The Locally Owned Voice of the Capital Region

Climate change opponents have no credibility

Friday, May 23, 2014
Text Size: A | A

Climate change opponents have no credibility

Re the May 18 Viewpoint, "Climate change debate revived," by Amy Ridenour: There are so many points to raise in objection to Amy Ridenour's "top 10 reasons Congress should ignore advice to pass legislation to combat climate change" -- and The Gazette's decision to publish it -- that it is difficult to know where to start.

Ms. Ridenour's piece contained many well-worn misrepresentations from the climate-denial community. The scientific facts are not in dispute: The Earth has warmed by more than 1.5 degrees F since recordkeeping began in 1880 and 2013 was the fourth warmest year on record.

In fact, every year since 2000 has been hotter than the average global temperature of the 1990s. Bottom line: We are warming, no matter what Ms. Ridenour wishes to believe.

I suspect The Gazette patted itself on the back when it decided to "debate" whether there is evidence enough to act on climate change by publishing Ms. Ridenour's piece with a companion article by professor Michael Kraft.

However, to "debate" this reality with one writer on each side does not give your readers the proper context of where the balance of scientific opinion lies.

Since John Oliver staged a "statistically representative" climate debate on his HBO show -- in which three climate deniers had the opportunity to challenge 97 scientists who acknowledge reality -- we should expect the same numerical accuracy on the pages of our newspapers, as well.

In the future, if you publish a, say, 400-word discussion of climate-change facts, you should limit the opposing viewpoint to 12 words. Only then will you present climate change in a way that accurately represents the balance of scientific opinion.

Jeffrey D. Corbin

Niskayuna

The writer is an associate professor of Biological Sciences at Union College.

Bruno was victim of political witch hunt

Re the May 17 article, "Bruno not guilty:" It is a sad day when the most powerful man in the state felt like the United States of America was after him.

That is a shame and not what I fought for. We have really let down the man, who gave so much of himself, over nonsense. I will, and would, fight for the government to compensate him in full. This was nothing short of a witch-hunt. We have failed Joe Bruno, and I want to personally apologize to him.

Joe, I am truly sorry. Thanks for your lifelong work.

Ed Squires

Rotterdam

Solution for balanced budget already exists

Having the federal government operate with a budget that does not increase the national debt is a good idea. But several balanced budget proposals have deep flaws in them.

First of all, there's no need to amend the Constitution to require the budget to be in balance. Especially is there no need to force creation of a constitutional convention to add a requirement for a balanced budget. But, unfortunately, this is being proposed by many.

Some BBAs (balanced budget amendments) call for increasing taxes, even steering the taxing authority away from Congress to the executive branch. Dangerous proposal!

Practically all BBAs ignore the enormous indebtedness already on the books. Interest on the $17 trillion our country owes is already the third largest item in the federal budget.

What, then, should be done? The answer starts with forcing the House of Representatives to use its "power of the purse" to put an end to unconstitutional federal programs. Article I, Section 7 states: "All bills for raising revenues shall originate in the House of Representatives." If the House won't "originate" bills for foreign aid, education, housing, medical care and more, that's it. A majority in the House (218) could not only stop the reckless spending, it could begin to pay off the national debt.

A constitutional convention to add a BBA with all or many of its flaws would open up the Constitution to massive change, even cancellation. Forget the BBA. Don't endanger the Constitution.

Jonathan Mariano

Scotia

Albany VA good, but needs improvement

After two weeks of listening to and reading news about the Veteran Administrations across the nation, I feel I have to speak out about the VA in Albany. I'm telling what I know -- with no ax to grind -- just the truth.

First, the VAs do a lot of good with the resources they are given by governments. But there are problems. Waiting list? Well, it takes three to four months to see certain specialists. Example:urologists. Even if you have an ongoing infection problem, bladder, urinary -- VA policy says unless your primary physician says something, it takes months to see the urologist. Why? Because they don't have doctors.

Albany medical people or medical residents who work at the VA are getting training. Once again, veterans are being used. When I asked my primary doctor why I wasn't sent to the urologist after a second infection, I was told it was not in the VA policy. I went to the VA emergency room, where the ER doctor took one look and put me in for an appointment with a urologist.

That was in September; I saw the urologist on Dec. 28.

There is much indifference among staff. Most registered nurses are great, but doctors -- not at all. A lot have a "better-than-thou" attitude. In 2004, I was in the VA for 30 days.

Three times I was almost given the wrong meds, which I could have died from. Some RNs, like one who works for my primary, are truly dedicated, compassionate professionals. But they are way overworked.

The VA needs to cut fat in the administration; hire more doctors; be willing to pay them and RNs; and develop a more vet-friendly attitude. We all die, but let's not die because of polling or indifference.

Albert Marvell

Scotia

Letters Policy

The Gazette wants your opinions on public issues.

There is no strict word limit, though letters under 200 words are preferred.

All letters are subject to editing for length, style and fairness, and we will run no more than one letter per month from the same writer.

Please include your signature, address and day phone for verification.

For information on how to send, see bottom of this page.

For more letters, visit our Web site: www.dailygazette.com.

 

comments

May 24, 2014
6:48 a.m.
+0 votes
roberttodt says...

I see Mr.Corbin is towing the liberal line. I am right, you are wrong period. No reference to why Ms. Ridenour is wrong, or why not one climate change model that refers to people being the main cause has ever come close to predicting actual outcomes. The climate is changing, just as it has from the beginning of its existence, long before man ever walked the earth. There are many more powerful contributors to the climate than us.

Bob

May 24, 2014
8:22 p.m.
+0 votes
mkg314 says...

For anyone not sure what to think about climate change and global warming, here is a good starting point:

http://bit.ly/1opgX4P

May 31, 2014
12:44 a.m.
+0 votes
pnotto says...

As an avid listener and reader of news, we are constantly barraged with information most of it false and one of the falsehoods being spewed by the American Left is the issue concerning man made global warming and/or climate change. The UN’s latest report from the International Planetary Committee on Climate (IPCC), their latest report is out and it's the biggest scaremongering global warming report to date. According to the scare tactics that the left employs they feel they need to use, no one will be spared from their harassment. In fact, because this is the scariest climate prediction ever, we will experience a global surge in the number of golfers? Climate change is even going to increase boating, golfing, and beach recreation at the expense of skiing according to the report. There would even be an increase in golf in Canada due to climate change and that is supposed to panic us. We're supposed to hear this and hit the panic button. These people don't know what they're talking about. In fact, golf is in trouble as a sport, if you want to know the truth about it, major golfing organizations are trying to figure out what they can do to attract more people to the game because they're not holding people's interest in the game. In fact anything the Left comes up with is absurd and ridiculous.
Much to their chagrin this issue is a laughingstock. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), who serves on the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, released the following statement recently in response to the new Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Working Group II report on the impacts of climate change. Senator Boxer said: “The latest IPCC report adds a tremendous sense of urgency for Congress to wake up and do everything in its power to reduce dangerous carbon pollution. In California, we can look out the window to see climate change's impacts.” She can see climate change from her house? Somehow people don’t believe Sen. Boxer, if you look at the driest year on record in 2013 to the increased frequency and intensity of wildfires, she can see all of that by looking out her window. Clark Kent doesn’t have that great of vision.

May 31, 2014
12:54 a.m.
+0 votes
pnotto says...

Con't below:
This whole issue is getting absurd day by day. The American Left are panicking and because they're losing public opinion on this issue. Something that's consistent with the left as they panic, as they lose public opinion on any issue, they get funnier, more ridiculous and more outlandish. The claims, the scare tactics, the ways they attempt to frighten people, it just knows no bounds, no limits whatsoever. That's what this latest IPCC report is: No one will be spared. In fact, we've been told the science on global warming is settled. All they're using are computer models! They're not using any empirical data. Every prediction on global warming is based on a computer model that is simply nothing better than whatever the input data is. One report stated recently, "Researchers Find 5 Previously Undetected Greenhouse Gases, so they've never been detected before. So how can it be settled if we've just found five new previously undetected greenhouse gases? Does this mean it's even worse than we thought or not as bad as we thought? Now that we have the brand-new UN’s climate change global warming scare report out, and nobody is safe, nobody will go unscathed, nobody will escape. It's going to wipe everybody out in the next hundred years, when none of us are alive anyway to see whether or not they're correct.
One thing the report points to was the average normal temperature for this global warming scare tactic to be relevant, the temperatures today and 15 years ago have to be what is normal since the beginning of time. There was simply no way we know that because we don't have accurate recordkeeping for thousands and billions of years ago. It's a wild guess. You can go back and look at ice cores and tree trunk rings all you want to, the fact is we just don’t know. The point is, these climate scientists, try to tell you they do know. But if you can just try to get your mind around this one concept, how do we know what it is when we happen to be alive is what is normal for all time?

May 31, 2014
1:01 a.m.
+0 votes
pnotto says...

Con't below:
These deviations are only relevant if what is happening now is normal. For example, the warming they claim that is happening is real, so let's play a little hypothetical scenario, let's say it is warming, even though it isn't, we are headed for the devastation that these people say is waiting for us a hundred years from now. What if that's what's normal is? What if where we're going is what normal is? How do we know? The vanity of these liberals to assume when they are alive, when they are scientists, when they are studying, this is what is normal is very condescending on their part. These sanctimonious hypocrites believe when they are alive is when the evil capitalist destroyers happen to exist, and these evil capitalist destroyers using fossil fuels are going to destroy the planet. When no external outside force yet has destroyed this planet, all of a sudden when they happen to be alive, the planet is subject to destruction. The only being that can destroy this planet is Almighty God.
These beliefs and statements transcend common logic are absurd. We do not know that the temperatures and the climate of today is what are normal. BTW, what is normal? Is it what God intended? Is it an average of what's always been? We just don't know. This is such folly. We just do not know what's normal. That is why God made us adaptive. Because there's no normal, every living thing, regardless of its intelligence, has to be able to adapt or it's up the creek for that species. We are not despite what anybody says are not built to live outside. Human beings require shelter and sometimes that shelter requires heat. No matter if it is a caveman using a fire or people burning natural gas we are going to create a carbon foot print in order to survive.

May 31, 2014
1:05 a.m.
+0 votes
pnotto says...

Con't below:
For the longest time, we didn't have air-conditioning. That wasn't perfected and introduced to the populace until the 1920’s. That's how recent it is. We improvise, adapt and over come as a species. As our knowledge base increases and as our entrepreneurial freedom is allowed and as our creative and inventive juices get flowing, we adapt. If we live in a floodplain, we get flooded out, we adapt. We move or we make a bet that we can still live there and it's not going to happen for a hundred years. We adapt, because it isn't constant. This is the reason why birds migrate, bears hibernate, and it is called adaptation. If you can't do it then you are going to be extinct as a species and that's just the way it is. The American Left want to tell you we can't adapt, that this stuff's going to kill us unless we do what they say. What is it they say we should do? They demand that we give over our lives to them because they are right so they will create a big and over expansive government, less and less individual freedom and liberty and higher taxes. Isn't it amazing how that's always the solution to every crisis the left comes up with.
The second thing, which I think is important as a scientific matter, is that all of these predictions, I don’t care if it is a movie that you watched and you might have been seduced by think it's dead-on right or any other global warming prediction that you believe. Every damned one of them is nothing more than what a computer has produced. Every global warming prediction, story, nightmare claim is the result of a computer model. It is not the result of empirical scientific data. It is nothing more than a prediction. The people who put these models together, who write the computer models and the data they enter are fallible. So they think they know, and their input of the data is based on an outcome they desire. So that makes it biased. These are people pushing global warming. They have been shown to be plenty capable of faking it, making up data, eliminating data that's detrimental to their cause. That's what we learned from the e-mails at East Anglia University in Great Britain.

May 31, 2014
1:07 a.m.
+0 votes
pnotto says...

Con't below:
There is no hard, fast science here. Therefore there is no science and it is not settled and science cannot be the result of a consensus. Science is not up for a vote. It is or it isn't. Just because 98% of scientists agree on something doesn't make it so, that's not at all how the scientific theory is vetted, any scientific theory. It's all become politicized. There's not a thing in life today that is not politicized. That's why we need to examine the ideology of the people entering or pushing this tripe and understand it. When you do that there you will find partisan leftists. If we did that we could spare of ourselves so much pain, suffering, and grief, and it's not funny. If we could just get people to learn and understand what liberalism is and what conservatism is the difference is day and night. This is why we need to expose liberals as the phonies they are. The left says we are losing ice in the Polar Regions and the water levels are rising. So why isn’t there flooding in the lower artic regions. If this is true than why did the explorers studying global warming in the Antarctic region get stuck in a massive ice jam? In fact the polar ice caps are larger now than they've been in a while and yes it is very cold. The arctic is growing. It isn't melting and the polar bears aren't in the water because of melting ice. Even if they are, they can swim 60 miles. Polar bears are made to be in water. In many pictures that you see of Polar Bears on small slabs of ice and the caption will say the bears are stranded because of melting ice glaciers, but in actuality the photos have been taken in warmer months where the bears are using the ice slabs to rest before they trek on another 60 mile marathon swim in search of food because their main diet source moves as it warms during the summer months for breading purposes.

May 31, 2014
1:10 a.m.
+0 votes
pnotto says...

Con't below:
The point is, it's all computer models. The UN’s IPCC, is all computer models. There's no certainty. They just want you to think that the models are infallible. Do you know there are economic models? These are economic computer models. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) uses them all the time. That's how we were told that Obamacare would cost less than a trillion dollars. We had a computer model that assured us Obamacare is going to cost less than a trillion dollars. The CBO swore by this and the reason they were able to swear by it is because they only were allowed to use the data that Congress gave them. Congress was run by the Democrats when these projections were made and thus were partisan in nature. They say CBO's not biased, but it is based on the data they get. So the magic number was a trillion dollars. The war in Iraq cost a trillion dollars. The war in Iraq was immoral, unjust, which is why we had to get rid of it, but it was money we were spending and Obamacare is going to be less than the Iraq war cost we were told. Obamacare’s first projections came in under a trillion dollars, $900 billion, so we thought; we're saving a hundred billion dollars doing Obamacare. How'd they do it? They had a computer model that swore by it. But actually it will cost 3 to 4 trillion more dollars to implement.
It’s a ten-year projection and it's very clever what they did. They had 10 years of tax increases in their model but six years of benefits. So they had 10 years of revenue coming into the government by virtue of Obamacare, but because Obamacare was being delayed, pushed its full implementation to 2014. Now that's been delayed to 2016. We were only going to have six years of expenses associated with it. Naturally if you had a ten-year program, but only six of those 10 years are going to be spending any money, but 10 years are going to be collecting, it's going to be easy to get whatever number you want, and they did, and it was a computer model that did it, and everybody swore by it. And now look, it's worthless.

May 31, 2014
1:13 a.m.
+0 votes
pnotto says...

Con't below:
It was worthless then, it's worthless now, as worthless as a climate change model is. It ought to be this hard to educate people, but this is what we're up against. We're talking fact here, and we're up against emotion not logic, and we're up against the polar bears who the left claims are dying but are not. We're up against we're killing the polar bears with our cars. For those of us sports fans if you remember a ridiculous car commercial during the Super Bowl two years ago? A polar bear is walking through a neighborhood and is examining all the cars it sees in various driveways. It finally comes across an electric car and it finds the owner and hugs the owner. The polar bears were thanking us for saving the planet by creating this car.
This is not reality. If a polar bear ever ended up in your neighborhood, you'd have to call animal control, you'd have to tranquilize or shoot it to kill the bear because it would kill you. It would break into your house, it would get your peanut butter and jelly or whatever else it could find in there and you wouldn't want to be anywhere near where this thing was, because they are predators. The bear would not hug you; it would kill you for food. It doesn't know global warming to global cooling the only thing predators know is survival. It doesn't know what an electric car. These asinine commercials and movies are made to be seen by young impressionable children and ignorant adults so this is how they end up being indoctrinated to accept this global warming crap. They watch Gore's movie, they see a polar bear on three square feet of ice and they're led to believe that's all the ice that's left and it's because of us who burn fossil fuels. They go home and start complaining, griping to their parents about how their parents are destroying the planet and parents want their kids to love them and so they go out and buy a different car to keep little Johnny quiet, make little Johnny love them. This is how this whole thing happens, and it's all bogus.

May 31, 2014
1:14 a.m.
+0 votes
pnotto says...

Con't below:
No matter how you slice it this is all BS on the part of the left. Computer data can be altered to get a desired result and this is what the left does to achieve false results. So you see, everything that is not normal is now climate change, the models say so. However, it is very easy to blame any particular extreme event on climate change. The reason there are variations in the climate is called weather driven by the change in seasons and not because I drive a Toyota Tundra.
The discovery of three chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and one hydro chlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) were reported online March 9, 2014, in the journal 'Nature Geoscience' by researchers from the United Kingdom, Germany, Australia, France and the Netherlands. What I want to know is who paid them and how much. We were certainly surprised to find so many previously undetected gases out there and we keep finding more. Emails that were reported by Johannes C. Laube of the University of East Anglia and his fellow colleagues have no credibility left. When it was discovered in these emails that stated if the real issue of global warming and/or climate change was false and ever discovered that it was false we would never receive any more money for whatever we need. So just like the professors at the East Anglia University in the UK are full of crap so is the individual from Union College.

May 31, 2014
1:41 a.m.
+0 votes
pnotto says...

In case the good professor wants to debunk my claims and denies this fact here's an article that was posted recently that will once again tell the professor his and all the claims of his colleagues of man made global warming and/or climate change is crap.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/05/29/s...

 

columnists & blogs


Log into Dailygazette.com

Forgot Password?

Subscribe

Username:
Password: