• Welcome!
    Logout|My Dashboard

Global warming has to be taken seriously - The Galveston County Daily News: Letters To Editor

October 25, 2016

Global warming has to be taken seriously

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
  • 2 Don't Threaten or Abuse. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated. AND PLEASE TURN OFF CAPS LOCK.
  • 3 Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
  • 4 Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 5 Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 6 Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Welcome to the discussion.


  • Don233 posted at 12:16 am on Thu, Oct 31, 2013.

    Don233 Posts: 970

    All the while NASA satellite images show the largest sea ice coverage in the Antarctic since record keep began in 1979. Global warming- the biggest lie ever perpetrated on the world. You my friend need to check the data. We haven't warmed in a decade. God, where do these environmentalist whackos cond from?

  • carlosrponce posted at 8:01 am on Thu, Oct 31, 2013.

    carlosrponce Posts: 6340

    Don't just read the article which has a pro global warming bias, do some research!
    This is what I found:
    Chukchi Sea Ice Extent is currently more than 300,000 sq km greater than last year, in fact FIVE times last year, Chukchi Sea Ice loss this year is the lowest in ten years All the surrounding seas experienced the same trend.
    The fact is that the amount of sea ice is cyclical. Study the overall picture, not just a snapshot.

  • Jake Buckner posted at 8:34 am on Thu, Oct 31, 2013.

    Jake Buckner Posts: 2240

    I'm going to put this in really simple terms so that even Don233 can understand:

    Pollution bad.

    No pollution good.

    Forget global warming and embrace the fact that nothing good comes from pollution.

  • kevjlang posted at 9:10 am on Thu, Oct 31, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    For both Don233 and carlosrponce,

    1 year's weather does not a climate make.

    I don't believe there's any dispute within the science community about whether the global average temperatures have been trending upward for quite some time. That doesn't mean that for a given year, things cannot fluctuate from the trend. At this point, any year over year comparisons may be the start of a new trend, or just exceptions from the norm.

    What IS in dispute among climate scientists is whether the warming trend is part of a natural cycle, or if human activity has been helping it along.

    I do presume that both of you know that the global average temperature is WELL above freezing, right? In fact, it's somewhere between 57 and 58 degrees F. Perhaps the two of you can explain to me how we can get water to freeze in Antarctica, or humans to sweat so profusely in Houston if it's not even 60 degrees?

  • gecroix posted at 11:18 am on Thu, Oct 31, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 6261

    I'm still trying to get past walruses beating out humans in the 'concern for' department.[beam][beam]
    The 'global warming' as a cause for panic and economic destruction in this country (if there's any economy left three years from now...) BS I have chosen to, absent legitimate facts to the contrary, of which legitimate is NOT synonymous with hyped or hyperbole, dismiss to date. When I get that answer, if ever, for why temps have been stalled for a decade and a half even as atmospheric CO2 (the 'planet killer gas' of Gore-esque fantasies...) has increased, then it will be time for further reflection.
    In the meantime, I'll keep busy watching POTUS ply his 'green' agenda and wreck the electrical production capacity of this country and thus cause utility costs to, as he so openly put it, 'necessarily skyrocket'.
    NOT going to keep those walruses cool in the zoo without electricity....

  • IHOG posted at 11:19 am on Thu, Oct 31, 2013.

    IHOG Posts: 2486

    Are you aware there was a time when ALL artic ice melted every year for over 300 years in a row? People called it the happy time. Greenland had ranches and farms where glaciers are now. It was the best climate earth has had in 12,000 years.
    Since the '80's global warming was melting artic ice but since 1998 global cooling has brought back the ice. The polar ice pack is increasing north and south and drawing down sea levels again.
    Gore goons simply ignore the truth.

  • kevjlang posted at 12:36 pm on Thu, Oct 31, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    The Global Average Temperature for 2012 was more than 1 degree warmer than the statistical average for the 20th century. That one year data point contradicts your "stall" and your "global cooling" claims.

    Other than harping about whether the data collection process is inclusive enough, the data that indicates whether the average temperature is going up or down is pretty objective. The WHY it's changing is where the subjectivity, and therefore, controversy comes in.

    Distribution of the temperatures could be another debate topic. If the temperatures were at one time relatively evenly distributed, you could see the global average going up or down but not have the extreme variations. So, the fact that polar ice thawed or accumulated really has little to do with whether there's global warming or cooling. It merely means that temperatures in that region were or were not low enough to sustain ice formation.

    What I wonder about is whether you think we should continue polluting air and water, regardless of the global warming debate?

  • Jake Buckner posted at 2:06 pm on Thu, Oct 31, 2013.

    Jake Buckner Posts: 2240

    Again: Pollution bad. No pollution, good.

    Someone please give me information that contradicts this.

  • kevjlang posted at 2:50 pm on Thu, Oct 31, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    Well, Jake, I think that your definition of pollution is different than others. Also, there seems to be a belief that pollution is not bad if it costs you money, time, or effort to not do it. The same rationale for not asking Marathon, Valero, Exxon, etc. to not pollute is probably the same rationale used by those that leave the dirty pampers on the beach or the cigarrette butts on the sidewalk.

  • IHOG posted at 3:37 pm on Thu, Oct 31, 2013.

    IHOG Posts: 2486


    Define polution.
    EPA calls CO2 polution but it is the most vital component of the atmosphere.
    Without CO2 earth would be a lifeless rock like Mars.
    Without CO2 there can be no oxygen or any plant life. No animals either since the food chain starts with plants. All animals, including humans, produce CO2 when they eat and metabolize plants.

  • Jake Buckner posted at 4:51 pm on Thu, Oct 31, 2013.

    Jake Buckner Posts: 2240

    kevjlang, my observation is that anyone who makes money by polluting argues against its effects. I will readily accept that it may not be economical to keep from polluting -- this is different from saying it doesn't have deleterious effects.

    And even if it's not economical, I say find a way to produce energy without polluting. Can't happen overnight, but it won't happen if we don't start. In fact, we have started. I remember the air in Houston being far worse in the 60s and 70s than now. I know that's a subjective opinion based on seeing and smelling rather than measuring, but I've noticed the same in Denver and SoCal.

  • kevjlang posted at 9:54 pm on Thu, Oct 31, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    IHOG, without oxygen, there can't possibly be CO2. I would have figured that you would have picked up on the O2 in CO2 coming from Oxygen.

    Do you also know that plants expire CO2 at night, while they are consuming, surprisingly, O2.

    Seems to me that Oxygen is at least as possible as CO2.

    You know what else critically needs Oxygen? Water. Good old H2O.

  • gecroix posted at 10:28 am on Fri, Nov 1, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 6261

    Of course. It cannot be that some of us simply do not believe the hype and hysteria offered by the 'greens', in no small part because their argument(s) are increasingly found to be specious . We MUST be in FAVOR of 'pollution'. After all, our own President says we WANT dirty air, dirty water, and asthmatic children. This from a guy who hasn't stopped lying to us all since Inauguration Day 2009, and before.
    What you guys present is the antithesis of an effective argument of your own beliefs, replacing it with the functional equivalent of race baiting, 'climate baiting'.
    'They' don't want to believe us greens because 'they' WANT pollution.
    'They' don't understand 'the science'.
    The cherrypicked science, that is.
    This, of course, largely from the same people telling us global warming is an immediate threat, when the fact is it's been stalled for a decade and a half, even as 'greenhouse gases' build. AND some of the same people telling us in '73 we were headed for a mini-ice age are now in the opposite camp. WRONG both times, but full speed ahead anyway.
    It also fails miserably to account for the increase in global temps in the years preceeding the turn of the last century before 'man made gasses' became much more than a future dream. Then the subsequent decrease in later years.
    One could as easily say the 'green's are in FAVOR of more world 'pollution', because of their position backing the Obama Administrations trashing of the U.S. coal industry, WHILE ENCOURAGING THE SALE OF IT TO OVERSEAS SOURCES. Those places that have NO controls or rules at all on 'pollution'. Where are the 'scientists' to remind the gullible that THEIR nasty air may well end up as OUR nasty air, the Earth only having one atmosphere.
    Just doesn't fit the hysteria narrative, though, I suppose...
    I think a recent comment by a lady on a different subject sums up the future of this 'green/global warming/climate change' knee jerking quite well:

    "A woman in California faced a 50 percent rate hike. She wrote to her insurance company, “I was all for Obamacare until I found out I was paying for it.”

    Under current 'climate policy' she WILL be in this position:
    A woman in California faces a 50% rate hike for electricity. She wrote to her Congressman, "I was all for 'green' initiatives, until I found out I was paying for it.'

  • kevjlang posted at 11:40 am on Fri, Nov 1, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    I appreciate you filling in the blanks of my position on this, and for making my statement about some to be a generalization of all. I definitely couldn't have made those points without your help. Not that I desired, too, though.

    There are some very loud screams whenever anyone proposes increased pollution controls is how much it will cost to do it, and how much of that will be passed down to consumers. As if those are the only costs to be factored. However, many of us that think things through from a broader perspective know that there is often a cost of inaction as well.

    Without thinking things through, a drunk believes that taking a cab home is the expensive way home. However, with a little thought, he might consider how much his drive home costs if he got caught by the police, or if he bounced off a parked car, or if he ran over a pedestrian or crashed into another moving car. It's quite possible--certainly not guaranteed--that his choice to drive himself home will be the more expensive option.

    We don't fully understand the long-term implications of dumping diapers on the beach, discarding cigarette butts on the street, or billowing factory and refinery smoke into the atmosphere. Because of that, many people believe that if it hasn't killed us yet, it probably won't. What we do know is that Mother Nature, by itself, doesn't burn millions of barrels of crude oil per day, toss millions of cigarette butts a day, or dump thousands of soiled pampers on the grounds of recreation areas a day. We know they haven't killed us yet, but do we know that there isn't a delayed reaction that could just all of a sudden make the planet inhabitable, even though the day prior, all seemed normal? I certainly don't know that. I do know, however, that my parents and grandparents told me, repeatedly, that we should always pick up after ourselves. And, I can assure you that they generally didn't vote for those commie socialist pinko anti-commerce Democrats.

    There are a lot of things that we abstain from doing where no one has PROVEN the benefit of not doing it. Yet, when it comes to pollution, the stance is that it's OK as long as no one has PROVEN that it's hazardous.

    This is just my observation. I wish I had some divine knowledge of what the long-range effects of any of these dumping activities are. I wish that I knew which, if any, of the scientists are merely trying to protect their own self-interests and investments, and which are providing well-supported theories. However, the debate is so politicized that we will never know which side to believe until we're looking down on this creation from inside the Pearly Gates.

    Right now, we only know what it costs to continue exhausting what we're exhausting. We call it pollution, but we aren't sure if we want to believe it is, and we certainly aren't sure what it might hurt if its a pollutant.

  • gecroix posted at 12:15 pm on Fri, Nov 1, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 6261

    If you don't like being challenged for what you are saying, then stop saying it.
    The only words put in your mouth or positions assigned are those made by you.
    It's hard, for sure, to pick anything up when there are so many hands to choose from to use to do so.

  • sverige1 posted at 2:12 pm on Fri, Nov 1, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    For folks who don't believe the polar ices are melting: Don't you ever see those PBS shows where families of otters are scurrying for their food sources, yet less and less are found because the earth's balance is so flubbed up by Man. With marine life, less eggs are hatched because Mama can't find the right place to lay her eggs. They incubate in the wrong way, and many unborn remain, not viable to grow.

    This is all because we've warmed the earth. BTW - as I've mentioned before and so has kevinlang...one or two years of "colder than normal" does not make up for the general trend of less ice caps. In simple language, a year or two of "colder" is short-term weather. Long term (decades to centuries) is "climate trend". Science lesson for non-majors ends for the moment.

  • kevjlang posted at 4:11 pm on Fri, Nov 1, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    The positions that you cite may very well be those held by greens. However, I don't recall seeing any proof that I'm a green, and I know I haven't claimed that I am one. So, when you cite their positions and lump me into the class holding those claims, I'm going to balk.

    Of course, if you're so against cherry-picked science, there seems to be a lot of that going around, including in the "anti-global-warming" circle. In fact, anyone in any kind of modeling world is cherry-picking. Such as the Supply-Side Economists, just about every weatherman and climatologist, many areas of physics and engineering. In fact, just about any field dealing with a complex real-world scenario has to do a bit of cherry-picking.

    When it comes to fossil fuels, a large body of humanity is against the development of alternative energy source merely because they don't buy the global warming connections. It doesn't matter that there are a multitude of geo-political, economic, strategic, and tactical reasons for doing so, the tipping point is the abhorrent global warming gobbledeeguk. I believe that there are those that, even if another fuel were readily available AND completely compatible with today's autos that could operate under heavy use for a nickel a day, they'd eschew it as some plot by the pointy-headed "green" folks.

    Definitely, challenge me for what I write. Heck, you can even challenge me with what someone else writes. However, don't expect me to enjoy being told that what someone else writes or states represents my beliefs. I really don't think anyone else is wacko enough to share my beliefs, anyway. I'd be really scared if they did!

  • gecroix posted at 8:28 pm on Fri, Nov 1, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 6261

    I think I get it now.
    It's like if I scratched out 'Caucasian' under the choice of race on an application, and wrote in 'mostly white' instead.
    Parsing. It's not just for politicians anymore!

  • kevjlang posted at 9:13 pm on Fri, Nov 1, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    I guess there's a joke there somewhere. But, since the adage is that if you have to explain your joke, it probably wasn't very funny, or good. So, I guess I can either pretend to laugh, or you can explain what was supposed to have been funny. I'm OK with "I don't get it."

    Call me a green if you must. I've been called worse. Just don't call me late for dinner.

  • gecroix posted at 10:51 am on Sat, Nov 2, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 6261

    It's 6 degrees F hotter on my back porch right now than yesterday.
    I may have to rethink this...

  • NurseJayne posted at 8:49 pm on Sat, Nov 2, 2013.

    NurseJayne Posts: 766

    I've seen firsthand the glaciers melting in Alaska, the coral reefs dying in Honduras.

    Perhaps you should get off your porch more often.

  • carlosrponce posted at 10:29 pm on Sat, Nov 2, 2013.

    carlosrponce Posts: 6340

    I'm still waiting for the sea level to rise 30 feet as Al Gore predicted would happen by 2010 (I think it's a little late). At the elevation of my property I'll get water-front property without paying an arm and a leg for it! Can't wait!

  • carlosrponce posted at 6:46 am on Mon, Nov 4, 2013.

    carlosrponce Posts: 6340

    Yes, Glaciers melt every year in Alaska. It's part of the circle of life. The rest of us call it SUMMER. Ditto for the coral reefs. No life is eternal.

  • NurseJayne posted at 9:12 am on Mon, Nov 4, 2013.

    NurseJayne Posts: 766

    The glacial effects are not seasonal, Carlos. Alaska Park Rangers will explain that there has NEVER been documented glacial loss like we are seeing now. The pictures are horrifying.

    Ditto with coral reefs. They are the oldest form of life on earth and it is NOT natural that they are dying. Speak to marine biologists (there are a lot in Galveston) and find out the truth instead of just dismissing global warming by pretending it's a natural occurrence.

  • kevjlang posted at 9:38 am on Mon, Nov 4, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    I guess it's easier to deny that anything is happening rather than trying to understand why.

  • sverige1 posted at 1:39 pm on Mon, Nov 4, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    I find it so hard to believe that there's still folks (with the only reason being a refusal to line selves with "liberal" politics) to realize that indeed the polar ices are melting.

    It's not a liberal nor conservative concern, it's an "earth" concern. Many examples that I am citing are from the National Resources Defense Council -

    • Sea ice is retreating, decrease of arctic ice thickness of 40 percent since the 60s.

    • At the current rate of retreat, all of the glaciers in Glacier National Park will be gone by 2070.

    • In Greenland, ice mass has increasingly declined in recent years.
    • Greenland holds 10 percent of the total global ice mass. If it melts, sea levels could increase by up to 21 feet.

    And, much closer to home, we have our Galveston Island sinking. According to Texas Monthly, "Louisiana is sinking into the Gulf of Mexico at a rate of five feet a century, and the upper coast of Texas can’t be far behind."


  • carlosrponce posted at 1:42 pm on Mon, Nov 4, 2013.

    carlosrponce Posts: 6340

    Nurse Jayne, do more research. What I have read comes from anecdotal accounts BEFORE there were Alaskan Park Rangers. You remind me of the blind man an the elephant who grasped the trunk and surmised it must be a snake. Yes they are seasonal and more to the fact Cyclical. Some seasons have more melting than others.

  • kevjlang posted at 2:37 pm on Mon, Nov 4, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    sverige1, you know, I'm sure, that most of the people you're trying to convince will not be swayed by citations from the NRDC. Those left-wing environmental wacko groups cannot be trusted.

    The phenomenon has been documented by many sources aligned with various parts of the political spectrum. The log-term trend is very difficult to ignore. The causes and contributing factors, however, are certainly subjects of debate. However, it's worthless to try and debate the why's with people that are not prepared to accept a baseline set of facts. If one group adamantly believes that the global climate is warming, while another vehemently believes that it's not, it's impossible for either side to make any headway in debating what's causing whatever change there might be.

  • carlosrponce posted at 2:52 pm on Mon, Nov 4, 2013.

    carlosrponce Posts: 6340

    Antarctic Sea Ice for March 1980 and 2010

    Extent Concentration
    2010 4.0 million sq km 2.6 million sq km
    1980 3.5 million sq km 2.0 million sq km

    Sea Ice Extent in March 2010 is over 14% greater than in 1980
    Sea Ice Concentration in March 2010 is 30% greater than in 1980!

    And about Arctic Sea Ice: A glitch in satellite sensors caused scientists to underestimate the extent of Arctic sea ice by 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles), a California- size area. This is from the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center."The Arctic ice cap grows each winter as the sun sets for several months and shrinks each summer as the sun rises higher in the northern sky. Each year the Arctic sea ice reaches its annual minimum extent in September.

  • carlosrponce posted at 3:24 pm on Mon, Nov 4, 2013.

    carlosrponce Posts: 6340

    To quote one of my favorites, Doris Day:
    "Que Sera, Sera,
    Whatever will be, will be
    The future's not ours, to see
    Que Sera, Sera
    What will be, will be."

    The Lord will provide. God Bless!

  • kevjlang posted at 6:32 pm on Mon, Nov 4, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    You're using 2 years to try to dispute what sverige1 is saying has occurred over many decades. Are you maintaining that these are representative years, or just two years picked at random?

  • kevjlang posted at 6:36 pm on Mon, Nov 4, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    Will the Lord provide even if He knows that we're the ones fouling the earth, or might his response be the long-awaited armageddon?

    In other words, if the scientists that maintain that the global warming we're experiencing is human influenced, will God make it all better for us, or will he figure it's suitable for us to experience His wrath?

    Even if what we're doing isn't affecting the climate, would God think that our pollution is indicative of good stewardship of His creation?

  • Jake Buckner posted at 7:03 pm on Mon, Nov 4, 2013.

    Jake Buckner Posts: 2240

    Since quoting the beliefs of many of the world's learned climatologists makes no impression on the likes of carlosrponce and others, simply remember these words:

    Pollution bad; no pollution good.

    It's pretty hard to dispute. I'm still waiting for someone to give me a fact-based argument supporting the notion that pollution is not bad. Forget global warming. I'm challenging you to please list some of the important benefits of pollution.

  • sverige1 posted at 8:47 pm on Mon, Nov 4, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Response to carlosrponce posted at 3:24 pm on Mon, Nov 4, 2013:

    Well, carlosponcie - I think I'm the most disheartened with your position in this. Now, as for the other "conservative", pro-business ilk, that's their cross to bear in regard to mucking up the world.

    However, you are a man of God. I would think that our Father Almighty would not want Man to exhibit even the slightest intention of knowingly creating harm to our Mother Earth. The Lord provided us with the gift of life, yet our negligence, tacit approval, and "que sera, sera" attitude is helping at throwing away what God has made with both hands.