The Inbox By Steve Stockmar sstockmar@prescottaz.com Courier City Editor Steve Stockmar keeps an eye on dCourier.com’s article comment traffic. He plays referee, examines the best of the big mouths, puts out some fires and starts others.
Friday, November 27, 2009
ehmoran: "Amazing! The data (e-mails) are right in your face and you still refuse to see the evidence. These same scientists threatened my job as a scientist with the US Geological Survey because I tried to publish a study showing with higher confidence that global temperature changes were completely natural caused solely by Earth's physical processes. Additionally, these same scientists would not even discuss or refute the science and facts presented. Instead, they took two days to personally attack me and my family. I always knew that when man-made global climate change was showed to be insignificant that people would lose faith, note the word "FAITH", in science. But this event and exposure is way worse for the science community as a whole. Remember: "Truth is the daughter of Time (Francis Bacon)". Several USGS scientists got fired for the same thing when discussing data manipulation for models developed for the Nevada Nuclear Test Site. But no outcry and defense for those scientists? IF you can't see any problem with this and you don't wonder if there's been some misleading of the public by these scientists, then you definitely are not scientists, you're in denial and would buy any bill of goods sold, and you have no moral principles to stand on. On 25 November 2009 at 12:15 PM, I tried to post comments on RealClimate.org concerning this matter. That website obviously refused to post my comments because they know me, which is another attempt to silence objective parties on this subject and since they were the ones that threatened my job..... Now, think about this. Al Gore PUBLICLY states that the Earth’s Mantle temperatures are MILLION of DEGREES. The man doesn't even have the morality, decency, and/or courage to publicly admit he was WRONG. WHY SHOULD these scientists admit they are wrong? They can't, because if they do, the gig is up....... Matter of fact, LET ME LOOK AT THE ORIGINAL DATA! If there's a problem with the data, I'll find it....... "
Excellent take. Your experience and sound passion is welcome in any conversation that will have me.
My biggest fear is people of the world will be discouraged from living responsibly; i.e., promoting, funding and using renewable energy. In spite of my sarcasm (which scientists have verified conclusively), I do my best not to generalize entire groups. Having said that, here's my fear: that those who vote against the concept of severe weather fluctuations possibly – POSSIBLY – impacted by our unclean behavior will vote against renewable energy.
One must ask: Are we honestly talking about people who OPPOSE renewable energy? If we're talking about people who oppose renewable energy, well, the ship sailed on sanity for them. Or, they get campaign funds from big oil, one or the other.
If not – and everyone in fact agrees that renewable energy has critical value – then ask further: Why support renewable energy? Is it because a measure of it is good for the environment? And if it's good for the environment, cause and effect concludes that it must be bad for the environment without it. If you're asking me, that's the foundation of the entire discussion.
I absolutely favor renewable energy (and quickly, and aggressively, and universally) no matter what it says in certain scientists' emails or in their ethics. Researchers like yourself are passionate for the study of science. I respect all passionate pursuits, and don't dismiss scrutiny on the basis of political favoritism. Especially when it comes to the air that I breathe.
But, please, enough with Al Gore already. Putting Gore at the heart of climate change's scientific debate is like putting Sarah Palin at the heart of, well, ANY debate (there's that sarcasm again, sorry). I care less about Al Gore's PowerPoint than I do about his favorite room in the White House. He's a politician, and they're the ones who either got us into this or continue to exacerbate it. I'll take scientists and researchers who pursue what they do because the environment compels them.
That's what has been so divisive about the content of the emails. And I'm not even PO'd that they were leaked. If we can't debate all sides on the welfare of our planet, then maybe we deserve a fossil fuel flambé. Also, as I expressed last time, there are loons in all of this, even those who support what I support. Consensus doesn't guarantee the same reasons.
Which I'm sure goes for the side that dismisses the whole global warming enchilada in its entirety. No warming, no greenhouse gasses, no rising sea levels. I get that. And I certainly get the accused motive for perpetrating the greatest worldwide hoax since Paul is Dead – political power. Greenbacks for every greenhouse gas. The alibis, however, fit the same as the other side and its motivation for continuing our dependence on oil and gasoline – political power and greenbacks. It plays the same way.
To boil down the exposed emails, I don't believe the percentage of research dunderheads who chose politics over science represent an entire community otherwise driven by objective mathematics. It takes a certain kind of person to live on the polar icecaps for extended periods of time all for the glamour of survey hardware, remote isolation and snow blindness. I believe the planet is worth constant research, and that includes our own puddles.
Anyway, great take.
- - - -
Kim Peart: At the 350 event in Burpengary, Queensland, Australia, the message was that the solution to climate change depended on the whole community getting behind it. For this message to be effective and win the whole human family, it needs to be matched with a vision of hope that will inspire participation in building a better world. I believe that such a vision needs to include space and securing a sustainable presence beyond Earth through space development."
Cue the Twilight Zone music.
Just kidding, Kim. But I'm not quite ready to boldly go where no man has gone before. After all I just had my satellite dish installed! Promoting moving from Earth to space? And you think the secessionists have issues!
I'm with you in spirit, Kim, but I'm in favor of earthbound results for now. Does that make me ... a space-ist?
- - - -
What is this guy, a second grader?: Steve takes a page from his buddy honkybrujo's book: Anybody that dares to disagree with him is a "loon" (and probably a member of the Klan also). This is what we can expect from the "professional" jounalists? Childish name calling. Find a new line of work Steve, you are unsuited for this one.
Hey bub, my line of work is spreading my indefatigable justice one chapter at a time. And the dental plan is good, too. As for honky, I have thrown flags on honky many times like here and here for adding to the fringe mistrust and distortion. Loons? Scientists who falsify data? Yes, they are loony. To do that is, simply, crazy. And keep your Klan fastballs for honky, not me.
- - - -
Hopeful: It must feel pretty strange to now know beyond any doubt that you've been fooled so massively. Perhaps you'll now consider some of your other misguided ideological notions with a more mature perspective. Don't think that global warming/climate change was the only fraud being perpetrated by the left in this world. There are other shinning lights of truth out there for you if you'll just open your eyes. We can hope.
I'm a Cubs fan, so I know all about getting massively fooled. "Other misguided ideological notions" is a great phrase for proving style over substance when it comes to actually having something to say (translation: it means nothing, but has panache). Again, we lose specifics with other unnamed "frauds" on the "world" perpetrated, of course, by "the left." My eyes are wide open, but the only point I see of yours is that you think I'm a bum – but that was never the issue, any more than how I "feel" is the issue. I'm talking about the environment and our planetary responsibilities and you're worried about me and my feelings. Aw shucks (** bats my eyes **).
If Global warming is real, I say "Let The Planet Burn!" It's become a cesspool and needs to be cleaned.
Posted: Tuesday, December 01, 2009
Article comment by:
Steve Stockmar
Too true, Steven. I fear I went overboard on the sarcasm scale with ehmoran, who offers some intelligible perspective; as a result I might have cost myself some return dialogue. I'll call foul on myself on that one. But he did go off the deep end at any comeuppance to dare disagree with him. Free thought amounts to the rest of us saying "thank you sir may I have another" in his debate. On the other hand, maybe his own contradictions scared him off. Maybe his turkey was burning in the oven, I don't know. At least he supports renewable energy, so I'm willing to hear him out.
Posted: Sunday, November 29, 2009
Article comment by:
Steven Ayres
Why bother with clean, renewable energy? Because anything else is not clean, not renewable, or both.
You don't have to know anything about climate change -- and we certainly didn't when the environmental movement began -- to understand that the earth is not making fossil fuels on any useful time scale, so they will run out, and if we are to make a transition to non-fossil technologies, we'll have to use fossil energy to get it all going.
We also use oil and gas to make lots of other important things, like plastics, and we'll presumably need these materials for a long time even once renewable energy takes hold, so it's a bit stupid to be wasting these limited resources just burning them.
If not for the extensive political manipulation going on by the fossil energy industries, this would not even be an issue. It's dead easy to understand.
Posted: Sunday, November 29, 2009
Article comment by:
Steve Stockmar
ehmoran: First off, take a breath. Our discussion went public the minute you posted on this and other public blogs. What we're discussing is important and needs to be in the public forum. Second, you translate my question ("If you disbelieve in global warming, then why bother with renewable and clean energy?") as an accusation. Not sure how you made that leap. That’s an old fashioned straightforward honest inquiry. You leap again to "oppression" and a "violent revolution." Ummm... huh? Getting back to my question – if the use of renewable and clean energy is a must, then let's define the irresponsible activity and work to reduce it. But if there's no connection between human activity, our natural resources and impact on the environment, then clearly renewable energy is a moot point, right? (From the "if it ain't broke ..." research thesis). How you took that question into a stratosphere that landed us in "1930s Germany" I'll never know. And relax with talking publically -- ( ** whispers ** ) you're using a disguised name; the scientific community is not out to put you in a car trunk and drive you to Jimmy Hoffa, I'm pretty sure. Let's focus on the topic and not ourselves. An answer to my question will suffice.
Posted: Sunday, November 29, 2009
Article comment by:
ehmoran
So now I show some depth of reason, responsibility and deep sincerity and you attack me. You have my email. What's up with that. I assumed you were a decent human being but now you PUBLICLY accuse me of contradictions. WOW, I mean WOW.
You can have all the Clean Earth you want, but with human interactions of this kind, the same goes for activities at RealClimate.or, etc., but a clean Earth will be the least of our concerns.
Karl Marx said this: "you can't oppress, control, and manipulate the people forever without causing a violent revolution...
Clean and renewable energy:
I believe in not polluting. What bothers me is the manipulation of the truth about Man-Made Climate Change. What? Are humans unable to determine whats right and wrong without having their action manipulated by scare tactics and lies? Sounds like Tyranny to me....
And many people are now making money on continuing the AGW lie.But regular people are becoming responsible with the environment. Just tell us the truth and civilly discuss both sides of the issue instead of silencing and physically threatening opposing view. This same thing happened in 1930's Germany, and that didn't work out so well for nearly 3 million people.
If the lie is allowed to continue, then when and where will be the next big lie and manipulation? Our Economy, and Financial and Monetary Systems???
Posted: Sunday, November 29, 2009
Article comment by:
Steve Stockmar
honkman: That's not the first arrow I've taken for you ya know. I'll admit that I agree with those I disagree on at least that much -- that your style, however honest, is stronger than a sewer. I find that reading you sometimes is like shielding my eyes while looking at the sun. Risky, but worth understanding.
Posted: Sunday, November 29, 2009
Article comment by:
Steve Stockmar
ehmoran: Anyone who disputes your statement is more than simply silly or misguided -- they are dangerous. But I must again seek an answer for what to me boils down to a fundamental question: If you disbelieve in global warming, then why bother with renewable and clean energy? If humans are not the cause or aggressor to climate change, then why even bother with renewable energy? On the other hand, if you support renewable energy because you deduce (correctly) that renewable energy is responsible, then please define for me what is "irresponsible"! A vote against the concept of climate change is tantamount to a vote against the existence of pollution, or the ill effects of pollution. Who would ever make such a suggestion? And if pollution does exist, and we agree that it's harmful to our environment, then we agree. If we agree that humans do cause a measurable amount of pollution, then we agree. Anyone who disagrees with either statement is a fool, plain and simple. And the kicker is that scientists on BOTH sides mathematically conclude that temperatures are warming, polar caps are melting, and sea levels are rising. Disbelieving scientists dispute whether the rise is harmful and/or whether or not humans impact the rise; but the majority of reputable data on both sides suggests a warming, a melting and a rising. The rest of us don't need a wider map to connect the dots. The rest of us understand that something may be occurring as science continues to evolve, so let's be proactive and as aggressively preventative as we humanly can before we act as though we understand nature in its raw form implicitly. Haven't you heard about 2012?? (Okay, I admit that was a joke. But I needed a graceful dismount from this perch.)
Posted: Saturday, November 28, 2009
Article comment by:
ehmoran
Renewable and clean energy is a MUST.....
Posted: Saturday, November 28, 2009
Article comment by:
honkybrujo
Thanks for the mention Steve any publicity is good publicity. "If your nose runs, and your feet smell you are built upside down"
