Sun editorial:

Warming to the truth

Winter’s cold snap does not signal need to retract reductions in greenhouse gases

Tuesday, March 4, 2008 | 2:06 a.m.

January snowfall in Baghdad and the return of Arctic sea ice this past winter are the kinds of events those skeptical of global warming’s existence use to fuel their arguments.

A post by Republicans on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Web site, written by March Morano, communications director for the committee’s ranking minority member, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., proclaims “Earth’s ‘Fever’ Breaks: Global COOLING Currently Under Way.”

The post goes on to note that, since Earth has no “normal” temperature, the use of the term “fever” was “for amusement purposes only.”

It’s hardly amusing. Far-right conservatives such as Morano a former producer for Rush Limbaugh’s TV show and former reporter for Cybercast News Service, which is owned by a conservative media group would have Americans believe that global warming is, at best, a brief trend and, at worst, a groundless conspiracy cooked up by environmental crazies and the mainstream news media.

It’s a stance Inhofe has been promoting for a while, as evidenced by his 2006 release of a report titled “A Skeptic’s Guide to Debunking Global Warming Alarmism.”

But as experts told The New York Times in a story Monday, global warming trends don’t mean that all weather patterns come to a screeching halt. Winter weather still is going to happen in, well, winter. And when the Pacific Ocean is in its cold La Nina phase following a warm El Nino period, as it is now, certain regions are going to experience a cold kick in the pants.

And although Arctic ice has formed over previously melted areas, scientists told the Times that this new ice is far thinner than the years-old ice that was several yards thick. Ignatius Rigor, a climate scientist with Seattle’s University of Washington Polar Science Center, said those skeptical about climate change use “a few small pieces of the puzzle to debunk global warming and ignore the whole picture.”

And that whole picture shows that we need to press forward with policies and programs that call for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, and finding clean energy alternatives.

Discussion: 6 comments so far…

By darthbry

3/4/08 at 2:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

Wow, it sure is warm out there. I guess the jig is up, gore baloney (global warming) is finally being seen for what it is, Science Fiction. It's nice to know that Al Gore is getting even richer off the suckers who bought into his BS. Guess I don't need to waste money on a hybrid!!
By Born

3/4/08 at 9:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

As usual, most of the liberal newspapers, (Seattle Times, NYT, etc.), are attacking anyone who dares notice that -

1)the monstrous hurricanes predicted for '06 and'07 - didn't happen,

2) we've had 12 straight months of cooling following five years of no-warming,

3)Arctic ice is returning

Typical liberals - they don't have the guts to admit when they're wrong.
By Socrates

3/4/08 at 10:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Thank you, editors, for speaking up about the dis-information campaigns that continue to confuse many.

Even as a child forty-five years ago, I wondered how we could possibly burn so much gasoline in so many cars for so long and in so many places, without any problem. Well, it turns out we can't. Coal is even worse.

Amazingly, there are still some people who think this profligate consumption of energy is "normal" and some kind of right.

Well, it's not normal and it is causing abnormal changes to our biosphere.

Read the Climate Code Red report out of Australia at www.climatecodered.net and see how they feel about it. Their country is suffering tremendously due to climate change.

Look at the problems in sub-Saharan Africa and the suffering that deepens as the climate continues to affect farm and grazing land.

The oceans are soaking up so much excess carbon that they are turning acidic, threatening the very base of our entire food chain.

The facts are out there. Weather is not climate.

This topic should have nothing to do with politics. Corporate greed continues to guarantee that it will.
By energyfromsun

3/5/08 at 9:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

Thanks to Socrates for the constructive comments. You are so right, on the real story on climate change, and the assertion that corporate greed continues to push us on that short sighted path over the cliff.

As someone who works full time in energy and climate issues, I am continually amazed at those who claim to know "the facts" about these issues simply because they do nothing else but sit in front of a computer, lob their ill-found opinions on the blogosphere, and claim to be experts. On face value, one could also question the further need for institutions of higher learning.

Some insinuate that they know more than a 30-yr career climatologist, based on their reading of Inhofe's psuedo-science or that they rec'd a foot of new snow last night and the temperature outside their back door was -10 degrees this morning. With such rationale, they no longer need a real doctor. Go ahead, consult your local supplement dealer about that tumor on your brain.

Thanks, but no thanks. When it comes to the future I'm leaving my child, I'll go with the true scientists.

And finally, isn't it a bit ironic that claims about climate change being a conservative vs liberal issue are coming from the far right while the rest of throughout the political spectrum are saying that it is neither?
By darthbry

3/5/08 at 11:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

I think it is funny that even the scientists who were on the gore baloney band wagon are jumping ship as well. I too would like less smog and better care for the environment, but straight out lying to us about climate change is reprehensible. here are a couple of links to articles that might interest people who are not sure what is truth or fiction about global warming:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppa...

http://canadafreepress.com/2007/global-w...
By jupiter22

10/6/08 at 4 p.m.

Suggest removal

Hmmmm Darthby, Im a little confused...... first you say..... and I quote....

"Guess I don't need to waste money on a hybrid!!"

but then you say....

"I too would like less smog and better care for the environment..."

well..... which is it? I mean, if its all baloney, why would you want less smog and better care for the environment anyway, if you arent willing to "waste" money on a vehicle that would actually help to satisfy those wishes?

Or do you just like to ignorantly sound off on random editorials just to see you words in print?

« Previous Ten Next Ten »

Live chat: Tuesday, noon PST; Chat with Krista Creelman; Problem Gambling Center executive director Krista Creelman will answer questions about gambling addiction from Las Vegas Sun readers from noon to 1 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. ... Submit question