About soundoff


Member Since:
June 21, 2006
Last Signed In:
February 26, 2008
Profile Views:
3736
Blog Views:
27792
View Profile
Send a Message
Send To A Friend
Sign Guestbook
Add as a Friend

Previous Posts
Was review of Nikki's Smoking BBQ off base?
Shooting headline missed the mark
Going to question new firefighter OT in Southern California, too?
Famoso coverage great, but what about ... ?
The wonders of Kern and casual bikini tops
Changes at newspaper, can you try being better?
Forget the weather, what's with that page?
Did you have to detail dog's destruction?
Ann Coulter, TV Guide and dead dogs
Newspaper didn't put Ann Coulter in context, reader says
Archives
June 06
July 06
August 06
September 06
October 06
November 06
December 06
January 07
February 07
March 07
April 07
May 07
June 07
July 07
August 07
September 07
October 07
November 07
December 07
January 08
February 08
March 08
April 08
May 08
June 08
July 08
August 08
September 08
October 08
More Archives
May 06
April 06
March 06
December 05
November 05
October 05
September 05
August 05
July 05
June 05
May 05
April 05

Blog Roll


Ask The Californian
Editorials
Entertainment
Eye of Bakersfield
Faith Forum
Fired Up!
Inside Sports
Neighbors
Right Thinking
Sound Off
Talk of the Town
Subscribe!
RSS 2.0 feed RSS 2.0
Add to My Yahoo
Add to My Google
Add to Bloglines
Add to My AOL

Share!


soundoff - > Sound Off -> Are we cool on this global warming story?
Are we cool on this global warming story?

Sound Off for Feb. 18, 2007

| Saturday, Feb 17 2007 8:45 PM

Last Updated: Saturday, Feb 17 2007 8:50 PM

Reader: Mr. Howard's letter to the editor seems, if true, to be quite the potential bombshell. From my readings, dramatic rises in atmospheric CO2 concentrations appear to be the single metric showing significant deviation from the recent historical record, and would appear to be the strongest evidence of human contributions to hypothetical global warming.

Mr. Howard's allegation that the "atmospheric" CO2 rises since 1958 cited by many global warming alarmists and repeated widely in The Californian and most other major media sources actually are readings taken from a USGS station established at the Kilauea volcano for the express purpose of monitoring volcanic gas emissions implies a massive fraud is being perpetrated on the American people. Possible implications:

1. Rises, if any, in total atmospheric CO2 levels are much less dramatic than cited by global warming alarmists and repeated by the media.

2. CO2 rises are primarily driven by volcanic rather than human activity.

3. Global warming, therefore, may be primarily driven by natural rather than human activity.

4. If global warming is a natural phenomena, there isn't much we can do about it with present technology.

5. The Californian and other media have given unearned credibility to global warming alarmists, while essentially ignoring other points of view.

6. The Californian and other media have been too lazy or too agenda driven to check facts and data sources provided by others.

So is Mr. Howard's allegation correct or not?

Seems to me that it's ethics crunch time for Californian management staff. You can either pursue and report on Mr. Howard's allegations, or ignore them. Simply printing his letter in your paper doesn't come close to cutting it. I'll be watching with interest to see what you do. Based on past observations, I've placed my bets such that I'll make money if you disappoint me.

-- Barry Hanson

Editorial Page Editor Dianne Hardisty responds:

The "global warming" debate rages with noted scientists on all sides of the issue engaged with their "scientific facts." Neither The Californian nor any media is in the position to determine which "facts" should be presented and which "facts" should not be.

Please note that many legislators, including Republicans, who have dismissed concerns, have changed their position. The Bush administration has subtly shifted as well, now pressing for such things as improvements in vehicle gas mileage. The Republican U.S. Senator from oil-rich Alaska is now pressing for carbon dioxide reductions. It is important for the media to allow a free flow of "facts" --including those "facts" you may find disagreeable.

Posted in these Groups:
Topics:
posted by soundoff on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 at 09:28 AM
Report a Violation
Viewed 336 times
23 comments from 7 users

1

posted by anonymous on Feb 27, 2007 at 04:43 PM

You seemed obsessed with  *accuracy according to Random.*     Are you actually saying that it is possible to stop Global Warming?  or are you too focused on gaging others opinions according to some litmus test you have developed?  How about sticking to the subject of the post for a change and tell me how you plan on cooling down this "Overheated" planet.

In case you haven't guessed it, I agree that global warming exists....    I'm not one of the  "Global Warming Skeptics" as you put it a few posts ago.   I just don't go around and try to sell an answer to others pretending that I know how to make the earth cooler.

Fact:   Global warming is a natural progression of the planets life.  We could not stop it if we wanted too.

Eventually the Ice will melt at the poles and there is nothing we can do to stop it (unless you can go out and find a huge asteroid to crash into the earth which could certainly happen again anyway.

posted by randomfactor on Feb 27, 2007 at 04:19 PM

Anny, are you retracting your observation?  I never said I had all the answers........you did.

.

But then, considering your overall accuracy, that's a dangerous recommendation to rely on.

posted by anonymous on Feb 27, 2007 at 04:15 PM

Why does that not suprise me........?  As I said,   amusing.......

posted by randomfactor on Feb 27, 2007 at 04:11 PM

Why, thanks, Anny.  I'll take your faith as a compliment.   

posted by anonymous on Feb 27, 2007 at 04:08 PM
And obviously you do.......
posted by randomfactor on Feb 27, 2007 at 03:59 PM

When you so clearly don't.

 

posted by anonymous on Feb 27, 2007 at 03:35 PM

  And you're right,  some will evolve, and some won't make it.  This movement to try and make mankind and nature remain stagnant has never worked and it never will. Change is continual, some things you can affect, and some you can't and shouldn't.    Try telling those people in Bangladesh who make less than a dollar a day that they should not be burning wood to cook their one meal a day because it puts carbon in the air and pollutes the earth.  Guess where they would tell you to go......

The Human race can't even take care of it's own, let alone think we can take care of the planet........

 

Like I said.......     The whole thing amuses me as to how self important some people think they are, and that they have all the answers.

posted by anonymous on Feb 27, 2007 at 03:25 PM

 By the way Ramdom, why would you want to cut down oxygen producing trees just to make shingles to fix the roof?  or do you have that   "Oil devouring petroleum based fiberglass"  type?    How about all that coal energy that is used to make those forged nails to secure them to the roof?

Just think of how much Oil and trees we could all save if we moved back into caves.

posted by randomfactor on Feb 27, 2007 at 03:23 PM

The point I am getting to is that you're wrong.  

.

We'll be seeing all kinds of new species adapting to the new conditions.  That's what evolution is all about.  May they be smarter than we were...

posted by anonymous on Feb 27, 2007 at 03:15 PM

  The point I am getting at is that it is impossible to stop global warming.  It just can't be done period! (Unless you can find a way to move the planet from it's orbit)   Yes, we are polluting the atmosphere and poisoning ourselves, sentencing our children to breath bad air.....   How about that news about discovering new varieties of sea life today......  (never would have happened unless global warming had helped melt some of the ice)   I'll bet there are some scientists giddy over that discovery....

 

 

posted by anonymous on Feb 27, 2007 at 02:53 PM

You got the W, and the R,N,S types.  Can't leave out that Wolf-Rayet star.  Darn respectable.

 

posted by randomfactor on Feb 27, 2007 at 02:41 PM

Gee, Anny, I expect to be somewhere else before the Sun reaches Red Giant status.  And I hope mankind as a species will be too.   (Wow, Oh Be A Fine Girl Kiss Me Right Now Sweetheart--we're still at "Girl.")

That's like saying "no need to fix the roof...eventually the entire house will be worn down to dust by erosion."

.

The good news is we don't have to do anything about the volcanoes.  Even the underseas ones.  But you're right--eventually the planet will cleanse itself of us.  I'd like to postpone that day, is all.

posted by anonymous on Feb 27, 2007 at 02:36 PM

  I am continually amused by the Idea that we Humans could stop global warming even if the whole Human race made it their single purpose for the next million years.  I'm sure that you realize that it was warming of the planet that allowed the formation of conditions that made life sustainment possible on earth in the first place.  I also have not heard anyone talk about the ever expanding star this planet revolves around. ( The one that the same scientists tell us will engulf the earth eventually as it morphs into it's next phase of existence).     Hmmm,  let me think about that one.    The Sun continues to grow larger and larger, and therefore get closer and closer to the Earth....?    Duh....  Of course the planet will get warmer and warmer. 

Yes,  I too am wondering how all these environmentalists are going to stop the volcanoes from erupting, especially the ones under the ocean.  I see this as the next  "Big Fad"  that the academics are trying to cash in on.  Imagine all the opportunities for grant money to flow.....   We will run out of Oil eventually anyway and the planet will cleanse itself as it always does then.  what the scientific community better start doing is finding a way to use alternative forms of energy instead of spending all these resources telling us the planet is getting warmer......    something we all were taught in sixth grade science class already...

posted by antiextremism on Feb 20, 2007 at 02:20 PM

Oh my God Barry, you mean all the following Scientific Institutes who unanimously claim that there is proof of anthropogenic cause to Global Warming are damn Leftist Alarmists.......

National Academy of Sciences

NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change

State of Canadian Cryosphere

Envrionmental Protection Agency

Royal Society of U.K.

American Geophysical Union

American Institute of Physics

National Center of Atmospheric Resources

American Meterological Society

Canadian Meterological and Oceanographics

Everyone knows that scientists have an economic interest in lying to the public! Dammit! I'm going to start getting my environmental info from Chevron from now on, because after all "Do oil companies care, oil companies do."

Hey, that worked for me when I got my info about cancer from Phillip Morris.

posted by AudreyB on Feb 20, 2007 at 02:06 PM
Thats the one.  He was "deeply" interested in the oil and agriculture industries here in Kern.  To hear him tell it, smoke and dirt is good for the atmosphere.
posted by ProgressivePete2 on Feb 20, 2007 at 01:53 PM
Do you mean the Don Rogers that renounced his U.S. and state citizenship to avoid paying taxes? The same one that pushed to relax the restrictions put on felons owning guns? I doubt I'd even take his advise on where to eat dinner.
posted by AudreyB on Feb 20, 2007 at 01:47 PM
Whatever happend to the "ORIGINAL" global warming skeptic, Don Rogers?  He was a geologist/state senator,  who worked hard to convince people that the earth was "jest fine".
posted by TomW on Feb 20, 2007 at 01:43 PM
There are people out there who are truely skeptical not out of malice or because they are paid.  There are also degrees of skepticism.  I was skeptical 10 years ago.  The fact is that there is very little incentive to continue using oil and some pretty high negatives.  The question that we need to ask is what happens if each side is wrong.  What are the costs and benefits of waiting vs acting now?
posted by anonymous on Feb 20, 2007 at 01:31 PM
A Republican party operative, litte doubt.  They ALL are.
posted by AudreyB on Feb 20, 2007 at 01:30 PM
What does Barry Hansen do, when he's not studying for his global warming "debunked" certificate.   Is he an ethics teacher, a scientist, a newspaper editor?  Or just a navel gazer.
posted by anonymous on Feb 20, 2007 at 11:28 AM

There are no global warming skeptics.  They are only politically motivated reality deniers.  I have not yet seen a single "global warming skeptic" who didn't bring political slams into the discussion.

posted by randomfactor on Feb 20, 2007 at 11:23 AM

The "global warming skeptics," many of the financed by the oil companies, are betting millions of lives against their short-term profits. 

posted by TomW on Feb 20, 2007 at 10:15 AM
For comparison, there is a legislator in Texas who passed out pamphlets promoting the idea that the Earth does not revolve around the Sun.  Or that the Earth moves at all.  He has since stated that he does actually believe in a Copernican universe and didn't read the flyers before he distributed them to everyone.  http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/...

Should we be teaching all sides of the argument in this case as well?  They have a mathmatics professor who backs them up.
1

Leave a Comment
Ground Rules for posting comments:
  • No profanity or personal attacks.
  • Please comment on the subject of the post itself.
If you do not follow these rules we will remove your comment. Please keep it civil.

To protect users from spam, please enter the text from the image on the left.
   

Our readers recommend: