Archives > Opinion > Columns
Print
E-mail
Comment
Rate
RSS
Share
Shaughnessy: It's time to stop freaking out about global warming
By LU SHAUGHNESSY
Please, stop the incessant prattle about the supposed climate change crisis! Here's a news flash, people - to our great relief, the threat of global warming was just that, an unfounded threat. Whew, I'm so glad because there are many more urgent matters in need of our attention today, so please stop freaking out about that non-factor.
Many alarmists' theories about fierce storms, dramatic sea-level increases and devastating drought have been shown to be false. As a matter of fact, during the Medieval period, it was warmer than even today. They had record harvests, few major storms, and the human population thrived! Cold is a lot tougher on plants and animals than heat, and the warmer periods have been some of man's and the planet's most prosperous. More diseases are caused by cold than by heat, and the longer growing periods most certainly are a benefit to humans.
Al Gores' "An Inconvenient Truth," should've been titled, "A Lot of Convenient Lies." I mean, come on! There is absolutely no conclusive evidence that warming and cooling of our Earth for the past million years has been linked to CO2 levels. None, nada, zip, zero, nothing, nowhere.
In "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years," authors S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery report, after extensive research, that the slight warming our Earth may be undergoing is part of a long-established cycle having to do with activity of our sun. It's not dangerous and it isn't something we could do anything about even if there were a need to, which there isn't!
"The Earth continually warms and cools. The cycle is undeniable, ancient, often abrupt, and global. It is also unstoppable. Isotopes in the ice and sediment cores, ancient tree rings, and stalagmites tell us it is linked to small changes in the irradiance of the sun," write the authors.
The UN models predict that more radiation is trapped in the Earth's atmosphere as the temperature rises. However, a 15-year study just released by MIT climate scientist Richard Lindzen, blows a hole a mile-wide in the arguments used by global warming evangelists!
I'm telling you, if man-made greenhouse gases are contributing to warming of anything more than the most trifling degree, the global warming activists haven't come close to demonstrating this! In fact, over 19,000 scientist have signed a petition stating that there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of greenhouse gases is causing global warming. Evidence that these gases are destroying the planet has to be believed to be seen. And I, for one, don't believe it - and neither should you.
I don't know about you, but I need my fossil fuels! As a Realtor licensed in Minnesota and Wisconsin, I can drive from north of Duluth to Ellsworth, Wis., on any given day. We cannot improve our economy by forcing people to use expensive, unreliable and inefficient energy sources like corn fuel, wind and solar. Yes, alternative energy sources have their place, however, they are just that, alternatives. So, please don't ask me to give up my profession and join the unemployment line because I can't afford the gas I need to do my job.
With the millions of dollars in stimulus money going to improve our roads and highways, shouldn't we make sure we have the fuel to drive our vehicles on them? And please don't think of me as some environmental diva of convenience! We here at the Shaughnessy household have been green before green meant "green." We're all about conservation and recycling.
So, where does that leave us then? I mean, we want to be "globally responsible" and we all know that responsibility starts at home. Unfortunately, this "climate crisis" is nothing more than another government grab for our freedom and liberty! The Obama administration's proposal is super radical. Their cap-and-trade sewage will dramatically increase energy costs of the average consumer and will likely drive our crippled economy into a severe depression... for nothing - not one iota of evidence.
I'd much rather purchase our American-made clean energy, which, according to Patrick Moore, co-founder of the radical environmental group Greenpeace, now says we should start turning to (believe it or not) nuclear power! Did you know that France already produces 76 percent of its electricity from 56 "clean" nuclear plants?
We, the citizens of the great USA, have the knowledge, technology, and wherewithal to produce our own energy, enabling us to be self-sufficient and able to continue to live the American Dream!
So, in closing, let's not forget that there is no convincing evidence suggesting CO2 emissions cause climate change and, in fact, the latest scientific data suggests we may be entering a period of global cooling! Weather and climate change are natural processes beyond human control. And, furthermore, how can you argue with the founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman, who calls global warming the "greatest scam in history"?
You can't.
Lu Shaughnessy lives in Stillwater.
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of stillwatergazette.com.
blackmart wrote on Oct 23, 2009 1:10 PM:
" Was this article written by a teenager? The tone of the article is juvenile - "Like have you heard of this - it like really sucks!" I am not sure it is smart to go to rely on a Realtor for complex scientific research. It is an embarrassment that this article made it to print. "
Blessthismess wrote on Oct 23, 2009 7:37 PM:
" I am not sure what offends me more. It's either the content of the commentary or number of exclamation points.
At least I know the Realtor not use when I sell my home. "
At least I know the Realtor not use when I sell my home. "
beninmv wrote on Oct 25, 2009 1:55 PM:
" I agree with blackmark. While Lindzen is a professor at MIT, his "iris theory" remains elusive and peer review has continued to poke holes at it. For every Lindzen, there are many well educated climate scientists that take a more methodical approach to climate change. Lindzen throw a hypothesis out there much like a politician will make accusations about legislation they oppose..
John Coleman is a weather personality, I have yet to see Coleman or anyone else specifically identify what his degree is in. He is widely climed as the founder of the weather channel, but his stay there was short (he was forced out) and it only became relevant well after he was gone. "
John Coleman is a weather personality, I have yet to see Coleman or anyone else specifically identify what his degree is in. He is widely climed as the founder of the weather channel, but his stay there was short (he was forced out) and it only became relevant well after he was gone. "
KarlHungus wrote on Oct 26, 2009 7:57 AM:
" I thought this nut bag disappeared. She must have heard on the radio that the citizens concerned about global warming has dropped some. Ever thought that maybe people unemployed maybe have some other things to be concerned about right now. Doesn't mean global climate change doesn't exist. You should go back to railing on the school board for getting laptops for children. Something you even know less about. "
Jack Straw wrote on Oct 26, 2009 8:55 AM:
" The Gazette doesn't do its credibility any good by allowing this tripe into its pages. Even for an opinion piece, this is a joke. Don't you have any editorial standards at all? The sole source of science here is the founder of the Weather Channel. Everything else we're supposed to take Little Lu Lu's word for it? There is "no convincing evidence suggesting CO2 emissions cause climate change"? According to whom--Professor Limbaugh? She confuses wind and solar energy with alternative auto fuels like biodiesel and hybrids. I wouldn't trust this woman to sell a doghouse! Little Lu Lu better go seek some counseling from Sluggo. "
Unrepresented wrote on Oct 26, 2009 12:15 PM:
" Was gonna write up a rebuttal, but this writer isn't even worth it. I will say this, check out lifeaftertheoilcrash.net and tell me we should keep using fossil fuels. "
roe wrote on Oct 26, 2009 12:47 PM:
" Don't be too surprised, blackmart. A lot of this crap has been making it into print lately as more and more people buy up the right-wing platform lies and paranoid fear-mongering against our "socialist" president and all things progressive. Prepare yourself for another installment of the dark ages. "
KelVarnsen wrote on Oct 26, 2009 1:23 PM:
" This is the biggest bunch of hooey I have seen in quite some time. But, OK, lets say global climate change is only have correct, wouldn't you want to be better citizens of the world anyway? Wouldn't you want to leave it better than you got it to our childrens children? Apparently not, it's more important for the likes of you and Bachmann to drill here, drill now and dam the torpedoes. Don't waste any money on solar or wind. Your the same kind of people that rid Minnesota of that pesky rapid transit, and look how we are paying now! Your just a dinosaur, oh I forgot your one of those people that think the world is only 6,000 years old. "
beninmv wrote on Oct 27, 2009 9:02 AM:
" This opinion piece is little more than a cut and paste from the same old tired rebuttals from the denilalist community. Lindzen's work is considered more hypothesis than theory and has received a lot of blowback form genuine peer review. And why is John Coleman considered an expert on climate? because he kows how to read the weather? Does he have a degree in meteorology? If so, please provide me a reference. I have been asking this question for three years now. "
jack straw wrote on Oct 27, 2009 3:03 PM:
" Little Lu Lu, Michele Bachmann, Kathy Lohmer. They're like the Three Blind Mice. Blind to science. Blind to logic. Blind to reason. Blind to everything but wingnuttery. Is there a village somewhere that has lost three of its idiots? "
KelVarnsen wrote on Oct 28, 2009 9:21 AM:
" So, LuLu, don't believe take a look at the pine forests in Montana. They are dying because of a match head sized insect. Now the insect has been around for years, but freezing weather has kept them in check. Because of Global Climate Change, the area is a couple of degree's warmer and now they don't go freeze out and they are killing every pine tree. "
2cool4mn wrote on Oct 28, 2009 11:10 AM:
" For shame on the above responses.
Since when in America is only one side allowed to present their point of view?
There are MANY scientists that dispute the validity of MAN MADE global warming, and there is evidence that the research is flawed. A true and ethical scientist would never have the audacity to stifle debate and concepts that are contrary to their own point of view.
But, as the previous comments reveal-global (now called climate change because there is no proof of warming) warming is no science whatsoever;
It has become a religious substitute for many that need to fill a void.
It is a tool of the elitists to gain control over the masses, control their thinking and behavior.
It is a tactic by the progressive movement to bring about the "social justice" and "redistributive change" that they so desire for the 'little people'. Of course i see no hypocrisy in Al Gores glutinous consumption of fossil fuels, or the jet setting excursions at tax payer expense of this "still campaigning" president.
This working woman and mother is trying to earn an income and provide for her family. She, like many, many TAX PAYING citizens will be crushed under the cap and trade legislation. I contend she has valid concerns that are reflected in many COMMON SENSE thinking americans.
Obama has already said that under his system, 'energy prices would necessarily sky-rocket', his energy czar john holdren has also reflected that line of thinking when talking to the global community. He believes we need to 'sacrifice' our energy needs so that it could be 'redistributed' to those in the 3rd world countries.
Instead of name calling-which notice i have done none of-why dont you try to be a civil american and debate the facts and ideas, and not slander and demean the person.
I am dismayed at such a vulgar display of hypocrisy. Its quite ironic that the 60% of americans that are conservative-right, are finally waking up and voicing their own opinions-and yet, THEY are demeaned, called names and labeled.
Your comments above are SHAMEFUL. Did your mother never teach you that if you have nothing nice to say-say nothing at all?
Civility has all but disappeared on the far left.
We will debate you, but on the field of ideas, not emotions or vulgarity. "
Since when in America is only one side allowed to present their point of view?
There are MANY scientists that dispute the validity of MAN MADE global warming, and there is evidence that the research is flawed. A true and ethical scientist would never have the audacity to stifle debate and concepts that are contrary to their own point of view.
But, as the previous comments reveal-global (now called climate change because there is no proof of warming) warming is no science whatsoever;
It has become a religious substitute for many that need to fill a void.
It is a tool of the elitists to gain control over the masses, control their thinking and behavior.
It is a tactic by the progressive movement to bring about the "social justice" and "redistributive change" that they so desire for the 'little people'. Of course i see no hypocrisy in Al Gores glutinous consumption of fossil fuels, or the jet setting excursions at tax payer expense of this "still campaigning" president.
This working woman and mother is trying to earn an income and provide for her family. She, like many, many TAX PAYING citizens will be crushed under the cap and trade legislation. I contend she has valid concerns that are reflected in many COMMON SENSE thinking americans.
Obama has already said that under his system, 'energy prices would necessarily sky-rocket', his energy czar john holdren has also reflected that line of thinking when talking to the global community. He believes we need to 'sacrifice' our energy needs so that it could be 'redistributed' to those in the 3rd world countries.
Instead of name calling-which notice i have done none of-why dont you try to be a civil american and debate the facts and ideas, and not slander and demean the person.
I am dismayed at such a vulgar display of hypocrisy. Its quite ironic that the 60% of americans that are conservative-right, are finally waking up and voicing their own opinions-and yet, THEY are demeaned, called names and labeled.
Your comments above are SHAMEFUL. Did your mother never teach you that if you have nothing nice to say-say nothing at all?
Civility has all but disappeared on the far left.
We will debate you, but on the field of ideas, not emotions or vulgarity. "
Friend of the Right wrote on Oct 28, 2009 7:13 PM:
" 2cool4mn I agree with your perspective on the negative comments posted prior to you. This article was very well written and the writer deserves respect. I thank her for the energy she invested in researching her topic, taking thoughtful time to write about it and for not being afraid to stand up for what she believes. Lu I would trust you with my business any day. I'm proud to be a friend of the right. "
Bob Spelled Backwards is Bob wrote on Oct 28, 2009 9:35 PM:
" Sorry, Lu Lu, but you need a do-over. Logic, grammar, and common sense are missing from your column. "
chefthatcantcook wrote on Oct 28, 2009 10:23 PM:
" @ "2cool4mn", I question that you even read any of the comments associated with this article! While reading your comment, I wondered where you came up with the following statements: "I am dismayed at such a vulgar display of hypocrisy", "Your comments above are SHAMEFUL", and "We will debate you, but on the field of ideas, not emotions or vulgarity". However, upon further inspection, I found there to be absolutely, positively no such "vulgarity" in which you described. Also, the majority of the comments (if not all of them) promoted specific ideas, with Global Warming being the main debated "idea". I just want to pass on a little bit of advice: please, PLEASE read the content in which you wish to argue BEFORE you form a rebuttal. Thank you! "
thinkin'big wrote on Oct 30, 2009 12:49 AM:
" Chefthatcantcook, 2cool4mn has a valid point. A few of the comments above appear to be attacking Shaughnessy personally and on the manner in which she rights. This essentially accomplishes nothing. To really progress with this issue we must examine the facts as 2cool4mn suggests.
On the contrary, the "facts" that 2cool presents are questionable facts at best. First of all, it is suggested that "many scientist dispute the valitity of man made global warming." In fact, the proper terminology that these scientist use is "skeptical." A simple review of the "scientific method" will reveal that this is common practice. In order to not subside to the pressures of popular passions, many scientist observe issues from a from the skeptic point of view to strengthen their claims. When these scientists say that they are "skeptical" they are simply aquiring more knowledge before declaring their theory. That's how ethical science works. It is then up to the individual scientists to decide when they are confident enought to propose their theory. When you challange that there is no evidence, I must ask why, then, proffesors from schools like Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Columbia, Stanford, MIT, Georgia Tech, Cal Tech, (the list goes on) have expressed their concerns with this warming trend? Are these renowned scientist simply making it up? I think not.
I found it funny that you would describe global warming as a religious substitute. I'm curious to know what you are implying? I'm a religious individual and look at me - I am a young environmental advocate. To me these seems like a smoke screan to mask your lack of evidence. What if I were to describe the antiglobal warming argument as a way for carbon loving individuals to escape the reality of it's consiquences? how would you respond? To me it seems that if any stance is becoming a religion it is THAT stance in which you deny warmings existance due to their lack of substantial evidence. How can we truely deny warming's existence? There are numerous sientific studies that show the earths upward warming trend. In fact, according to NOAA, march 2009 was the hottest on record since 1880. Mind you, we are talking about average GLOBAL tempuratures as opposed to local tempuratures.
To all who commented, I want to remind you that this is an issue of science not politics (or religion). The supporting scientific evidence exists. Politics is simply how we try to solve the problem. And, these politics need not be partisian politics. "
On the contrary, the "facts" that 2cool presents are questionable facts at best. First of all, it is suggested that "many scientist dispute the valitity of man made global warming." In fact, the proper terminology that these scientist use is "skeptical." A simple review of the "scientific method" will reveal that this is common practice. In order to not subside to the pressures of popular passions, many scientist observe issues from a from the skeptic point of view to strengthen their claims. When these scientists say that they are "skeptical" they are simply aquiring more knowledge before declaring their theory. That's how ethical science works. It is then up to the individual scientists to decide when they are confident enought to propose their theory. When you challange that there is no evidence, I must ask why, then, proffesors from schools like Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Columbia, Stanford, MIT, Georgia Tech, Cal Tech, (the list goes on) have expressed their concerns with this warming trend? Are these renowned scientist simply making it up? I think not.
I found it funny that you would describe global warming as a religious substitute. I'm curious to know what you are implying? I'm a religious individual and look at me - I am a young environmental advocate. To me these seems like a smoke screan to mask your lack of evidence. What if I were to describe the antiglobal warming argument as a way for carbon loving individuals to escape the reality of it's consiquences? how would you respond? To me it seems that if any stance is becoming a religion it is THAT stance in which you deny warmings existance due to their lack of substantial evidence. How can we truely deny warming's existence? There are numerous sientific studies that show the earths upward warming trend. In fact, according to NOAA, march 2009 was the hottest on record since 1880. Mind you, we are talking about average GLOBAL tempuratures as opposed to local tempuratures.
To all who commented, I want to remind you that this is an issue of science not politics (or religion). The supporting scientific evidence exists. Politics is simply how we try to solve the problem. And, these politics need not be partisian politics. "
beninmv wrote on Oct 30, 2009 1:42 PM:
" I welcome civility to this conversation, but let's not go down the road of giving each side equal time. The editorial is seriously little more than a bunch of talking points that are incessantly repeated all over the internet and in the newspapers of small media markets. This strategy was cooked up a long time ago by groups whose mission is to create confusion and doubt on this important issue. It was the same approach used by tobacco companies and some of the very same organizations are involved with spreading doubt about global warming. "
You must register with a valid email to post comments. Only your Member ID will be posted with the comments.
Registered users sign in here:
Become a Registered User
- Return to: Columns «
- Home «
- Top of Page ^
