published Monday, February 7th, 2011

'Global-warming' absolutism?

Does it seem to you that no matter what the weather does these days, somebody declares it proof of manmade "global warming" -- and insists that only heavy government control of industry can "rescue the planet"?

If the winter is mild and dry, that -- we are assured -- is proof of global warming.

If the winter is cold and snowy, that is also supposed to be evidence of global warming.

If there are droughts or floods or hurricanes or changing migratory habits among birds, the all-purpose explanation is -- you guessed it -- global warming.

Recently we spotted this headline: "Heavy snow fits global warming." It was atop an article that purported to "sweep away" doubts that some people -- who are tired of the cold weather -- may have about climate change.

We believe climate change is more complex than many environmentalists will admit -- and that heavy regulations proposed to "fix" global warming would do massive harm. We're also troubled by serious errors or outright distortions of climate data by supposedly objective sources.

Then again, with this winter having brought heavy snow and intense cold to much of the nation, we suspect some Americans wouldn't mind a little "global warming" about now.

8
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
nucanuck said...

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

February 7, 2011 at 12:20 a.m.
jpo3136 said...

How about those coke ovens? Enjoy breathing now? Need we remind you of those nice smog alerts in the Scenic City?

I applaud the sentence which implied y'all had read a headline on the subject of global warming. Unfortunately, your immediate use of Frank Luntz's coined political phrase "climate change," while approved of by the Republican party, is a rhetorical device designed to persuade us into agreeing with the unsubstantiated assertions above. We disagree with your arguments as a whole.

Perhaps you could have read more than the headline.

Even if someone, through irrational disregard for observable facts, disagreed with the concept of global warming in the long term, the fact is that pollution control regulations can and do improve the quality of life in our very city.

Take breathing without a protective mask, for instance.

Notice, for example, how we can now breathe in Chattanooga. Coke ovens turned off. Less smog. It's an example of how the Clean Air Act works.

Ranting against 1970s-era pollution control laws just goes to show how insanely behind the times your editorial viewpoint really is. When it comes to "heavy government control of industry" we have the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. 2007 Supreme Court decisions have supported the EPA's duty to enforce those mainstays, the bastions, of pollution control. Even Justices Scalia and Alito have upheld, without dissent, those ideas in judicial opinions.

When you start straying off to the right of President Richard Nixon, creator of the EPA, you're headed off the deep end.

Support clean air. We like breathing in Chattanooga now. Thanks.

February 7, 2011 at 2:40 a.m.
Livn4life said...

Pollution control is one thing. The ridiculous claims of environmentalists that we alone(usually just the US)are destroying the planet are what trouble many people. But then it just seems if we get the government to regulate everything all global warming, cooling, climate change etc. would just go away. The biggest farce is the misuse of biased and inaccurate science in this regard.

February 7, 2011 at 4:45 a.m.
nucanuck said...

L4L,

Would you like to provide us with a few examples of "biased and inaccurate science..."?

Probably not,since your commenting style is to hit and run. You have failed to respond to my responses to you,too many times to count.

February 7, 2011 at 11:54 a.m.
majikman said...

It's hard to bekieve that one can get away with writing something like this! I'm sorry, but your comments have no teeth at all. Just rhetoric.

You put out no real facts about global warming, and you expect us to buy it? Come back with some facts, and we car really get into a discussion.

You know, just some scientific facts that back your position. Hmmm...maybe that's why "no teeth," no facts!

February 7, 2011 at 10:02 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

"Support clean air. We like breathing in Chattanooga now. Thanks." Username: jpo3136 | On: February 7, 2011 at 2:40 a.m.

I agree 100%, though I'm not sure what "clean air" has to do with AGW.

CO2 is plant food.

It is the very base molecule of the entire food web on our planet.

In actuality, plants thrive when the CO2 level is greater than 1000ppm. They use less water and develop quicker and to greater extents. This very fact is why greenhouse operator's use these... http://www.johnsongas.com/industrial/CO2Gen.asp

CO2 is not a pollutant by any scientific definition, only a misinformed legal one.

There is ZERO empirical evidence proving a causal link between increasing CO2 concentrations and increases in global temperatures.

There IS empirical evidence showing that CO2 concentrations lag temperature changes, in both directions, up and down.

Anyone who disputes this is very welcome to provide some actual empirical evidence to support the AGW hypothesis.

I won't hold my breath, as after tens of billions in research dollars spent over the last 30 years, no one has found any evidence yet.

February 7, 2011 at 11:24 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

"Would you like to provide us with a few examples of "biased and inaccurate science..."?"

Mind if I play?

We'll start with inaccurate, eh?

Here you'll find the most complete cataloging of official U.S. climate data collections sights ever attempted. http://www.surfacestations.org/ Notice that 61% of the stations observed are, by .gov's own standards, poorly sited enough to conclude that they would have an error equal to or greater than 2 degrees C. This amount is over twice that of the claimed warming "signal".
Another 22% are sited poorly enough to induce an error equal to or greater than 1 degree C and 8% should have an error of 5 degrees C or more.

Inaccurate is putting it mildly, yet a change of hundredths of a degree is claimed to be observable.

Now try this one. It seems that in 1990/91 a very large chunk of climate stations quit reporting, and suddenly, temperatures made a distinct step jump. http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/nvst.html Now what happened right about that time? All those Siberian outpost manned by Soviet employees went quiet is what happened, the folks left for more hospitable climes when the Soviet Union started to collapse and quit paying them.

O.K., enough "inaccurate". How about "biased"?

What would you say about government scientists who "adjust" data to increase the apparent warming? Not just recent temperatures, but temperatures all the way back in the 1800's? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/28/nasa-giss-adjustments-galore-rewriting-climate-history/ What sort of mind would even consider making those types of adjustments other then a BIASED mind?

How about Urban Heat Islands? I know you've heard of the concept. How about when NASA adjusts the temperature data UP to compensate for population growth. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/05/goddard_nasa_thermometer/ Anyone with half a brain knows that increasing urban growth will raise local temperatures due to multiple factors(more concrete, asphalt, A/C units and automobiles, to name a few). Why then, other than bias, would the temperature record from growing urban areas be adjusted UP rather than down when attempting to maintain some semblance of continuity in the records?


These are the tip of the iceberg. The shenanigans are becoming farcical.

February 8, 2011 at 12:12 a.m.
holdout said...

If you want a world that has no climate change then move to the moon. Not Mars. There is global warming going on there as we speak. The climate here on earth has changed without stopping for billions of years and will continue to do so. Without global warming there will be no way to feed eight billion people anyway so maybe it isn't a bad thing. Or maybe it is for the same reason. All in all the worry about what humans do to climate is rather pretentious. We do not control nature to that degree.

February 8, 2011 at 9:38 a.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.