Monitor Editorial: Close But Not Quite The Whole Story
I read with disbelief, an editorial in the Monitor ("Homes shouldn’t be built in disasters path", October 25, 2007). The Monitor editorial staff almost got the story right in admitting that there is not conclusive evidence that global warming and the fires in California are inextricably linked.
I read further to agree once again that owners of those building structures in flood zones, on the beaches and next to National Forests are gambling with their investments and safety of their property. I might add, although it will sound cruel, that taxpayers should not foot the bill for rebuilding all of these properties and create a dependency that replaces private insurance. Like the landslides in California a couple of years ago, this kind of construction without forethought sets the stage for a disaster waiting to happen.
Again I agreed with the Monitor as I read on that fighting wildfires costs the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars and the property owner’s outrageous insurance premiums. And that others should not die protecting property that property owners refuse to take responsibility to make safe or build in areas that protect their investment.
The Monitor staff either missed or omitted several important facts that need to be addressed:
NEPA has been used as a tool to virtually stop the thinning of forests and clearing of underbrush by the forest service for thirty years by environmentalists in not only California but in Oregon, where in 2002 the same scenario happened. NEPA, signed into law in 1969 by Richard Nixon has given environmentalists a platform to oppose anything being done on public land as they beat the drum of ‘forests in peril’ creating a falsehood that the onslaught of lumber companies clear cutting trees are destroying our national treasures.
In fact, timber harvests have fallen by 85% in the last 27 years from 12 billion board feet to 2 billion. National Forests are a fraction of that yield, proving that the grandstanding by environmentalists is agenda driven. Forest thinning and proper forest management is the answer to avoiding fires and mass destruction. Unfortunately, the forest service’s hands are tied and they can only stand by and watch as forests burn due to their inability to fight and win cases brought by environmentalists who love too much and are blinded by their dogma.
The Monitor staff quotes the Worldwatch Institute as a non-profit organization, which it is, but it is a political action think tank in reality. They quote their statistics as fact but they are one source of information and should not be taken as gospel. Their agenda is that of man being the enemy of the Earth and it is not surprising that they are concerned about migration and it’s impact on the environment.
Drought is another subject that has not been conclusively proven to be caused by global warming. The worst drought created the dust bowl in the 1930’s when 70% of the North American continent was dry; a condition that has not been repeated in 60 years and long before man made global warming was a possibility. The 1930’s and 1934 in particular was the warmest year in recent recorded history and the forest service was credited with being able to control wildfires due to their diligence of thinning forests and forest management, during this period. If it worked then; it will work today. In fact, concerning temperatures, 4 of the hottest years on record out of the last 100 years were in the 1930's.
There is no settled science on what causes drought and the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine circulated a petition signed by 17,000 genuine scientists refuting the existence or impact of man made global warming.
The Union of Concerned Scientists is simply not a legitimate organization when discussing global warming. Even their own website states that their membership of 200,000 people includes scientists, citizens, business people and ‘activists’. That is the equivalent of beef being the fourth ingredient listed in a can of "beef" chili or orange juice being the fourth ingredient in beverage that claims to be a juice drink with sugar as the first ingredient.
Again, the Union of Concerned Scientists is nothing short of a partisan political action committee, masquerading as a scientific authority. They claim consensus, but, consensus of who? The so called scientists on board include gynecologists, psychotherapists, social scientists, medical doctors, PhD’s in philosophy and history professors to mention a few. Although there may be climatologists on the membership rolls, most of these "scientists" are not climatologists nor are they experts in earth science. Their claims are misleading as they do not have the expertise that they espouse to back up their theory on global warming. Still, they tout it as settled science.
Is global warming responsible for the Katrina destruction, the California, Oregon or Colorado wildfires, tornadoes, floods, etc? I doubt it, as history shows far worse tragedies and disasters like the NH Floods in the 1920’s and 1930’s, the Galveston destruction by hurricane, etc. Man did not have the impact on the environment then, that he ‘supposedly’ has today.
Furthermore, many climatologists dispute the hysteria over global warming and even Al Gore’s publicist has stated that some of the “facts” in his most recent book are not ‘exactly accurate’.
Up until a decade ago, the same environmentalists were selling the theory of global cooling and a 'deep freeze'. Also, satellite monitoring of the temperature of the Earth has provided no conclusive evidence that the surface of the planet is warmer than it was 40 years ago. Land based monitoring stations are tainted by their proximity to large population centers, where higher temperatures are generated. Global warming advocates quote temperatures measured at only land based monitoring stations, ignoring satellite data.
In the information age, news is instantaneous and causes an emotional response to tragedy and crisis situations. People in general allow their emotions to get in the way of their intelligence and reason, creating panic and knee jerk reactions to hysteria that yields foolish and unexpected radical responses.
True believers with an agenda will fall into line behind charismatic leaders who interpret facts to meet their political agenda or create unrealistic concern where there is minimal information available.
Like I always say: "FIGURES don't LIE but LIARS sure do FIGURE!"
The conclusions and suggestions here are that we should not consider global warming a "settled science". Should we ignore the possibility....absolutely not! We should not however, overreact without open and honest debate and agreement by both sides of the scientific community. This is the only way for the public to be informed and make their own decision as to what is fact and what is created hysteria.
The press moves fast to not just report the facts but to add their spin and viewpoint to the news that they report. This is business as usual on both sides of debate. It is expected in today's insidious world of partisan politics, that newspapers and television select what they report. That is why you will find important stories on page 32 of the newspaper and fluff or spin on the cover page.
A great example of this happened last week when no major network or cable broadcast was reporting the terror trial of two Islamists with bomb making equipment in their car that were arrested near a Naval weapons base. Finally, one network broadcast a three minute piece on the story. Yet, the elimination of a dancer on “Dancing with the Stars” received hours of coverage on the same day.
One reason for this is that many mindless viewers focus on pop culture and the other reason why the terrorist story was not reported is due to political correctness and agenda driven politics. There can not be another explanation why a news source would ignore something that impacts our security and safety.
Newspapers are just as guilty and when they are in error, bury the retraction where no one can see it; leaving the reader to believe what they read originally was the truth.
One striking headline concerning climate change that I read recently did catch my eye though and it read like this:
“Arctic Ocean Getting Warm: Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt”“Great masses of ice have now been replaced by moraines of earth and stones.”“At many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared”
-The Washington Post
November 20, 1922
Wrong Again Michael!!!
Michael,
The Union of Concerned Scientists is not that at all. "Activists" play a role.
You are so brainwashed that all you believe are Left leaning sites.
In this blog I stated many FACTS that are everywhere on the internet from the Forest Service to think tanks. GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT "SETTLED SCIENCE"...a fact that the Left does not want to hear!!!!
Can you refute the Dust Bowl and intelligently say that the present droughts are anything close? After Katrina hit, meteorologists predicted that due to global warming would create many more super hurricanes. Two years now and the number of storms has diminished. There have been far more deadly hurricanes earlier in the century..
The newspaper article mentioned at the end of my blog said it all in that story from the Washington Post in November of 1922.
Neo-Con, I think not...A citizen that wants to know the rest of the story...ABSOLUTELY.
I do not expect you to open your mind on this topic or any other because to do so would cause you to question your true believer status and your doctrinaire beliefs. Zealots have an agenda, global warming is promoted by hysterical zealots who refuse to debate facts and mind numbingly repeat talking points by their charasmatic leaders.
Should we conserve energy and find new sources...ABSOLUTELY...but...we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater, trash the economy and inflict hardship and poverty on everyone because of improperly interpreted theories by people who are not experts in the field.
Listen to your self in the last paragraph of the response and tell me who is paranoid. And may I say that 'flat earthers' were just as certain of their science as you are of glaobal warming. Open you mind, Michael and allow debate and discussion of FACTS.
Isn't the Left about 'dissenting opinion"? I guess that only applies to the agenda that you would allow it in. If you want to have an intelligent debate then let's have it. I can provide plenty of FACTS and sources.
I included the OISM to bait people who believe and support the so called "consensus" of the Union of Concerned Scientists. And yes, you did not address any of the pertinent facts on this blog including the unrelated membership of the 200,000. So in response to your OISM comments: gynecologists, history professors, pshychologists, ordinary citizens and "activists" are not the best source of climate science either.
Once again, if a person is a true believer, there is nothing anyone can do to allow debate and the expose of the truth.
As a reference point, Germans were 'true believers' before WWII as were Russians in 1917. Just a couple of analogies that apply today to those on either side of the debate that are extreme. Yes Michael, that means the Right and the Left!
Let me know if you want to debate in an organized fashion with facts and sources, otherwise it is fruitless to debate with you at all. And get your facts from websites with expertise and sceintific fact, not from Media Matters, Union of Concerned Scientists, MoveOn.org or other websites with partisan agendas.
Name calling, emotional buzz words like Bigot, Neo Con, Consensus and emoting Iraq, linking it into every conversation no matter the topic being discussed is irrational and reveals the dogma and brainwashing of those who are "true believers".
I would love to debate, representing both sides and allowing others to view the documentation and judge for themselves. Let me know if you would like to approach this topic in that way.
AAH!!!! I see your source and it is not reputable
As an addendum Michael...I responded to you on the road today but upon arriving home I checked your source on Arthur B. Robinson, using the link that you provided.
As expected, it came from a disinformation site....Sourcewatch which is run by the far Left organization CMD-Center for Media and Democracy, an organization that supposedly "outs" anyone who disagrees with the Leftist agenda.
If this is where you get information or if this is the kind of information that you believe, it is no wonder why this country is in a mess. How is this any different from those religious fanatics that you like to pick on all of the time.
Sourcewatch is Disneyland for the far Left. It is not a reputable source of information or anything else. Come on...you can do better than that. Don't you have enough pride in your beliefs that you can do honest research?
Sourcewatch...Michael Savage on steroids for the Left!
Sources
Fascism is what you and your sources represent. No thinking person takes seriously reports from such sources as you like to present: World Nut Daily, Faux News, The Moonie Washington Times, The Homophobic Research Centers, or any of the other right wing fascist groups who have brainwashed you. They never heard of something called "peer reviewed." The preach and believers such as yourself jump all that much higher.
You are right. We cannot discuss these things, because you have closed your mind like some religious fanatic has closed his. Fascists believe in eternal war, because they get richer from the suffering of the masses. You've aligned yourself with losers.
Being a believer in the Flat Earth was also very popular in the 15th and 16th Century. However, if everyone had believed, we'd still be in the Middle Ages. That you care not about the environment and the future of your children is very much a fascist world view.
I wish them luck!
Don't Worry About My Children
Once again Michael, informed debate, discussion and consensus is the only thing that will save this country and unite us. It is evident that you do not care about doing that or maybe you can not cite reliable sources.
Under facism, the government nationalizes industry. Hmmmm.health care, Hmmmm..energy, etc. Sounds like a Democratic agenda to me.
If you compare MoveOn.org, Media Matters, FSTV, Democracy NOW! and Fox News or even the leftist MSNBC, the latter are far less partisan.
Carefully reading your response it is apparent that you believe what you choose to believe.
I do care about my children's future and do care about the environment. I believe in a calculated approach to the environment; not a fear based approach. For instance, if we adopted Kyoto with all of the restrictions it would cripple our economy and in 50 years only reduce the temperature of the planet by .01 degree.
I read an interesting story in US News & World Report about new energy sources which included geo thermal energy, super solar, etc. I am all for that but that does not mean that we cripple our economy until it happens. We should invest in those industries now and let private companies develop the technologies. That is a thoughful approach and reasoned thinking.
Peer review is another word for consensus and you are probably referring to the global warming debate. Readers Digest this month came out with an article about Vitamins. A recent study found that anti-oxidants may now be harmful in pill form. There is consensus about vitamins....are the experts wrong? Should we take the risk? My feeling is that the debate will change in the future as they come up with another consensus. Should we knee jerkily react to this new study??? You tell me. There are thousands of scientists, meteorologists and climatologists who are not part of the global warming consensus. There may be global warming but we do not have any conclusive proof that it is man made.
Now, before you over react...I believe that we need to take care of the environment, but lets do it in a way that does not ruin the economy.
As far as being brainwashed Michael; my viewpoints are far more centrist than yours as is evidenced by your constant use of Left wing dogma and buzz words found on some of the most conspiratorial and left wing sites.
Once again, we can have open discussions and intelligent debate but we would need to find middle ground; I am not sure that you are interested at all in that.
Let me know if you are; I would enjoy that discussion very much.
Thanks Michael.
Shame, Shame!
The two of you should be ashamed of yourselves. If I could, I'd lock you both in a room together, and bang your heads together until some semblance of truth leaked in!!!!!!!!!!!! All I hear is right and left, partisan and non-partisan, etc, etc,...Get over yourselves!!!!!!!!!! Most people haven't a clue what it is you are debating and most don't care! Speak English boys and maybe, just maybe we would have a semblance of understanding to what you say.
Political agendas to me are nonsense. I am a Ron Paul supporter, and don't even try to fight me on a politically blinding debate, because I will not join in...The world is in a world of sh&*, all I care about is who is going to to heal us!!!!!!!!!!!!!! don't care if they are right or left, democrat or republican, green, or blue or purple or black or white...Just get it done!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Time is a waisting, the earth is calling out for our help, and we can ignore it and pretend it will go away or we can fight for the betterment of our world...Of course this will take much, much, much, more than we have done until now...I do not pretend to know how we can heal, but I do know that hate and disdain for one another's opinion is wrong, wrong, wrong!!! Shame on you both!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The two of you are so extremely smart and I believe that if you put your political differences aside, than we can find a way...a way that is better than anything we can ever imagine...just get over yourselves, stop bitching and complaining and start doing something!!!
Your talk is nonsensical, and the world doesn't have time to decipher political wrongs from right..to do so..will be too late..just watch!
Tracy M
OK Mommy
I agree Tracy with some of this. By the way, Michael and I enjoy the banter and personally I would probably like him.
By the way...I agree we need to meet half way. You are fired up lady!
B
Yes, I am fired up!
Sorry Bill,
Yes, I am fired up...I come form a very Universal place when it comes to the betterment of the world. To me, politics is useless...I would just assume that we as a whole would work to heal the earth from an energetically and personal level. Leaving everyone else (politically) out of the equations. Until each and every individual comes to terms with their own egos and works to heal them than we are a world without purpose. Becoming a better more fulfilled country lies not in our political leadership, yet with who we see when we look in the mirror. In other words...If I hate myself, than I hate everyone around me...If I love myself unconditionally, than I love everyone around me...do you see what I mean?
I know this sounds very Hippy like, but sheesh...why can't we all just love one another and put our collective conscience together and create a change, instead of adding to the negative energy of the earths grid? Change starts in your own heart...the rest is contagious.
Tracy M
Bill is right...
A lot of our communication is banter that stirs our passions. Don't take us too seriously. I am sure that when Bill and I meet, we'll find we have more in common than we expect to have. He likes to rag on me, and I really enjoy ragging on him.
What I don't like though is the stupid validation thingie.
Oh, come on Bill. Again, a neocon agenda is what this is all about. Here’s the truth about your source: The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging." It is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war. The OISM website says it has "six faculty members, several volunteers who work actively on its projects, and a large number of volunteers who help occasionally." The only paid staff person, however, is biochemist Arthur Robinson, the Institute's founder and president. None of its other "faculty members" actually work at the Institute on a regular basis. "They come up on occasion to do some work with us," Robinson told an interviewer in 1998.
It’s nothing but another bogus rightwing propaganda voice. You know, 500 years ago there were a lot of folks, including members of the church, who believed the earth was flat. You’re nothing more than a modern day “flat-earther”, Bill. Why do you fear the search and introduction of more fuel efficient resources? What is YOUR agenda? Why are you people so paranoid? Do you own large stocks in OIL companies? Or are you one of those who supports perpetual war? How sick is that. When your children and grandchildren are forced into living a lower quality of life because what you support today, they will have only you, and the other “flat earthers” like you to blame.