Tom,

You’re completely missing the point of my response. I never once mentioned cap and trade or the Kyoto treaty, nor did I suggest any direct applications of alternative energy sources (i.e. solar or wind power). My response to the article pointed out that a single season of heavy snowfall does not DISPROVE climate change. Nor can you use that flawed argument to advocate keeping the status quo based on the argument that any change would cost too much by way of our “money and freedom.”

I freely concede that there is no *proof* that human activity is responsible for the current warming trend. It’s well documented that Earth’s climate went through numerous periods of warming and cooling long before humans arrived on the scene. I did, however, point out the damage being done to our environment by the application of our current energy policies. Whether or not we find a more efficient source of energy in terms of yield per dollar spent, it can only benefit us to spend the time and money to find cleaner and less destructive sources of energy.

I stand by my use of the phrase “scare tactics of the anti-environmentalists.” Bob basically said that the snow we received this year wipes away all credibility of the scientific and political figureheads looking to change our energy policies. He went on to imply that the same people are only pushing this rhetoric to gain power and raise taxes while taking away our freedom. That sounds like a scare tactic to me.

You can argue anthropomorphic global warming endlessly and you’d probably have an advocate in me depending on how you approach the argument. There is certainly no *proof* that humans are directly responsible for the current warming trend. But you cannot argue that there isn’t a warming trend, the global climate temperature data is solid. And you cannot argue that there isn’t *evidence* the by-products of burning fossil fuels could contribute to climate change. And you cannot argue that our current energy policies do not create pollution and environmental damage.

So before we get wound up in current social politics, let’s get to the heart of the issue. We need to reduce pollution. We need to maximize our energy dollar. We need to change our current energy policies to make both of those things happen. Using false statements to discourage change is not the way to do it.

Ryan

Surely yes we should reduce pollution.  That is not the issue.

As for alternative energy, that’s more complicated.  The question is, what is the best use of our energy dollar?  My research shows that solar and wind are expensive yuppie jokes. 

Nice try on the “scare tactics of the anti-environmentalists,” given what your side has been up to, but the reality is that there is no appreciable anthropomorphic global warming.  More and more scientists are seeing the truth, the the public is catching on.

So reducing pollution?  Yes.  Wise use of our energy dollar?  Absolutely.  But Cap and Trade or Kyoto?  No way!

I’m sorry, that didn’t quite post the way I had intended it to. The first set of Bobs and the last paragraph are duplicated for some reason.

Bob Bob Bob…

Bob, Bob, Bob…

Any study of trends over an extended period of time will show outlier data. A season of heightened precipitation in the form of snow in one small area of the world does not negate a half-century of steadily increasing average global temperatures. The last decade was recently shown to be the warmest in recorded human history. I seem to remember a few big snowfalls in the early 2000s. By your logic, those isolated winter storms mean it wasn’t really any warmer over the full 10 years than any other period.

The uncertainty of whether or not human activity is directly responsible for the current warming trend is no reason to promote political and social irresponsibility. Even if it’s proven some day that greenhouse gasses released into the atmosphere by human industrial and consumer activity isn’t responsible for global warming, the simple accumulation of pollution and damage done to our environment by current energy practices should be enough of a motivator for everyone (including our government and politicians) to spend the money and effort to find alternative and cleaner sources of fuel and resources. Everyone seems to forget that solid waste, de-forestation, strip mining, and water and air quality problems weren’t a widespread issue BEFORE the industrial revolution.

I believe that you have a duty to use the public voice you’ve been given with this forum responsibly. If you had done any research into the actual principals behind the data you’re dismissing, you would see that your argument is unfounded. Aside from theist rejections of science as a whole, the temperature trend data isn’t in question.

Instead of perpetuating the scare tactics of the anti-environmentalists, wouldn’t everyone be better served by pointing out the inefficiencies and blatant politicking going on within the groups of people responsible for spending this money in the first place? The legislative branch of our government has been brought to a standstill by bi-partisanship and buzzword scare tactics demonstrated in this article. Instead of complaining about spending more money, perhaps we could find a way to put aside the unsupported arguments for and against change and find more cost-effective ways to solve the issue with the money already allotted.

PS… The heightened moisture in the atmosphere of the mid-Atlantic region of North America this winter is attributable to warmer surface temperatures in the Pacific due to the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO). ENSO is not a product of global warming, it’s a cyclical weather pattern that has been documented and modeled extensively and is pretty well understood. The effects have been rather blatant this year. Peru, Mexico and California had record rainfalls early this winter while Australia, India and southern Africa have had drought. The east coast of North America has had record precipitation. Since ENSO is a winter pattern in the northern hemisphere, that precipitation on the east coast took the form of snow. 

The uncertainty of whether or not human activity is directly responsible for the current warming trend is no reason to promote political and social irresponsibility. Even IF it’s proven some day that greenhouse gasses released into the atmosphere by human industrial and consumer activity isn’t responsible for global warming, the simple accumulation of pollution and damage done to our environment by current energy practices should be enough of a motivator for everyone (including our government and politicians) to spend the money and time to find alternative sources of fuel and resources. Everyone seems to forget that solid waste, deforestation, strip-mining, water and air quality issues weren’t a wide-spread issue BEFORE the industrial revolution.