    http://www.newsinsurances.co.uk/experts-warn-flood-insurance-unavailable-months/0169486289

  11. I love how conservatives – who zealously defend Christianity – turn around and try to denigrate science by claiming that it is a religion.

  12. It would be nice if science and religion got back to a stiff
    dose of rationalism and acknowledge the frailty of
    of human thought and action. Now where’s my drink?

  13. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Just pointing out your hypocracy, BB. The difference is Christianity, and all religions, are based on faith. Global warming, since renamed ‘climate change’, is based on flat out lies.

  14. ‘climate change’, is based on flat out lies.

    That statement is not based in fact.

  15. concernedtacoma7 says:

    google IPCC lies or anything of the sort. Selective data or plain fraud, climate change science has had its reputation damaged beyond repair (except to those religious believers in Al Gore and his friends).

    What came out of last year’s climate change conference in South Africa (besides a hangover)? A date and another locale for the annual party on someone else’s dime.

    NASA, University prof’s (I know you have to love them), and thousands of scientists are declaring it a scam.

    if you need a link- http://www.google.com

  16. aislander says:

    Darlin: The infantile rants are designed to garner attention. Don’t provide it; it just encourages it.

  17. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Afet, I did look at your links. You should have just linked to politifact, and then I would not have seen this in the goal of your linked organization

    “to develop innovative, practical solutions and to secure responsible changes in government policy, corporate practices, and consumer choices” A leftist organization trying to stall our economy and limit our individual freedom.

    or this “Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing.” How about you prove your theory? Irrefutable? And climate experts walk into the room with an already established bias. Their funding, and really their jobs, force them to take the easy path.

    FC- you stated you were in the service, right? Bet you joined for the college money and threw a fit when they actually expected you to serve. You probably did one 6 month tour in Kuwait and are now whining that the VA will not give you a higher disability. Look at xring, and his huge chip. Don’t be that guy.

  18. CT7 – are you a scientist? Do you think an entire group of scientists would devote their life’s work to fraud? Really this is something I cannot understand how someone would believe such a conspiracy be so many who are devoted to the scientific method.

    And one other point, how did you come to the conclusion below about skeptical science organization. Their work is well documented and you can try to refute it if you like but this is just hyperbole.

    “A leftist organization trying to stall our economy and limit our individual freedom. “

  19. Sorry meant to say “by so many….”

  20. ScaredPhone says:

    “Do you think an entire group of scientists would devote their life’s work to fraud?”

    If it served their purpose. Case in point- nearly all the scientific academia during the time of Galileo, the scientists who shilled for the tobacco industry in the 20th century… and of course the ones who are pushing the “Global Warming” scam.

    Pure science is untouched by bias, monetary desires and a preconceived outcome. The studies on “climate change” have been corrupted by the influence of all three.

    When you force your preconception of what a fact should be into a mold, it becomes your own desire and ceases to be a fact.

  21. the scientists who shilled for the tobacco industry in the 20th century… and of course the ones who are pushing the “Global Warming” scam.

    Interesting how the scientists are seen as tainted by money yet the big money is on the side of the deniers……

    The techniques (and some of the exact same people) of Big Tobacco are being used by the deniers – not the scientists.

  22. concernedtacoma7 says:

    SP- great point. As seen by the leftist response they deflect to a grand conspiracy of big evil corporations working together to destroy the globe (unless the implication was the Koch bros). Love the irony.

  23. harleyrider1 says:

    Since you are so amused and such a “believer”, and obviously want to impose your beliefs on us, let me ask you how you live.

    Do you and your family avoid any kind of gas-powered transportation?

    Have you stopped buying all spray-products, i.e. areasols?

    Have you stopped buying shoes, clothes, and food since petroleum is used directly or indirectly in their manufacturing?

    Do you live in the dark or do you use energy to heat and light your home?

    You’re probably like Warren Buffet and Barack Obama. Tell us to pay more when Buffet’s company owes $1-billion in back taxes; Obama’s White House staffer and some cabinet members owe millions in back taxes.

    Do what you believe – don’t tell the rest of us how to live when you still live in a modern home and use modern things.

    Besides – as many or more scientists think man mad global warming is bunk. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

  24. averageJoseph says:

    “preconceived outcome” bingo Which explains the hockey stick graph, “hide the decline” and many other breaches of scientific integrity.

  25. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Do you think an entire group of scientists would devote their life’s work to fraud?

    Given the possibility of reward, I would’t rule it out. And while science has been used to support fraud in the past (thinking of Pons and Fleishmann’s cold fusion “discovery”, Schön’s nanoeltronics research and peer-reviewed papers, Liburdy’s EMF research, etc.), I don’t think “fraud” is necessarily the best word to describe much of what we skeptics have seen. Although fraudulent research and conclusions apply to a few well-known cases, generally speaking climate science remains for the most part “inconclusive” – which would be a better word to use IMO.

    And thinking of the groups of scientists who spent considerable periods of their careers chasing theories that were ultimately proved wrong (how many followed Einstein down the “static universe” rabbit hole?), why should so-called climate science be exempt?

    An old liberal cliché comes to mind here; “open mind”. But in this case, as in so may others, they would hypocritically have us “do as they say”, LOL.

  26. Frankenchrist says:

    The GOP is swirling around the bowl. One more flush and they will be gone.

  27. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Darlin, if you need any evidence that what aislander says is true, look up-thread one post.

    You’ve spoken the truth, now let the trolls troll – that’s what they do. Don’t even rise, it’s not worth it to let them get their jollies off.

  28. Dave98373 says:

    Climate concerners are like most irrational left….they come to their conclusions first then they tailor the facts second to justify their position…then claim the debate is over and requires no further discussion.

  29. Pacman33 says:

    dB has concluded –
    “Interesting how the scientists are seen as tainted by money yet the big money is on the side of the deniers……”
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/03/06/how-can-i-get-some-of-that-anti-global-warming-big-oil-money/
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574566124250205490.html

    What is it with you freaks? Declaring war on science isn’t enough? Do we really have to sit here and witness the all out assault on fact and truth? Making a mockery out of science gets boring for you, I guess.

    It is just one thing after another with you people. You hear something that ‘sounds’ like it represent “justice” or “fairness”. Maybe, you find something that reads “pretty”. Regardless, it is then always a sprint to your well worn, buckling soap boxes to spew the newest lie for the hour.

    How do you take yourselves seriously? A healthy person would likely pause mid sprint and consider : ‘Hey, wait a minute … I looked like a fool last time, maybe I should confirm this …” But you nuts possess an intense distaste for logic and facts accompanied by an infinite void of shame, that if this mentally healthy behavior in fact ever transpired, your answer is always:
    “Eff it”
    The left’s answer to everything.

  30. “arlin: The infantile rants are designed to garner attention. Don’t provide it; it just encourages it.”

    Hypocrisy defined.

  31. Vox and kluwer, thank you and although I know his type, I let him get to me. He is indeed a sad and lonely person.

  32. LOL!!!!

  33. Scared – of course the fact that the majority and anti-changed scientists work for or are funded by energy companies is just a minor coincidence.

    CT7 – and what conspiracy do you deflect to: big guy in sky or big bad leftists?

    Harley – ru you really so blind as to expect an article titled ‘List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming’ to be a fair and balanced source of how the majority of scientists believe?

    And the correct terminology is that human activity CONTRIBUTES to climate change, but we are not the only, or necessarily the primary cause.

    Pac –

    http://www.bing.com/search?q=Republican+war+on+science&src=IE-SearchBox&adlt=strict

  34. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    LOL then push “Flag comment”.

    That’s what you get for rising to troll bait.

  35. aislander says:

    beerBoy writes: “I love how conservatives – who zealously defend Christianity – turn around and try to denigrate science by claiming that it is a religion.”

    beers: You MUST know that I don’t defend ALL religions. Religions, unlike people, are not created equal.

    Of course people, although created equal, do not remain that way…

  36. aislander says:

    Darlin thinks k****r wrote the original comment, which is what generated the gloating “LOL…”

    Can I say “pathetic,” or will that get flagged?

  37. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    ai, it’s what I get for not following my own advice. Couldn’t let Darlin’s slip pass though, she doesn’t deserve it.

    Note to self; avoid mere mention of the clueless and religious bigot monikers – ignore posts by any same.

  38. concernedtacoma7 says:

    So why did you get kicked out of the service, FrankenC?

  39. Yep, it’s the weekend, vox and her little minion ailander are knee deep in the infantile insults.

  40. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Like your “her” line? Once again, why do you post here? Debate, conversation, or persuasion are obviously of no interest to you.

    Go away. I know they kicked you out of your park, but there are some nice overpasses for you to live under.

  41. took14theteam says:

    We had to deal with it when it posted as s u m n e r 4 0 1 / 4 0 2.

    Thought it went away, but I guess not….

  42. Aaaah more little minions with nothing to add, it’s like the monkey cage at the zoo, all they can do fling their own….

  43. aislander says:

    THAT was a crafty comment. Well done!

  44. The main monkey pops back up with more…nothing to add.

  45. concernedtacoma7 says:

    How old is kluw? Any guesses? I am trying to figure out why he/she would lurk here. The obvious answer is only to be a PITA. Who has the time and/or desire to do that?

  46. Clearly, you do.

    The poo flinging here is getting bad, the right has lost all arguments and has, as always sunk to the lowest level.
    It would be sad if it wasn’t so predictable.

  47. bBoy, the point re the religion commentary is this…many on the left who claim to hate proslytizing embrace it fully when it comes from environmentalists who act on their beliefs with a religious zeal.
    Surely you can see, if not the hypocrisy, then at least the humor in this. And speaking of deniers, how can you deny the truth of this observation? And one more time, though folks here continually ignore this point…many environmentalists speak of their devotion as part of a spiritual aspect of their lives, a sort of modern day animism or pantheism.

    Finally, as for scientists going down wrong paths, isn’t it the nature of science to either accept or reject a hypothesis based on facts discovered along the way — much as James Lovelock has done here:

    By Ian Johnston, msnbc.com
    “James Lovelock, the maverick scientist who became a guru to the environmental movement with his “Gaia” theory of the Earth as a single organism, has admitted to being “alarmist” about climate change and says other environmental commentators, such as Al Gore, were too.
    Lovelock, 92, is writing a new book in which he will say climate change is still happening, but not as quickly as he once feared.
    He previously painted some of the direst visions of the effects of climate change. In 2006, in an article in the U.K.’s Independent newspaper, he wrote that “before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.”
    However, the professor admitted in a telephone interview with msnbc.com that he now thinks he had been “extrapolating too far.”

    ________________

    I keep posting this hoping someone will have the courage to acknowledge this scientist’s change of mind.

    Last but not least, sadly, there ARE scientists who’ve sold their souls to the devil to get grant money AND to get published. Yes, even scientists suffer the same temptations as everybody else.

  48. You can believe all of the lies about “global climate change” or what was formerly called “global warming”, I tend to be a little too logical about things. As I said earlier, I haven’t seen one bit of change in the sea levels that these liberals are all twisted in knots about. I still see rain, clouds, sun, moderate temperatures,cold temperatures etc. So what has changed? I don’t need some “scientist” to define what I can see see from my front porch. BTW, I heard this week that the very same guy who first started this whole scare has now recanted. He’s finally got some smarts at the age of 92. I don’t remember his name but it doesn’t really matter anyway, he’s not that important.

  49. sozo, so right you are, Thanks for putting a name to my recent post.

  50. recanted – To make a formal retraction or disavowal of (a statement or belief to which one has previously committed oneself).

    Lovelock, 92, is writing a new book in which he will say climate change is still happening, but not as quickly as he once feared.

    Altered, mellowed, modified, downsized – those words work, but not recanted.

*
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