Wednesday, April 23, 2014

The balancing act: The onslaught continues

From page A6 | July 26, 2013 | 17 Comments

Although there has been no warming for the last 15 years and global temperatures are flat or slightly declining, the drivel continues in the major media that unless we don’t take immediate and drastic action (read: pay more taxes), we (the entire human population of the earth) are all going to “burn in hell.”

Is there any data to support the theory of human-induced global warming? Not unless you cherry pick data. There is no question that the CO2 level in the atmosphere is rising at a rate of about 1.5 parts per million annually, hitting 400 parts per million recently, but so what?  Temperatures are not climbing. If anything global temperatures are slightly declining.

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, the Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT recently said, “The influence of mankind on climate is trivially true and numerically insignificant.” And that statement is important in relation to a recent study now touting a 97 percent consensus of scientists who say mankind is causing global warming. Of course no one in the media checks on the study’s methodology. By how the study was done, even Lindzen would be included in that 97 percent. But Lindzen, who is perhaps the most renowned climate scientist in the world, says the issue of human-induced global warming is insignificant, a non-problem. But even more important to this 97 percent statement (if it were true) is that science is not done by consensus.

But the truth does not stop the mainstream media from continuing the lie. Al Gore tried to stop the truth by saying in 2005, “The debate (over global warming) is over.” Interestingly, science is all about debate, questioning and data. The alleged idol or guru of global warming is the U.N.’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) which says that global warming is the largest problem facing mankind. How does the IPCC come to that conclusion? By the process of eliminating any data or science that disagrees with “their science.” All their predictions are based on models, none of which have even come close to recreating past weather and climate. So why should we trust future model predictions?

Recently in the Sacramento Bee(lony) was an opinion piece entitled “Climate debate is settled; carbon tax is vital.” And there you have in the simplest, cleanest, clearest terms: Global warming is about more taxes on the public, more government, more regulation, less freedom and with more regulation will come a second tax hike in higher prices for goods and services with less choice for both. It couldn’t be plainer.

Interestingly, in this very piece the writers said that CO2 now exceeds 400 ppm. And then they said the last time CO2 exceeded 400 ppm, some 3 million years ago, sea levels were 50 feet higher and humans did not exist. While trying to scare us, the writers defeated their own argument. CO2 does not have a significant effect on sea levels and there is no correlation between CO2 and sea levels, as sea levels currently are not rising significantly and are 50 feet lower even with the same level of CO2 at 400 ppm as 3 million years ago.

A couple of weeks later the Bee(lony) went at it again. In an opinion piece written by a sci-fi writer, he lamented the atmospheric CO2 concentration past 400 ppm, but it’s not too late to do “something” and we should totally change our way of life and infrastructure. Can you say more taxes and regulation and a lot less freedom and less money in your pocket?

As the “science” and data continue to show that CO2 is not a problem, the alarmist voices continue to shout the sky is falling. One of the latest is none other than climate expert and preserver of the Sacramento Kings, Mayor Kevin Johnson, with a column he published in none other than the Sacramento Bee(lony) entitled “Sacramento can lead the way in response to climate change.”

Johnson repeated the usual diatribe such as extreme weather in the form of storms, heat waves, droughts or floods are on the rise and to stop it we need to spend money to lessen the impact like clean energy programs. While he may have been brilliant in retaining the Kings, Johnson shows his ignorance of weather, climate, science and history. Doesn’t Mayor Johnson remember the Dust Bowl? Maybe he didn’t read Steinbeck’s “Grapes of Wrath.” Or perhaps he forgot about the Long Island Express hurricane that ravaged New England in 1938. Has he read Scotti’s “Sudden Storm?”  Extreme weather is not on the rise, it is a constant throughout history. Does Johnson not remember the valley floods of 1955? Johnson should stick to basketball.

Finally, last but certainly not least, our president gave his long-awaited speech on his climate plan. Yes, he has a plan to have perfect weather for everyone, just ask him. By the way, what is the perfect temperature and weather? In his plan he is giving the EPA sweeping new powers where bureaucrats get to dictate regulations, which means less freedom for Americans (our president must have forgotten that part of the Constitution that gives law making and other legislative powers to Congress; maybe Congress should defund the EPA). His first attack will be on power plants, eliminating our cheapest form of power, coal. Who will pay? Everyone who uses electricity. Thank goodness for natural gas, it will lessen the impact, but we will still pay big time.

Even though the evidence shows CO2 is having little, if any impact on climate but a huge beneficial impact on agriculture, we live in an upside down world where black is white and up is down. The Goebbelization of society continues.

Larry Weitzman is a resident of Rescue.

Larry Weitzman


Discussion | 17 comments

  • cookie65July 26, 2013 - 5:53 am

    Global warming is what happens between Ice Ages.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • kggJuly 26, 2013 - 8:28 am

    speaking of cherry picking: dr. richard lindzen is part of the 3% of climate change scientists who believe that concern over climate change is foolish. dr. lindzen has also testified for cigarette corporations that smoking does no damage and that cfc's have no effect on the ozone layer. dr. lindzen has received money from fossil fuel interests to help fund his research.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • TerryJuly 26, 2013 - 12:11 pm

    So fossil fuel company supported research is bogus but government funded research (raise my taxes) is not?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • kggJuly 26, 2013 - 3:05 pm

    terry wrote: "So fossil fuel company supported research is bogus but government funded research (raise my taxes) is not?" kgg wrote: fossil fuel companies have an obvious bias. dr. linkzen has also used tax money to support his theory.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • TerryJuly 26, 2013 - 8:33 pm

    So we can separate Dr. Linkzen's theories into biased and unbiased depending on the source of the money? Are you aware that CO2 output in this country has receded to mid 90s levels due to the recession (which is becoming permanent) and cheap natural gas? Yet global CO2 continues to rise. Seems we are not the primary source.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65July 27, 2013 - 7:01 am

    Goebbels proved that if you repeat something enough times people will believe it.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • rodJuly 28, 2013 - 10:08 am

    Great letter Mr. Weitzman. Mark Twain once said, “Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it!” Obviously a joke, but for some reason our EPA decided that CO2 production in the United States would make a gigantic taxable revenue stream if they could just link it to some tangible environmental problem, enter ‘global warming’. Now called ‘climate change’ because actual (not predicted but measured) temperatures are not as high as computer models predicted years ago by the EPA, alarmists and the IPCC (United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change created through the Kyoto accords). In other words, Real scientific research has cast doubt on an atmospheric warming scenario. But the parody is no joke. To think that the EPA can control or influence worldwide climate change by taxing production of CO2 is perhaps a noble cause, a worthy economic sacrifice. But nothing could be farther from the truth, for the following reasons. 1) The world ocean carbon equilibrium has well managed peaks and valleys of CO2 since time began. Our atmosphere has had much higher carbon loading in the past (by a factor of at least ten). 2) CO2 is only about 5% of the total greenhouse gasses (GHG) in our atmosphere, which may contribute to enigmatic warming, or it may not. The jury is still out as to the significance. But water vapor is a much larger factor. 3) There is NO substantiated scientific proof that an increase in atmospheric CO2, caused by man, is adversely affecting our weather. There are too many unknowns in natural emission and dissipation of CO2 by plant metabolism and recombinant molecular activity. 4) Taxing our CO2 production, a by-product of our economic way of life, will have no positive impact when considering all other developing nations can not, and will not restrict their economies. We cannot afford to willingly become less competitive for Pollyannaish purposes. 5) Ocean temperatures have risen a little in the last 80 years. Warmer oceans do impact weather intensity, but this warming is predominantly a function of glacial melting, a result of earth axis tilt, (not CO2). (excerpt from book. "Enviroligion" soon to be published

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Dink LaneJuly 28, 2013 - 11:17 am

    I always find these arguments interesting. Yes, according to Dr. Lindzen the CO2 level has RISEN 30%...... SO it's OK to dump MORE in our air.... Why is it OK to keep throwing dirt in the air? Why do we want MORE dirt in the air?..... Hey, Larry, if it's OK why don't you live in Rodeo or Richmond?.... They have beautiful homes in tight gated-communities..... Is it because you don't like the polluted air for your family and you? ..... When do we act responsibly and stop saying "Well the other guy is doing it." so I don't have to stop being a pig in our backyard?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynJuly 28, 2013 - 3:56 pm

    How has it come to pass that CO2 -- ESSENTIAL to life -- now can be thought of as "throwing dirt in the air"? Carbon dioxide is NOT pollution. (I would say what I think should happen to Al Gore, but mortal fear of the word police prevents such capricious behavior!!!)

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynJuly 28, 2013 - 4:05 pm

    "Study Finds Plant Growth Surges as CO2 Levels Rise" - HERE

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynJuly 28, 2013 - 4:07 pm

    "Plants Need CO2 - Carbon Dioxide is GREEN" - HERE

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65July 28, 2013 - 8:12 pm

    Evelyn, throwing dirt in the air is equivalent to the best straw man argument the global warming zealots have going now. Since everything they have been predicting doom over has made them look silly. The other argument they make is "what if it is true and we wait to long to stop it?" All of the carbon that we could possibly release is trapped in the ground because it was absorbed from the atmosphere many times before. There is no evidence that the earth has ever been too warm for life to flourish but countless times it has been too cool for life to flourish. At this point they are grasping at straws and they just look silly.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynJuly 28, 2013 - 8:35 pm

    cookie: Is elementary biology still taught in school? One of my VERY early memories is learning about the Oxygen/Carbon Dioxide cycle. To label CO2 a pollutant is total nonsense.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • kggJuly 29, 2013 - 7:24 am

    evelyn wrote: "To label CO2 a pollutant is total nonsense." kgg wrote: have you ever heard - too much of anything is not a good thing? in the 21st century, more carbon is in the air from hydrocarbons - coal, natural gas, propane, gasoline, etc. than at any other time in earth's history. this puts more carbon dioxide into our atmosphere. this carbon dioxide keeps heat on the Earth instead of releasing it into space. this makes the earth warmer, dangerously so.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • DB SmithJuly 29, 2013 - 7:47 am

    kgg wrote: "this makes the earth warmer, dangerously so." DB Smith wrote: Hogwash!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • kggJuly 29, 2013 - 8:07 am

    db wrote: "Hogwash!" kgg wrote: from the study you cited: "Results suggest that notwithstanding climate change, through much of the remainder of this century, human well-being is likely to be highest in the richest-but-warmest (A1F1) world and lower in poorer-but-cooler worlds." of course, this doesn't take into account, the negative effects of climate change on wildlife and crops.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynAugust 12, 2013 - 3:20 pm

    " The volcanic eruption in Iceland , … Since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet – all of you. Of course, you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress – it’s that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans and all animal life. . . . And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time – EVERY DAY." - HERE

    Reply | Report abusive comment


Herard over the back fence: Try fishing at Wakamatsu

By Bob Billingsley | From Page: B1

Downtown group coordinates painting, awnings

By Wendy Schultz | From Page: A1

More mountain lion sightings reported

By Dawn Hodson | From Page: A1, 8 Comments

Supervisor Nutting trial begins

By Cole Mayer | From Page: A1, 73 Comments | Gallery

Sanford murder case to jury

By Cole Mayer | From Page: A1 | Gallery

Gearing tax questions to correct office saves time

By Treasurer-Tax Collector | From Page: A3



Building restored

By Mountain Democrat | From Page: A4

Outstanding dog

By Mountain Democrat | From Page: A4

My turn: More than a buzzword

By Special to the Democrat | From Page: A4, 23 Comments




By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5, 9 Comments

Altshuler framing

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5, 9 Comments

National Day of Prayer

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5, 2 Comments

‘Parents, be afraid’ letter

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5, 20 Comments

Ukranian situation

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5, 4 Comments



Outside with Charlie: Transitioning

By Charlie Ferris | From Page: A6

Pitching the ‘Root’ cause of Trojans’ victory

By Mike Bush | From Page: A6 | Gallery

Pedal power at the forefront next month

By Jerry Heinzer | From Page: A6 | Gallery

Sports Scene: April 22, 2014

By Democrat Staff | From Page: A7

Roundup: April 22, 2014

By Democrat Staff | From Page: A7



4-H’ers star at showcase

By Dawn Hodson | From Page: B1 | Gallery

Authors to share their stories

By Pat Lakey | From Page: B2, 2 Comments

At a glance: Look for fireballs

By Mimi Escabar | From Page: B2, 1 Comment

Church to host human trafficking conference

By Pollock Pines | From Page: B3

Grow For It! Flower of Easter

By Barbara Schuchart | From Page: B5



Weather stats 4-22-14

By Michael Raffety | From Page: A2

Building permits 4/7-11/2014

By Michael Raffety | From Page: A2

Crime Log: April 1-3

By Cole Mayer | From Page: A2



Bobby Lloyd Bridges

By Contributor | From Page: A2

Harry Frank Harper

By Contributor | From Page: A2, 6 Comments

Marion “Wayne” Griswold

By Contributor | From Page: A2


Real Estate



Working It Out

By Contributor | From Page: A8

TV Listings

By Contributor | From Page: A8


By Contributor | From Page: A8


By Contributor | From Page: A8


By Contributor | From Page: A8

New York Times Crossword

By Contributor | From Page: A8

Flying McCoys

By Contributor | From Page: A8

Speed Bump

By Contributor | From Page: A8


By Contributor | From Page: A8

Horoscope, Thursday, April 24, 2014

By Contributor | From Page: A8

Horoscope, Wednesday, April 23, 2014

By Contributor | From Page: A8