Global Warming Politics
Climate Change and Barbara Cubin: Chasing the Conservative Hobby Horse
By Dan Whipple, 10-16-06
In the spring of 1994, Wyoming Republican Congressman Craig Thomas decided he was going to run for the U.S. Senate. This set off a scramble among the state’s Republicans to secure the party’s nomination to Congress, and the accompanying right to trounce whichever Democrat that hapless party produced as election fodder.At the time, I was city editor for the Casper Star-Tribune. Barbara Cubin, a state representative whose chief legislative distinction up to that point had been distributing cookies shaped like penises to some male legislators, came into the paper on one media errand or another. Our chief political writer, Hugh Jackson, called out across to her across the cavernous newsroom, “Hey, Barbara, are you going to run for Craig’s seat?”
Cubin at first looked genuinely perplexed by Hugh’s question, but then brightened like a blossoming spring flower. “I don’t know,” she answered. “Do you think I should?”
“Hell, yeah,” said Hugh enthusiastically, no doubt salivating over the stories her candidacy would generate.
Cubin left the newsroom that day with her chin out, her stride brisk, her spine stiffened in a Congressional carriage. Ever since this incident, I’ve blamed Hugh for inflicting the Barbara Cubin incumbency on an unsuspecting nation. This is irrational, of course. But no one who knew Perky Babs, as we called her in those days, would doubt she was capable of deciding to run for Congress because of a reporter’s offhand question.
In the 12 years since she swept into Congress, Cubin has lived up to every expectation. Her career as a congresswoman has been, if anything, less distinguished than her service in the state legislature. An incident as creative as penis cookies would be a welcome sign of independence from a legislator who has trailed along in the back of the nattering pack. Cubin has loyally supported, then reliably abandoned, every paleoconservative hobby horse from the Contract with America to term limits to the balanced budget amendment to WMDs.
I’d like to examine Cubin’s misguided dedication to received wisdom by deconstructing her position on a single issue -- global climate change. I have covered climate change science for the last five years. A constituent recently wrote to Cubin urging action on this issue. Cubin responded in a letter full of misinformation and error. Cubin begins:
Dear ___:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the controversial "global warming"
debate. I appreciate your comments.
I believe we must leave our children and grandchildren a better world in
which to live, and I strongly support the underlying goals of our nation's
environmental laws like the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and those
that protect our National Parks and wildlife habitat. We must, however,
be careful that overly burdensome regulations do not handcuff our economy
denying Wyoming workers and families jobs and economic opportunities.
What we need to do is continue putting American creativity and innovation
to work. In the last 20 years, America has made significant progress in
environmental research, and these breakthroughs have been used to help
reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Well, no. According to Environmental Protection Agency figures released in April, 2006, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions increased 15.8 percent between 1990 and 2004. This rise was the result primarily of carbon dioxide (CO2) from increased fossil fuel consumption. It is true that emissions of methane and nitrous oxide -- two important but lesser greenhouse gases -- declined. The U.S. economy expanded by 51 percent, so a case could be made that U.S. CO2 emissions expanded more slowly as a result of research and technological breakthroughs than they otherwise might have. But that’s not exactly what Cubin says.
When we look at the issue of global warming we must rely on sound science
rather than popular perceptions. While an active media campaign,
including former Vice President Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, has
been generating a great deal of public discussion on the topic, it is
important to remember that there still exists broad disagreement within
the scientific community on the extent to which humans actually contribute
to the Earth's temperature changes.
This is simply false. There is no broad disagreement, especially if you really rely on “sound science.” The evidence for consensus on the climate question fills up scientific journals, books and three separate reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But let’s look at a simple example that even a Congresswoman ought to be able to understand. The University of San Diego’s Naomi Oreskes examined 928 papers published on the question of whether the earth’s climate is warming, and whether humans are responsible for it. She found not a single one -- zero -- contradicting the essential global-climate premise -- that the earth is warming and humans activity is responsible for it.
"Not one, not a single paper, refuted the basic consensus statement that CO2 is increasing, that it is changing the chemistry of the atmosphere, and it's having discernible effects," Oreskes told me in 2004.
As someone with a scientific background, I appreciate that scientists must
take into account an enormous range of variables when generating and
analyzing global temperature models. To reconstruct global temperature
estimates, from prehistoric times to the present, scientists must rely on
proxy evidence, such as analyzing tree rings, ocean and lake sediments,
ice cores, glacial records and borehole samples. Scientists also disagree
on the role of volcanic and solar activity in affecting the earth's
surface temperature.
Cubin majored in chemistry in school and worked as a chemist before turning to real estate. She’s correct about the way past global temperature estimates are constructed. Scientists do not disagree about the role of volcanic and solar activity, however. Large volcanic eruptions tend to cool the atmosphere for a period. The eruption of Mt. Pinatubo, for instance, had cooling atmospheric temperature impacts for about two years.
Cubin is wrong about the sun. Climate contrarians like to hypothesize that changes in the sun’s brightness may be contributing to the warming earth. But solar activity has been been studied in detail. A paper in the journal Nature in early September of this year concluded that changes in the sun’s brightness over the past 100 years have been too small to significantly impact the earth’s climate. This research is only the latest in a long string of papers that have reinforced this conclusion. Tom Wigley is a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder who is respected for his calm, evenhanded approach to the issues. When I asked Wigley if solar irradiance could be discounted as a driver of the current warming, he said simply, “Yes. I’m very categorical about that final answer. I feel very confident about that.”
A slight difference in the methodology of evaluating these complex data samples can lead to vastly different conclusions. In fact, testimony presented in July of 2006 before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Commerce raised serious concerns on the extent of peer review and misuse of statistical methods in
generating the more alarmist global warming scenarios.
Hmm, where to start with this one. First of all, Cubin sits on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. So she ought to know that there is no “Subcommittee on Oversight and Commerce.” Perhaps this is a typo. The testimony she is talking about here was presented in two separate hearings before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. The hearing room was empty of Cubins at the time. Indeed it was empty of everyone except the witnesses and the chairman. While implying that she heard arguments that she didn’t hear, Cubin’s brief comment also reveals that she doesn’t understand either the science or its implications.
The hearing failed to draw an audience because it was about the statistical methodology used to construct a graph that is famous in the world of climate science -- though not much elsewhere -- known in shorthand as the “Hockey Stick.” In Cubin’s defense, there are not many people heroic enough to stay awake through a hearing on this topic, never mind through two hearings.
The graph, constructed for the 2001 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change by the University of Virginia’s Michael Mann and colleagues, reconstructs the climate history of the past thousand years. It shows a relatively flat line until the beginning of the 20th century, when the temperature line trends upward, reaching a dramatically high point in the 1990s and 2000s. The line shapes up a little like a hockey stick. Hence the name. Maybe it’s not as clever as penis cookies, but what do you expect from paleoclimatologists?
Because the hockey stick is such a clear and evocative image of the rising global temperatures from human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, it has become a prime target of climate contrarians. Given that the fundamentals of the argument are mathematical, it is hard to describe the controversy without putting everyone to sleep. Suffice it say that two Canadian analysts, Stephen McIntrye and Ross McKittrick, argued that the methods used by Mann et al. were incorrect. These objections had to do with the normalizing of principal component analysis. I can hear you snoring already. Principal component analysis is a commonly accepted statistical method of handling complex and noisy data not only to extract meaningful information, but also to make it easier to handle it mathematically.
Anyway, this controversy led to a congressional request that a third party assess the methodology. This third party, a group led by Edward J. Wegman of George Mason University, reviewed the Mann hockey stick calculations, then presented their findings to the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, which is a beehive of politically motivated climate skepticism.
Wegman and his colleagues did find some problems with the Mann methods that derived the hockey stick. Mann nonetheless defended his approach in thesecond of the two hearings. The important point is that regardless of which method you use, the graph still comes up as a hockey stick. Several other groups of methematicians have reproduced the graph using various statistical procedures.
In any case, it doesn’t change the underlying facts. The average temperature of the globe has been rising as a result of human activity for the last 100 years. There aren’t any “vastly different conclusions” to draw regardless of how you tweak the methodology.
Wegman himself says in his testimony, “We do not assume any position with respect to global warming except to note in our report that the instrumented record of global average temperature has risen since 1850 ... by about 1.2 degrees centigrade (2.2 degrees F.).”
On August 8, 2005, President Bush signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005
(P.L. 109-58, H.R. 6), which I supported. While this comprehensive
legislation generally focuses on setting a long-term energy policy for our
nation, the measure also establishes loans and loan guarantees to deploy
technology for greenhouse gas intensity reduction. Additionally, the act
requires the Secretary of State to provide assistance to developing
countries on projects to reduce greenhouse gas intensity and establishes
an export initiative for greenhouse gas reduction technology.
The 109th Congress continues to consider a wide range of legislation
addressing climate change and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. H.R. 759,
The Climate Stewardship Act of 2005, was re-introduced by Rep. Wayne
Gilchrest (R-MD) on February 10, 2005. The bill would cap greenhouse gas
emissions by distributing emissions "allowances" to entities in the
electricity generation, transportation, industrial and commercial sectors.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would oversee the distribution
of the tradeable allowances. Non-compliance with the emissions caps would
result in economic penalties. H.R. 759 has been referred to both the
House Committee on Science and the House Energy & Commerce Subcommittee on Energy & Air Quality. The same legislation was introduced in the 108th Congress as H.R. 4067, but did not reach the House floor for consideration.
Other proposed bills range from those focused primarily on climate change research to comprehensive emissions cap-and-trade programs for the six greenhouse gases covered under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Additional legislation focuses on GHG reporting and registries, or on power plant emissions of carbon dioxide, as part of wider controls on pollutant emissions. As always, I will put the interests of Wyoming first should these proposals come before me in committee or on the House floor for a vote.
The congresswoman does not say whether whe will support any of these bills. Cubin usually interprets Wyoming’s interests consistent with the interests of the energy industry. Coal is a major sector of Wyoming’s economy, and a major contributor to U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
Regardless of the ongoing disputes on global warming, I strongly believe
in a common sense approach to maintaining a clean environment, which must
also reflect the views of those individuals who are most affected by it.
Voices at the local level should not be drowned out by federal regulatory
overtones originating in Washington D.C. We must strike a balance with
our environmental laws, allowing reasonable and intelligent use of our
resources while still maintaining a clean and healthy environment.
Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me on this issues. If you
have additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact
my office.
With warm regards,
Barbara Cubin
Member of Congress
So, virtually every assertion of fact and inference in Cubin’s letter is wrong. The misinformation and misdirection about the issue of climate change are not unique to Cubin. They are pervasive in the D.C. policy establishment. Nor are they an accident. There is a large and well-financed lobby dedicated to undermining the clear implications of the overwhelming scientific consensus. They find a receptive audience among ostriches like Rep. Cubin, who prefer to hear what they want to hear, then argue about whether or not there’s a problem than face the realities of the situation. [End of article]
Dan,
I love this article. It has color, a perfectly restrained touch of hyperbole, and enough facts to hang it all on and hang her in the process. "Perky Babs" baking "penis cookies" and trailing "the nattering pack" with "every paleoconservative hobby horse" along with the rest of the "ostriches." You hit the less than distinguished chemist turned realtor right dead center.
I certainly agree with you; but, just for the sake of discussion, let me propose a contrarian perspective. Let's imagine that the Democrats take the House with enough of a margin to control it reliably. Under these circumstances, might having Cubin continue to hold her seat be something of a perverse advantage for those of us who are "more progressive?" Stay with me here. Let's face it, the Democrats aren't going to do everything perfectly and they sure aren't going to please everyone, which leads me to think that they are going to need some reliably idiotic, incompetent, and safely impotent Republicans in the mix just to continue making the Democrats look like the only sane choice. Cubin certainly fits this bill.
Yes, I know that the objective is to get good representation for WY; but, we have to be realistic and honest with ourselves. Looking back over the WY electoral record, there is a lot of evidence to suggest that we might as well leave old "Perky Babs" and her "penis cookies" in there because odds are that we would just shoot ourselves in the foot with another probably far more sinister idiot anyway. I mean the record is pretty clear; our idea of a transcendent hero is Tom Horn.
I don't know; it was just a thought.
The scientists named below are only a few of the thousands world wide who do not accept there is a concensus on anthropogenic global warming. Of course they are all paid by Exxon, I forgot.
41 Scientists Debunk Global Warming Alert
The Sunday Telegraph Letters, April 23rd, 2006
The president of the Royal Society, Lord Rees of Ludlow, asserts that the evidence for human-caused global warming "is now compelling" and concerning. In a public letter, we have recently advised the Canadian Prime Minister of exactly the opposite - which is that "global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural 'noise' ". We also noted that "observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future".
--------------------------------------
(Dr) Ian D Clark, Professor, Isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Canada
(Dr) Bob Carter, Adjunct Professor of Geology, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
(Dr) R. Timothy Patterson, Professor, Department of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa
(Dr) Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards
(Dr) Tim Ball, former Professor of Climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant
(Dr) L Graham Smith, Associate Professor, Department of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada Mr David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa
(Dr) Christopher Essex, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario
(Dr) Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, former Director of Australia's National Tidal Facility and Professor of Earth Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently Adjunct Professor, Departments of
Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
(Dr) David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va., and Sioux Lookout, Ontario
Mr Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, Principal Consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C.
(Dr) Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary, Canada
Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ontario
(Dr) Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, Associate Professor, The University of Auckland, New Zealand
(Dr) Freeman J. Dyson, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.
Mr William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review
Mr George Taylor, Department of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State Climatologist; past President, American Association of State Climatologists
(Dr) Hendrik Tennekes, former Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
(Dr) Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand.
(Dr) Nils-Axel Mörner, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
(Dr) Al Pekarek, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Department, St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minnesota
(Dr) Marcel Leroux, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former Director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS
(Dr) Paul Reiter, Professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France.. Expert reviewer, IPCC Working Group II, chapter 8 (human health)
(Dr) Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and Chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland
(Dr) Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Reader, Department of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; Editor, Energy & Environment
(Dr) Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), and economist who has focused on climate change
(Dr) Lee C. Gerhard, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas, past Director and State Geologist, Kansas Geological Survey
(Dr) Asmunn Moene, past Head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway
(Dr) August H. Auer, past Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Wyoming; previously Chief Meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand
(Dr) Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001,' Wellington, N.Z.
(Dr) Benny Peiser, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University, U.K.
(Dr) Jack Barrett, retired chemist and spectrocopist, Imperial College London, U.K.
(Dr) William J.R. Alexander, Professor Emeritus, Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000
(Dr) S. Fred Singer, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia; former Director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service
(Dr) Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G.. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Mr Douglas Hoyt, Senior Scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland
(Dr) Boris Winterhalter, Senior Marine Researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former Professor in Marine Geology, University of Helsinki, Finland
(Dr) Wibjörn Karlén, Emeritus Professor, Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
(Dr) Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, California; atmospheric consultant
(Dr) Arthur Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Oregon
(Dr) Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, UK; international economist
(Dr) Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, UK.
Re: Oreskes, her claim was painstakingly researched by Dr Benny Peiser of Liverpool University. Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it. Full commentary here: http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm
Wow, 41 people including economists- who are certainly experts on hot air and some medical people- Hey, I've got a Political SCIENCE degree- can I count in your list?
Comment By Brodie Farquhar, 10-17-06Dr. S. Fred Singer is President, The Science & Environmental Policy Project. He also serves as Adjunct Fellow, Frontiers of Freedom. Editorial Advisory Board Member, Cato Institute. Advisory Board Member, American Council on Science and Health. Adjunct Scholar, National Center for Policy Analysis. Distinguished Research Professor, Institute for Humane Studies, George Mason University. Former Fellow, Hoover Institution. Former Fellow, Heritage Foundation. Former Fellow, Independent Institute. Former Advisor, The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition. Editor, Global Climate Change newsletter.
How many of these organizations DO NOT get some funding from Big Oil?
And how many of the global warming proponents get some money from environmental groups?
You guys might want to let the global warming thing lie for awhile, it has not gotten out fo the 30s today and sure seems to be shaping up to a nasty winter.
Dan,
What a response you got here! Gosh, ...and to think that I thought the topic was old "Perky Babs" and her "penis cookies." I never would have even imagined that references to her ostrich-like stance on global warming were anything other than examples of her clinging to a "paleoconservative hobby horse" along with the rest of "the nattering pack;" but, I guess that, at least in WY, the rest of the "ostriches" are still sensitive about this issue and haven't yet quite pulled their heads out ...of the sand... and moved on to their next "paleoconservative hobby horse."
I also saw Jared Miller's article, "Cubin holds lead over Trauner," in the Star-Tribune. It's amazing; but, it looks like old "Perky Babs" has some staying power. She may go down in WY history; at which point, we may need to acknowledge her by replacing the buffalo in the emblem with a "penis cookie" riding a chopper or an ATV. In real life, we seem to like those things a lot more than the buffalo anyway and, let's face it, we don't have old Tom Horn to kick around anymore.
Hey Marion- I saw a blue car speeding today- guess we should not let blue cars on the road- try the nasty winter argument with the people in Alaska who are watching the permafrots melt from under their homes.
Comment By Marion, 10-17-06Well you have to admit that we in Wyoming would be among the first to enjoy a little global warming. Winter gets mighty long here, especially when it starts in Olctober. Actually there was snow in September too.
Cubin may not be the best in the world, but we don't need a Jackson liberal who has already said the tax breaks we got a few years ago were unnecessary. They were very necessary to those of us who aren't rich enough to live in Jackson.
Marion,
Certainly there are going to be places that currently have colder or harsher climates (e.g., Wyoming, Montana, Canada) that will warm due to climate change. What you do not seem to grasp, though, is that when the Earth warms, the ice caps melt. When the ice caps melt, there is an infusion of cold, fresh water into our oceans. When there is an infusion of cold, fresh water into our oceans, the ocean currents slow down or even stop, causing the temperature of the Earth to actually COOL to a point that we move into an ice age.
For example, the Younger Dryas, a period between 11,000 and 13,000 years ago which brought the rapid return of glacial conditions to the Northern Hemisphere, is believed to have been caused by a period of global warming that had come before it. The warming caused the addition of a considerable amount of fresh, cold water from the melting of our polar ice caps. This in turn stopped the natural ocean conveyor belt system which keeps warm jet streams aimed toward the Northern Hemisphere. When that conveyor belt stopped, the jet stream stopped. Without the jet stream to warm it, the Northern Hemisphere was an icy place indeed.
So, Marion, my point is that while there may be some pleasant short-term effects of global climate change, such initially "positive effects" will be followed by much harsher, much less pleasant long-term effects.
And my point is no one knows for sure that global warming is occuring, what to do about it, or even what the effects will be ( a devastating 2006 hurricane season?). Remember 30 years ago we were all supposed to be froze to death by this time.
I'll become a little more impressed about the ability to predict weather a year, 10 years, or a hundred years down the road when the weather forecast is accurate for tomorrow or next week.
As for Dan, you don't seem like Republicans or conservatives, so "global warming" is as good to hang your hat on as any. At least you won't have to prove it.
Didn't you used to write a column with another guy for the Trib?
Marion,
I want to know where you are getting the idea that global climate change is not occurring. Anyone telling you that global climate change isn't happening is misguided at best and lying at worst. The American Meteorological Society, the Federal Climate Change Science Program (established by the Bush administration!), American Geophysical Union, the National Academy of Sciences, and the National Research council have all acknowledged that global climate change is REAL and that HUMAN BEINGS have some hand in the recent acceleration in the warming trend.
There is also wide agreement among international scientific organizations that global climate change is REAL and that HUMAN BEINGS have some hand in it. (For example, the IPCC, which Whipple mentions.) I know, I know, Republicans, particularly those in the Bush administration don't like to use any international standards when it comes to setting domestic policy (because, you know, ALL foreign scientists are secret socialists Hell-bent on crushing free-enterprise). So you'd THINK that at the very least our xenophobic leaders would listen to our own, home-grown scientists. For some reason, though, our leaders would rather hide their heads in the sand than face an imminent reality.
As far as your comment about being more convinced 10 or 100 years down the road, that's just foolish. Climate change, like many things, reaches a critical tipping point. While the changes are slow and slight at first, the very nature of complex, tightly-coupled systems makes catastrophe UNAVOIDABLE, especially if no checks are put into place to counteract the effects of the change. If we wait until the effects of global climate change are Incontrovertibly manifest, we will not be able to stem said effects. We will not be able to go back in time and reduce emissions. We will be suffering for steps not taken while we had the chance.
Maybe you don't care. After all, chances are YOU will not be the one to feel the harsher effects of climate change. But your children and grandchildren will. Eh. Let's just take the standard Republican line because it's an easier pill to swallow than the truth: "Global climate change? Sounds like not my problem."
Well Emily, So far no one has produced any proof that convinces all scientists. I don't happen to see it as having anything at all to do with politics. In fact bringing politics into it is the most convincing thing I know of that it is all a fund raising thing. They were jsut as certain 30 years ago that we were doomed to freeze in 10 years.
We may be going into some sort of climate change, but that has been happening for millions of years. It seems to be cyclic and what today's weather means in the long run, I don't know, neither does anyone else.
As far as proponets, they do not act like they really believe it, they come up with all sorts of things for other people to do, but do none of it themselves. When I see the Gores of the world moving into small houses, using solar energy, and driving little cars everywhere, then I might be convinced they are actually concerned. So far, I have only seen them touting what they want other people to do.
What are you or other proponents in such a hurry to do to change things if it does happen? I have not seen anyone do anything to change the weather at all, have you?
Dear Emily,
Good points and information for reality-based readers of NewWest, but don't be disappointed if you don't make any headway with Marion. She's a hard case that cannot be budged.
Thank you Brodie for explaining a difficult subject like global warming so we can all understand. Good thing you are a journalist.
Comment By Wolverine, 10-19-06The Bush administration believes in junk science. Not real science. How else to explain the attacks on NASA's top climate change scientist, Dr. James Hansen.
Two things we can be sure of, according to mainstream scientists like Dr. Hansen:
1. Climate change is real and is happening right before our eyes.
2. We're responsible.
Now, what are we gonna do about it? Put our heads in the sand like G.W. and Dick? Try to slime some more scientists? Put out some talking points through pollster Frank Luntz? Blitz talk radio shows with radical right-wing bluster?
What makes one junk science and one real science?? The one you believe in? The only attacks I ever hear or see are the ones that libs make on those who happen to view things differently from them.
I am far more interested in what folks do than what they say, wehn I see global warming proponents moving into little houses, driving little cars, vacationing within a short distance of home, I'll begin to believe that they really mean it. When I see environmental groups that are concerned about global warming giving money to research for alternative energies instead of filing lawsuits that burn up even more energies, I'll believe they are serious.
Scientific agreement, though, differs distinctly from consensus wrought by social-political pressures. Efforts to force a consensus are pernicious to science. The body of evidence and facts on which scientists agree--as currently known--must always be challengeable by new information. That is the basis of the scientific method.
Consensus Can Be Bad for Climate Science
If you look at Barbara Cubin's voting record you will see that it reflects the views of a conservative state and she has represented it well.
All states have libs especially in the media, and we don't expect them to like her or any other conservative. I just wish that every voter would get their voting information from http://www.issues2000.org instead of their newspaper, records are one thing, opinions are another.
i have a question? have any of you people ever been to a cold state in the winter? have you walked around there? gone to school there? or have you just passed thorugh gotten out of your vehicles then said yes its cold there i have first knowledge. there have actually been some scientists who agree that global warming will level out and that we will be right back where we were about 200 years ago. so before you go complaining about the global warming effect on earth maybe you should be in places where it gets below 0 every year and people cant just apss through there they actually live there.
Comment By Alan Gregory, 10-21-06Mz. Cubin appears incapable of independent thinking, choosing instead to spout the interminable industry-friendly talking points issued to all good toady radical right-wingers by Republican pollster Frank Luntz and other GOPer spinmeisters.
Comment By Marion, 10-21-06Alysha is right, it is rather difficult to believe global warming advocates when it is 30 below where we live, and they are jetting off to Acupulco or somewhere sunny.
Comment By Alan Gregory, 10-21-06Marion, you have to stop thinking in the short term. Climate change is taking place as we talk, but the timeframe is beyond the cognitive abilities of most folks. There will always be short-period ups and downs. Like the snow that hammered Buffalo, N.Y., the other day. But it is the long-term TREND that climate scientists study and are concerned about. That's LONG TERM TREND. The migratory songbirds of the Northeast are trying to tell us something. Research data shows them arriving earlier each spring.
Here's one interesting study along these lines: http://www.brightsurf.com/news/march_03/SCB_news_032703.html
And here's another: http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarming.nsf/content/ImpactsBirds.html
Please take the time to at least scan-read these articles. Lay people need to understand what's going on.
I'm taking the short term view? Let's see you guys are able to track information back what a hundred years, probably less for verifiable records? And that is supposed to tell us what is going to happen on an earth that is millions of years old???????????
For all of your pontificating you only know about a little blip on the screen of history. It would be really funny if you weren't so serious that everyone has to fall in lock step with you. I suspect a hundred years from now folks will shake their heads at how seriously you took yourselves.
Marion, did you even take time to look at the links I provided before blasting away with your keyboard?
Yes, I do take it seriously. And so do many, many, many other folks who've somehow managed to put selfishness behind them and realize that we're all in this together. Do you not care for what we're going to be leaving to the next generation? I'm not asking anybody anywhere to fall in lockstep with me or anybody else. You continue to put thoughts in other people's minds. Read the links I provided. This is not a political issue, liberals v. conservatives. It's a matter of what we today choose to leave behind us.
Alan, I have read a lot of them, the thing is there are just as many studies one way as the other. One thing that made me think global warming is more political than scientific is the insistenace that abnormally cold weather is also caused by global warming!
As I have said before when I see the global warming proponents making the hard choices for themselves, and ot just trying to control other folks lives, then I will be more concerned.
for the time being, I will stay as warm as possible in my house, drive my "little tin can" car with great mileage, recycle everything I can and see what happens. I will also save the fuel it would take to see Al Gore's movie, and stay home.
Marion, I asked if you had read the two articles for which I provided links. Did you or did you not?
Additionally, I posed no question to you regarding Gore's movie. Nor did I query you about your car and its mileage. Nor I did I express any thoughts on "control" of other people's lives.
I asked if you had read the articles for which I provided links? So did you or did you not? If not, why not?
Marion, here's another link for your perusal.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier
Of particular note is: "Almost all experts studying the recent climate history of the earth agree now that human activities, mainly the release of heat-trapping gases from smokestacks, tailpipes, and burning forests, are probably the dominant force driving the trend."
Of course, this is from NYTimes.com, a well-known liberal rag. So you can discount it as well.
Marion-
Suck it up and go see an Inconvenient Truth and then make your decisions after educating yourself.
I would have to drive to Cody 52 miles each way, or if it isn't showing there, and I don't think that it is, to Billings 130 miles each way....if it is even showing there. Now that would really help the environment wouldn't it? I could burn that fuel to enrich Gore so he can fly a few thousand miles more between his huge homes in his jet, and tell me how I am polluting the air.
By the way I love the "almost all", "the human activities...burning forests", "probably", they really nail it down, especially since I consider the forest fires largely the fault of the do-gooders who won't allow the beetle nurseries to be disturbed by nasty logging to clean things up.
Marion-
Quit making excuses, go see the movie. Despite your beliefs, it does not matter who is hosting the movie. The facts will still be the same. You can continue to refute the FACTS and make up little anecdotes but it just makes you look ignorant.
how is marion making excuses? she is just pointing out the fact that after she saw the movie peole like you would just say that she was polluting the air. How can you say a movie that was sponsered by gore or one of those people, is actually fact? have you ever seen any of these "facts" in the world today?
Comment By Fred, 10-25-06Alysha, you right! The permafrost IS NOT MELTING, and um what else, GLACIERS ARE NOT MELTING and um, OH, polar bears are not drowning because they have no ice to beach on, and what else, um.. oh yea, carbon levels in the atmosphere are not at ALL TIME HIGHS...scientific fact will always trump your excuses no matter what they are and how however you want to spin them.
Comment By alysha, 10-25-06fred i have a question have you seen this so called melting? would you over react if u saw some snow melting in the mountains? oh my god the earth is going to be under water. if every one thought the way you did we would have mass panic. but people dont take stupid movies and blow it way out of proportions. they live with it day to day. sure i may not have much to say about this because im only 15 but i live in a place where the temps get below 0 every single winter. i bet u live in a place where if you were to come here u would wear almost all of your cloths. like i said you take everything way to serious. Its not like when we wake up tommorow we will be under 10 feet of water!
Comment By Marion, 10-25-06Fred, you are going to have to explain to me how burning a bunch of fuel to go see a movie is ging to help the ecosystem.
Now that I have said that, I want to say, I am amazed and thrilled to see a 15 year old taking part in a discussion like this. She is obviously observing what is going on around her, and thinking things through. Congratulations Alysha, you give me hope for future generations! and yes, I think you should have a lot to say, you will, God willing, be here long after the rest of us are gone.
May not be 10 feet of water, but the way things are tonight, it might be 10 inches of snow in the morning where I am.
Marion, you can rent Gore's movie by mail from Blockbuster. It's now out on DVD. That way it'll come directly to your mailbox and you won't have to drive anywhere to see it, saving the gas, wear-and-tear on your auto, and the emissions. Let us all know what you think of the movie after viewing it. You could also get the companion book from your public library.
Comment By Marion, 10-25-06Sorry guys, the politicing of global warming is a hard sell. I just talked to one of my sons on his cell phone. He's been following the snowplow from Sweetwater Station to Riverton. It is a good 6 months until spring, so you have a lot of time to try to convince me how warm it is. Right now I have my ear muffs on and can't hear you.
Comment By alysha, 10-25-06fred have you or any of you seen a polar bear? im not saying i have but did u know that the live to be in the water. yes i know they r endangered and they r really cool animals. but since when have you cared? I bet u live in a really nice house and have fancy cars. you cant tell me that u ride a bike to work every day to save the "poor" polar bears. if you ever really cared about them then you would go out and do something about it instead of sitting in front of the computer telling every one they are wrong and the world revolves around you
Comment By Fred, 10-26-06Ignorance trully is bliss.....Alysha, there are alot of things I have not seen, but guess what. They still exist. I have never seen you, do you exist? (side not....born and raised in Montana, seen 40 below plenty of times) Marion, global warming has absolutely nothing to do with politics. I don't care what side of the fence you sit on, it does not matter. One more thing Marion, you are choosing not to be informed or educated on the subject so your comments really have no validity, sorry. I am not going to try to convince you of anything as you have chosen not to inform your self. You can argue all you want and look out your window all you want and call whom ever you want. You still choose not to look at facts.
Comment By Marion, 10-26-06Fred, first of all, really have to admire someone who chooses to be nasty to a youngster who cares enough to enter into a discussion like this. Really teaches them about maturity.
For your information, I have read scientific articles on both sides of the debate, and yes there are aticles on both sides. What I do not see are solutions suggested. You cannot even explain to me how me using the fuel to drive a couple of hundred miles to donate to Al Gore would do a single thing for the environment. In fact if NO one had gone to see the movie, think of the millions of gallons of fuel that would have been saved, to say nothing of the pollution, then of course to take it further, he could have saved the fuel used to make the movie, and funded some solutions.
I try to live my life to lessen my impact whether there is global cooling or global warming, or just weather changes like there have been for millions of years.
I will read any link you provide of solutions to what you perceive as a problem. I'm sure this would be beneficial to the young lady too. You might also include what you yourself are doing.
Marion...
There was no "nastieness" involved in my commnet to Alysha. I just replied with the same logic she used, nothig more and nothing less. The problem here appears to be that you are hung up on Al Gore and for whatever reason, you choose not to listen because his name is in this conversation.
If you want solutions, rent the dvd and watch it.
By simply changing the type of light bulbs you use, you can make a difference.
Marion...
You appear to be very closed minded about this subject. Why will you not rent the dvd and then comment on it. Is it just because Al Gore hosts it? The facts are still the same whether he was there or not?
There's an interesting study coming out on Monday, commissioned by the British government, which predicts that not doing anything about global warming will knock the world into a severe economic depression.
In other words, the new analysis states that the cost of ignoring global warming will be many times the cost of reducing carbon emissions on a global scale.
See: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1934381,00.html
did u know that there was acctually a study that said the carbon in the air will help the earth not harm it? it will help plants grow and make them live longer.
Comment By Marion, 10-30-06Here is a followup to Brodie's article about the same study. If it causes that kind of brouhaha among scientists, how are the rest of us supposed to figure it out?
It really is funny to me, that everything weather related is caused by global warming according to the GW advocates, but anything that doesn't fit their pattern or predictions is just weather changes.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5094006,00.html
Dan,
Thanks for keeping them busy for so long here where they really couldn't hurt anything. They would have been out causing trouble or perhaps even doing damage or hurting someone or themselves somewhere else if you hadn't. Good job!
The ONLY debatable part of the current, very real and uncontested global warming trend is EXACTLY what percent is due to human-generated causes. Me, I don't really care about the exact percentage figures. That's arranging the deck chairs as the Titanic goes down, a truly insignificant detail. I have kids. I want them to inherit a world I made an effort - lifted a finger - not to disrupt/destroy. What is so painful about our accepting responsibility for causing some damage, and working to alleviate it? Let's imagine we accept some responsibility, and take the course of emissions reduction. If global warming proponents are wrong, the long-term 'downside' will be fewer emissions, reduced dependence on fossil fuels and (and the Middle East) and a cleaner and more sustainable world. If, on the other hand, they are correct, and we haven't done everything in our power to remediate things - what special place in hell should be reserved for us for acquiesing to the wrecking of the only world God entrusted us to keep?
Comment By Marion, 12-05-06Well after a week of subnormal FALL weather I would argue the validity of global warming. But my main point is if it is NOT human casued are you going to make matters worse tinkering around? Maybe that is what happened to the "global freeze" we were experiencing 30 years ago, they did so much tinkering that now we have global warming. Or more likely it is the normal fluctuations that have gone on since the wold was created.
This article was printed from www.newwest.net at the following URL: http://www.newwest.net/main/article/climate_change_and_barbara_cubin_chasing_the_conservative_hobby_horse/