Weather Have You Thinking About Climate Change?

BY  |  Tuesday, Sep 06, 2011 12:00pm  |  COMMENTS (47)

A single storm — even one as big and bad as Hurricane Irene — doesn’t prove anything. But two years of extreme weather is the beginning of a pattern, says Monclair native Greg Mattison, and it’s making people wake up to the issue of climate change. “People are starting to say, ‘I’ve never seen anything like this in my lifetime,’” Mattison says. Even close by, he says, major Passaic River flooding used to be a 5-10 year event; now it’s “at least once if not two or three times a year.”

If that has you concerned, you might want to show up for an event that Mattison will be co-hosting with Montclair’s Environmental Coordinator Gray Russell next Thursday night, Sept. 15. The program will begin at 7 p.m. sharp with a 50-minute live webstream from ClimateReality.com, featuring Al Gore, about how climate change is effecting global weather patterns around the world. A discussion will follow. The event will be at Montclair’s Fire Headquarters, 1 Pine Street.

The 7 p.m. webstream is actually the last hour of a 24-hour live web event that ClimateReality is hosting starting at 8 p.m. eastern time on Wednesday, Sept. 14. That will include presentations from 24 different time zones, in 13 languages.

Mattison and his wife Connie are district managers for ClimateReality, and work with 100 presenters to do climate presentations in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York City, Long Island and Delaware.

They also run a blog and website, Newlygreens, to feature ways to cover green initiatives.

Montclair has been designated a Climate Showcase Community by the EPA. “What Gray [Russell] has been able to do is really spearhead efficiency efforts. It’s paid for his position several times over,” says Mattison.

Although Mattison says its an oversimplification to link one storm, like Irene, to global warming, he does believe it’s helped focus people’s attention. “It’s hard for people to get their heads around abstract things,” he says.

He adds that, despite politics, global warming and climate change is a fact. “All the academies of science around the world agree that climate change is happening and we have to do something about it,” Mattison says. “We need to listen to science.”

Meanwhile, there’s a flash flood watch in Western Essex County and a river flood warning for the Passaic River at Pine Brook.

 

47 Comments

  1. POSTED BY Spiro T. Quayle  |  September 06, 2011 @ 12:21 pm

    Herb, will we see you there?

  2. POSTED BY herbeverschmel  |  September 06, 2011 @ 12:47 pm

    Go figure they chose Montclair as a place to push their leftist rhetoric.

    What a croc this stuff is. It’s becoming quite amusing. Hey, give’em credit , a lot of people are raking in the cash over this stuff.

  3. POSTED BY mike 91  |  September 06, 2011 @ 12:49 pm

    herbeverschmel, poster boy for the willfully ignorant.

  4. POSTED BY Pork Roll  |  September 06, 2011 @ 1:15 pm

    I thought Rick Perry was the poster boy for the willfully ignorant.

  5. POSTED BY floyd  |  September 06, 2011 @ 1:30 pm

    Slice an apple in half and note how thin the skin is. The relative thickness of that skin is equal to our Earth’s atmosphere’s thickness. How could anyone think that there would be no damaging impact from hundreds of years of burning everything we can, and throwing chemicals, soot and CO2 into the atmosphere? Our atmosphere is nothing more than a thin membrane.
    We have one world. Let’s try to make it last.

  6. POSTED BY kit schackner  |  September 06, 2011 @ 1:47 pm

    Our weather nationally has certainly seemed more extreme over the last few years with floods, droughts, tornados, etc. Regardless of the cause, adjustments in our habits & practices must be made.

    I took a wildflower gathering walk yesterday on Orton Road in Livingston, where there have been vacant patches of swampland for years amid industrial buildings. The last patches are getting developed judging from the ‘Coming Soon — Office Space!’ signs. There were deer tracks, racoon tracks, rabbit tracks, and fox-or-coyote tracks in the mud on the bulldozer paths. All those displaced animals who don’t become road kill are going to be in somebodys yard soon.

    My office has started to smell like a moldy basement, and my basement’s moldy. It’s a good thing I think mold’s overrated, or I might start getting sick….

  7. POSTED BY Kevin57  |  September 06, 2011 @ 2:12 pm

    Mr. Mattison owns a production company and is a media specialist for William Patterson College. This seems more like a promotional effort for his company and productions.

  8. POSTED BY geoff gove  |  September 06, 2011 @ 2:50 pm

    A few clues that The Willfully Ignorant seem to want to ignore:

    http://ecorealty.blogspot.com/search?q=climate+change

  9. POSTED BY Jimmytown  |  September 06, 2011 @ 2:53 pm

    Has anyone heard from Mathilda on this issue? Here’s my take on the weather. People are dumb and will not stop destroying the earth. Mother nature is smart. If you wont stop driving, she will flood your roads and take down your bridges. If you wont cut down on your electricity, she will cut down a tree and take out thousands of people’s electricity.

    The real problem is over population. A study by statisticians at Oregon State University concluded that in the United States, the carbon legacy and greenhouse gas impact of an extra child is almost 20 times more important than some of the other environmentally sensitive practices people might employ their entire lives – things like driving a high mileage car, recycling, or using energy-efficient appliances and light bulbs. Under current conditions in the U.S., for instance, each child ultimately adds about 9,441 metric tons of carbon dioxide to the carbon legacy of an average parent – about 5.7 times the lifetime emissions for which, on average, a person is responsible.

    So in conclusion, stop looking at the single guy driving a Hummer, and start giving those judgmental eyes to the soccer moms. Doesn’t sit well, does it Baristaville??

  10. POSTED BY Jimmytown  |  September 06, 2011 @ 2:54 pm

    To hear more about this, watch Doug Stanhope’s “Abortion is Green” on google/ youtube

  11. POSTED BY essen  |  September 06, 2011 @ 3:56 pm

    Whenever there is a storm, hot weather, cold weather, etc. people like to bring up “global warming” oops, climate change. But it always turns out that some time in the past, whether it’s 50 years ago or 100 years ago, it has been hotter, colder, or wetter.
    Al Gore is a charlatan, who has figured out a way to enrich himself by promoting a theory which cannot be conclusively proven or disproven.

  12. POSTED BY Mrs Martta  |  September 06, 2011 @ 4:09 pm

    Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Homo sapiens go back to about 200,000 years or so ago; industrialization, a couple of hundred years ago. I think the Earth knows how to take care of itself, with or without man.

    And even if every man, woman, and child in the U.S. (or even the western world) decided to go green tomorrow, what about the rest of the world? Are they on board with us? What is everyone else’s long-term green plan?

    Of course, if we are hit with a large meteorite in 2012, this is all moot.

  13. POSTED BY hrhppg  |  September 06, 2011 @ 4:22 pm

    What I LOVE about this issue is when they were able to prove spray cans were creating holes in the atmosphere there was a huge out cry and spray cans were all changed to be green.

    Then when they said cars do it too that out cry changed into – no way ! It’s a sham !

    For millions of years the earth managed – without us drilling and burning our way thru it – now we’ve been doing those things for a few generations and it turns out not a good thing to have done.

    If you don’t think those things are bad then you shouldn’t have a problem with me (or anyone) smoking cigarettes around you, after all carbon monoxide can’t possibly be unhealthy and it can’t be why the air in NJ stinks if this is all a myth or wacko theory. (And it does stink, go to VT for a week and come back. Even the blind know when you’ve hit Rt 17)

  14. POSTED BY mike 91  |  September 06, 2011 @ 4:30 pm

    Whenever there is a storm, hot weather, cold weather, etc. people like to bring up “global warming” oops, climate change. But it always turns out that some time in the past, whether it’s 50 years ago or 100 years ago, it has been hotter, colder, or wetter.

    Woefully misinformed. The facts are that this last decade was measurably hotter than the decade before. Also a fact: this warming is not part of natural cycles, but is caused by our activity. We are damaging a very delicate system.

    I think the Earth knows how to take care of itself, with or without man.

    Sure, all those polluted rivers and lakes and air in the bad old days, why they just took care of themselves, didn’t they?

    And even if every man, woman, and child in the U.S. (or even the western world) decided to go green tomorrow, what about the rest of the world? Are they on board with us? What is everyone else’s long-term green plan?

    We are the number two greenhouse gas producer in the world. Yes, China needs to be onboard. But doing our part can will have significant effects.

  15. POSTED BY agideon  |  September 06, 2011 @ 4:31 pm

    “Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Homo sapiens go back to about 200,000 years or so ago; industrialization, a couple of hundred years ago. I think the Earth knows how to take care of itself, with or without man.”

    The planet isn’t at risk. As was noted above, Earth could lose its entire atmosphere and it would continue to orbit.

    On the other hand, we’re not nearly as resilient as this big chunk of rock.

    …Andrew

  16. POSTED BY frankgg  |  September 06, 2011 @ 4:42 pm

    More than a thousand years ago, the Romans went to Sicily and saw that the island was predominately a lush tropical rain forest on fertile volcanic soil. They thought, “…what a great place for farmlands!” so they cut down ALL of the forest to make farm able lands. Because of this man made circumstance, Sicily’s climate soon changed from tropical forest to desert. Their farmlands idea failed so they gave up. Later on the Arabs came and were able to do something agriculturally with Sicily because they knew how to engineer the desert climate. They created underground cisterns and were able to farm, carrots, potatoes, carob tomatoes and grain, much like today. I think that we are undergoing a climate change because with our development, we have significantly altered natural equilibrium’s.

  17. POSTED BY Mrs Martta  |  September 06, 2011 @ 4:46 pm

    Well, let me ask you this, HRH, Mike91 and others:

    Are you willing to give up fossil fuels? Are you willing to stop driving your car or flying by plane? How do you plan to heat your home for the winter?

    Do you shop in a supermarket? In a department store? How do you think your food and consumer items get to the store? Magic elves?

    Of course, all sane and reasonable people want to do all they can do as individuals to make the world a safer, healthier, more pleasant place to live for themselves and their loved ones. But let’s be realistic here. Unless you are willing to live in a teepee, grow your own food and/or become a hunter-gatherer, you are no better than the nameless, faceless people you choose to castigate.

    Why not take on the things over which you DO have control? Clean up trash when you see it in public places, keep on recycling (I know, that’s controversia,too, but I still choose to do it), don’t waste water, encourage manufacturers to use less packing materials whenever possible (consumer electronics peeps are some of the worst offenders here).

    Try as we may, we cannot control the climate. Not yet, anyway. Let’s worry about the things we CAN do.

  18. POSTED BY mike 91  |  September 06, 2011 @ 5:03 pm

    Are you willing to give up fossil fuels? Are you willing to stop driving your car or flying by plane? How do you plan to heat your home for the winter?

    Mrs. Martta, we’re not even on to solutions yet, unfortunately. We’re still trying to get people like herb and essen to stop being ostriches and acknowledge that there’s actually a problem.

  19. POSTED BY Spiro T. Quayle  |  September 06, 2011 @ 5:17 pm

    Your choice, A or B:

    A: GOP platform, 2011: For the sake of a robust free enterprise economy uber alles , we Real Americans don’t mind if our grandchildren wind up asthmatic, afflicted with skin cancer, embarking on pilgrimages to DisneyWorld, and hideously rotund (kinda like us) , just as long as we are debt free. That’s 21st century patriotism for ya ( you betcha) Besides, who gives a flying f*ck? After all, Jesus is coming very soon to redeem us all, so pass the nachos n “cheese food topping”, and the afflicted will be purified at the End of Days. Our rock solid faith lies in the ancient Hebrew and Greek texts.

    B: Dem platform, 2011: For the sake of Humankind having the guts to partner up with God and repair His planet, chock full of millions of awe-inspiring species of plants and animals, natural phenomena and galactic awesomeness, all testifying to the Wonder of Creation, we want our grandchilden lean, with strong lungs, a strong heart, clear eyes, efficient glands, smooth and healthy skin, and, if (unfortunately) necessary, buried under a mound of debt. We also want them to share the planet with box turtles. Our offspring will be intelligent ( if they live north of the Mason-Dixon LIne) , so they’ll figure out that debt problem pretty well. Our faith is behind our future generations, whom we love.

    Without a shadow of a doubt, I go for B.

  20. POSTED BY essen  |  September 06, 2011 @ 6:26 pm

    Jimmytown has it right. The real threat to world survival is overpopulation.
    According to the UN, world population will increase from approx 6 billion today to 9 billion (medium case) in 2050. That’s a 50% increase in 40 years, folks. Where will these people live? How will they get water? What will they eat? Global warming is irrelevant in comparison.

  21. POSTED BY DagT  |  September 06, 2011 @ 6:33 pm

    I’ve been to mainland China. The air can be cut with a knife. I did not see blue sky for any of the three weeks that I spent in various parts of that land. It’s hard for me to believe that, if in fact, humankind is the major cause of climate change anything will be done to improve our lot till this country curbs it’s belching of very black smoke.

    Many people of science and those who uphold the point of view that humans are evil doers when it comes to climate change have not been specific about the percentage that humans are to claim responsibility for said change. Can someone point me to the science literature that determines with specificity human vs. nature percentage of responsibility?

  22. POSTED BY Spiro T. Quayle  |  September 06, 2011 @ 7:00 pm

    Good points, Dag T. I admire you as one of a few who remain a vestige of responsible conservatism, as your posts demonstrate time and again.
    You face an uphill battle, Dag, nonetheless, as your wing of the political spectrum is now overrun by those whom place their faith in Divine Salvation without an iota of evidence, yet, simultaneously, demand tomes of data prior to signing on to doing their share with regard to the most basic affairs of planet maintenance.

  23. POSTED BY kit schackner  |  September 06, 2011 @ 9:59 pm

    Wouldn’t it be prudent, percentage of responsibility aside, to err on the side of caution and agree that belching black smoke is probably not good for any of us?

  24. POSTED BY newlygreens  |  September 06, 2011 @ 10:30 pm

    @DagT
    You might want to check out http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm there is a nice summary there as well as links to the original papers detailing how human’s “minor” addition does make a difference in the big picture.

    This Eureka Prize winning site also makes very handy free apps for smart phones to help explain away some of the common misconceptions found in skeptic arguments.

    I have no affiliation with the site but I do find it a very useful resource as I must confess I can not keep the ever-growing library of empirical data at the ready from memory.
    You might also search for Climate Crock of the Week on YouTube or hopefully tune in during the 24 Hours event Sept 14th and 15th.
    I would be happy to highlight additional CREDIBLE resources at the firehouse event as well.

  25. POSTED BY herbeverschmel  |  September 07, 2011 @ 7:54 am

    HUDDLE !!!!!!

    QB- “Ok, Nothing is working. When the game started we thought we had a plan but after almost 3 quarters and only 1 left were going nowhere. Coach hasn’t done what he said he would do and he looks like a beaten man. Can’t believe we didn’t go with the other coach even though she’s a women. We have no strategy or ideas , heck we don’t even have any new plays. It’s embarrassing, even our own fans figured this out and are booing us. Any ideas?

    Spiro- “Easy lets do what we’ve always done when he have no ideas and take a page out of our old playbook. Do Nothing !!Even though our team is heavily favored and more powerful then the bad guys, we’ll just complain that the other team is mean and cheats and at the end of the game people who don’t know the game will think it’s them and not us. Heck, its worked before but my only worry is I think the fans may be catching on to this. We’ll try it any way. ”

    (I’m look forward to your next fear tactic posting about the Republicans taking away Social Security, so entertaining , so old)

  26. POSTED BY Jimmytown  |  September 07, 2011 @ 8:23 am

    You can’t tell people to stop having children. Children are good for the church to spread religion and good for the country to influence consumerism. Our entire world is based on buying and selling. The more people born, the more we can profit from. That system is basically a pyramid scheme. And we know how that ends. Too many people and it crashes. But with a pyramid scheme, we can just close up shop and reopen in a year or so (recession?) But with the whole world involved….

  27. POSTED BY pete  |  September 07, 2011 @ 10:40 am

    Liberal flagelation.

    More ways for the smart people to tell us how to live our lives.

  28. POSTED BY deadeye  |  September 07, 2011 @ 10:54 am

    DagT speaks the truth. The Chinese couldn’t care a wit about how much pollution their factories belch out while their workers, in Dickensian conditions, flood the world with cheaply made goods. The developed world has made enormous strides in curtailing pollution, especially since the 70′s, as anyone with a long enough frame of reference can appreciate. Sadly, the environmental agenda has long been co-opted by politicians with very differing motivations. One of the main, and most cynical motivations, is the equalization of outcomes. Simplistically, this calls for hamstringing our economy and society for the purposes of allowing “developing” economies latitude to pollute, exploit their workers, and develop production infrastructures to better compete with us, thereby raising their standards of living while harming ours. It’s politics and economics, not saving polar bears. The only interest that the Chinese have in Polar Bears is perhaps for the aphrodisiac effect of their gall bladders when dried.
    The scientific method calls for weighing the validity of inputs across a spectrum, empirically evaluating them, and arriving at a defensible conclusion. Climate change zealots brook no dissent. Their conclusions are foregone. You’re either on board, or you’re a “denier,” which means that you don’t get invited to the celebrity benefits. Anyone looking for objectivity is shouted down.
    As for these fresh faced prophets of the apocalypse, they are obviously making hay while the sun shines since the first strong hurricane season to hit our area in years provides them a golden opportunity for self promotion. Personally I have had enough of Al Gore’s flatulence on the topic.

  29. POSTED BY Martta Rose  |  September 07, 2011 @ 11:14 am

    Well said, Deadeye. “Zealot” is the perfect word as they are no different than the religious zealots you encounter in the subway station handing out literature.

    As for Al Bore, he certainly doesn’t practice what he preaches, living the way he does and jetting around the country spreading his message.

  30. POSTED BY mike 91  |  September 07, 2011 @ 1:34 pm

    The scientific method calls for weighing the validity of inputs across a spectrum, empirically evaluating them, and arriving at a defensible conclusion. Climate change zealots brook no dissent. Their conclusions are foregone.

    Hilarious, talking about the scientific method while denying theories arrived at by that method.

    The scientific consensus is clear.

    To chalk it up to some looney left wing conspiracy ignores the thousands of climatologists that agree that its happening. Talk about foregone conclusions. Its the politicians on the right ignoring the science and therefore playing politics with the environment.

    Do the Chinese care about climate change? Probably not. Does that make it any less a reality?

  31. POSTED BY Spiro T. Quayle  |  September 07, 2011 @ 1:49 pm

    Someone recently suggested that it would be a good idea to ask the GOP candidates at their next debate:

    ” ok, a show of hands, who believes in science?”

    Christie, if he was running, would certainly raise his hand. Thank goodness.

    The others most likely wouldn’t.

    Except Romney, he’d raise his hand if he thought no one was looking.

  32. POSTED BY DagT  |  September 07, 2011 @ 2:22 pm

    Spiro ” ok, a show of hands, who believes in science?” is kinda of silly question.

    Even those Reps who can not “believe” in evolution probably rely on science in so many aspects of their own lives, starting with their visits to their family GP and popping an over the counter pill. So I’d quess given a correctly posited prompt science would win hands down even in the Bible Belt. I do have a difficult time sitting on the same bench with people who deny research but I have no problem with being somewhat cynical with regard to the Gores of this world.

    @mike you’ll find me in the same camp with deadeye .. still seeking validated information .. and questioning some of the emotional laws that have impeded our economic growth while China is laughing at us all the way to the bank. That does not mean that I don’t agree that humankind will do best to clean up the earth in a realistic manner. But please when all the greenies give up their cars, revert back to bikes, and find a way to stop volcanic eruptions only then will I tip my red hat to their cause celebre.

  33. POSTED BY mike 91  |  September 07, 2011 @ 2:54 pm

    mike you’ll find me in the same camp with deadeye .. still seeking validated information

    Sorry, DagT, given the reams of evidence available, my general impression of people who don’t accept the science is that they have other agendas, or just haven’t looked into it enough. And really, enough with Al Gore. He’s not conducting the experiments.

    And again, whether China is doing anything about it is immaterial to whether its actually occurring. If we could possibly get a consensus in this country maybe then we could pressure China into taking their pollution more seriously. Lord knows we buy enough of their stuff.

  34. POSTED BY Martta Rose  |  September 07, 2011 @ 3:20 pm

    “…given the reams of evidence available, my general impression of people who don’t accept the science is that they have other agendas, or just haven’t looked into it enough.”

    Count me as one who respects science (people always assume that because I am conservative politically, I must not believe in evolution and believe in Creationism–talk about pigeonholing!) Science, however, has been proven wrong a few times thoughout history. For example, it was once believed that fresh country air was a cure for people with TB. We later learned that while aesthetically pleasing, fresh air was not a cure for this deadly disease. Of course we all know how belief that the earth was flat turned out. There are countless other examples.

    Also, you cannot deny that science often goes hand in hand with money, more specifically grant money. When I read the results of a study that makes me skeptical, I always like to trace back who funded it.

    And, even with the best intentions, conflicting scientific reports are released every week. Take hormone replacement therapy. At first it was thought that every post-menopausal woman should take it. Not they are not so sure and say it should be on a case-by-case basis.

    Pharmaceutical recalls…yes, the science is there but maybe there is too much of a rush to get these drugs to market that there’s not enough time to test properly for debilitating or deadly side effects?

    So, it’s not a simple matter of “not accepting science,” but just questioning how scientists arrive at some of their conclusions.

  35. POSTED BY mike 91  |  September 07, 2011 @ 3:44 pm

    There are countless other examples.

    Although I’m sure there are instances of science being “wrong,” neither of the examples you gave were based on the scientfic method. They were beliefs.

    Also, you cannot deny that science often goes hand in hand with money, more specifically grant money. When I read the results of a study that makes me skeptical, I always like to trace back who funded it.

    Please point out one of these studies in favor of climate change happening where the conclusions are suspect because of who funded it. I can probably find a couple funded by the oil companies that point to the opposite, but I’ve never seen one like the one you seem to think exists.

    And, even with the best intentions, conflicting scientific reports are released every week. Take hormone replacement therapy. At first it was thought that every post-menopausal woman should take it. Not they are not so sure and say it should be on a case-by-case basis.

    Again, the consensus among climatologists is clear. I don’t know how many different ways there are to say that the vast majority of people that know the most about this stuff agree: its happening and we’re causing it. Are they all wrong? I would say the chances are minimal if not nonexistant.

  36. POSTED BY Spiro T. Quayle  |  September 07, 2011 @ 3:54 pm

    Yes, Dag T, I agree, it is a silly question, but I’ll bet that’s the result you’ll get.

    And Martta Rose, yes, science goes hand in hand with money.

    Even more so, the resistance to science goes hand in hand with money, and huge amounts of it.

  37. POSTED BY deadeye  |  September 07, 2011 @ 6:53 pm

    What interests me about some of the liberal standard bearers that post here is their unquestioning buy-in into the full scope of the dogma. In for a penny in for a pound. Do you get kicked out of the club if you employ intellectual rigor or independent thinking? Seems that way. Not that there aren’t some true believers on the other side of the fence too, and they are easily pilloried for ignorance at uncritically arriving at their views. Your adherence to your shibboleths brings you into the same camp as the bible pounding creationists, just so you know.

  38. POSTED BY Right of Center  |  September 07, 2011 @ 7:06 pm

    I think there maybe a component of Anthropogenic Warming but it’s probably not nearly as large as some think. I think we should take small steps to hedge our bets, but nothing which will overly harm the economy and jobs. Mostly, I think “Climate Change” is a convenient means to enforce group-think quasi socialism and left wing policies.

  39. POSTED BY deadeye  |  September 07, 2011 @ 7:39 pm

    Exactly ROC

  40. POSTED BY mike 91  |  September 07, 2011 @ 7:58 pm

    I’m curious deadeye, about your definition of “intellectual rigor.” You’ve posted nothing that disputes climate change, except that which rolls about in your misinformed head. But people who believe in the facts are blind adherents to some looney left conspiracy that has somehow managed to ensnare the entire climatologist community. Ooooo, the green monster is hiding under your bed!

    Rant rant rant. All they really demonstrate is your adeptness with circular logic.

  41. POSTED BY walleroo  |  September 07, 2011 @ 9:20 pm

    Mostly, I think “Climate Change” is a convenient means to enforce group-think quasi socialism and left wing policies.

    I feel the same way about particle physics.

  42. POSTED BY Right of Center  |  September 07, 2011 @ 9:59 pm

    Really walleroo? You don’t see a fundamental difference between repeatable and verifiable physical experiments and computer modeling?

  43. POSTED BY deadeye  |  September 07, 2011 @ 10:39 pm

    I read quite a bit Mike. Forgive me if I haven’t kept a bibliography. You should read too, Mike. It will improve your mind.

    Speaking of particle physics, there has been an experiment ongoing since 2009, using the CERN supercollider in Switzerland to bombard water vapor with atomic particles that replicates the action of solar wind and the formation of clouds in the atmosphere. So far, there appear to be clear positive correlations between variations in solar activity, cloud formation, and resultant climatic impacts. I don’t think that we’ve been playing around with solar activity Mike, although maybe someone like Sheila Jackson Lee may think we have. She’s the the congresswoman that thinks that we landed on Mars. (We didn’t Mike) Guess what. This research has been received less than enthusiastically by the existing climate establishment, because it rains on their parade, is apolitical, and could upset the climate applecart; nevertheless, it represents hard fundamental science. But darn it all Mike, I didn’t write down the names of the scientists.

    You see Mike, I’m not really misinformed at all. I just look at things from a different perspective than you seem to, and your perspective seems to be that of the last dog on the intellectual dog sled team. :-)

  44. POSTED BY walleroo  |  September 07, 2011 @ 11:13 pm

    I’m talking about particle physics as a make-work project, ROC. You know, building that big tunnel, hiring all those postdocs, etc. How socialist is that! What a racket. And you don’t really believe in quarks and bosons, do you? When was the last time you actually saw a boson?

  45. POSTED BY mike 91  |  September 08, 2011 @ 9:17 am

    So glad to hear that you’re reading, deadeye. My suggestion, though, is that you find some sources that don’t have Rupert Murdoch in the masthead.

    Because even CERN itself says that this study should not be interpreted as evidence that the sun is responsible for climate change.

    So far, there appear to be clear positive correlations between variations in solar activity, cloud formation, and resultant climatic impacts.

    Patently false. Here’s a quote from the head of the project: “At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it’s a very important first step,” he says.

  46. POSTED BY Spiro T. Quayle  |  September 08, 2011 @ 9:39 am

    The bottom line is whether one really wants to believe in climate change or not, and act from point on, not whether or not it exists or why.

    I’ll guess that most of those who do want to act on it are not particularly pleased with the prospect (although it might feel good to do something about something so potentially troublesome )

    whereas,
    it seems that almost all of those who don’t want to act, or who want to spend great energy resisting action, will do anything they can to put it off – calling it hokum, calling it a job killer, calling it socialism, calling it scientists on the take, blaming it on sun spots, on an on an on.

    The fact that these excuses are so disparate suggests that they are little more than excuses.

Leave a Reply

Baristanet Comment Policy:

Baristanet has specific guidelines for commenting. To avoid having your comment deleted -- or your commenting privileges revoked -- read this before you comment. Violators will be banned from commenting.

Report a comment that violates the guidelines to comments@baristanet.com. For trouble with registration or commenting, write to comments@baristanet.com.

Commenters on Baristanet.com are responsible for all legal consequences arising from their comments, including libel, infringement of copyright or actions that threaten a third party. By submitting a comment, you agree to indemnify Baristanet LLC, its partners and employees from any legal action arising from your comments.

In order to comment on the new system, you need to register a new Baristanet account. To get your own avatar next to your comments, sign up at Gravatar.com

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Featured Comment

Will Ted Nugent be banned from staying at the hotel?

Tip, Follow, Friend, Subscribe

Links & Information

New Jersey Gas Prices provided by GasBuddy.com
Click here to add this map to your website.