Coeur d'Alene Press Newspaper | CDAPress.com

Local and National News - Kootenai County, Idaho

Weather Gems

Posted: Monday, Sep 17, 2007 - 05:00:37 pm PDT
Email this story Printer friendly version
 
Cliff Harris

As I’ve claimed for more than a decade now, the current global warming is a natural cycle that has occurred literally hundreds of times in the past. Mankind is merely adding fuel to the fires started by Ma Nature from climatological kindling.

Climate will continue to change as it always has. Warming and cooling are more closely related to solar cycles than human activities, in the opinion of this climatologist. The sun is the great weather-maker. It’s our primary energy source, vital for life.

I’m not saying that we don’t have problems with our horribly polluted environment. But, these problems are more political than climatic. What I see coming from inept governmental leadership is very likely to result in severely-damaged national economies, undoubtedly on a global scale. I’m afraid that this situation is more, thanks to Mr. Gore and others, than a mere environmental fad like the Alar apple scare or the Ice Age fears of the 1970s when we were in a pronounced cycle of global cooling.

I agree with Dr. S. Fred Singer and others that there are many benefits to global warming.

Recent economic studies have demonstrated that a modestly warmer climate and higher carbon dioxide levels actually tend to increase GNP stats and raise the standards of living around the world by improving agriculture and forestry. It’s a well-known fact that carbon dioxide is plant food that’s essential to the growth of crops and trees, and ultimately to the very well-being of both humans and animals in most cases except, perhaps, for cold-loving polar bears, seals and penguins.

As Dr. Singer points out in his Hillsdale College monthly newsletter;

“Northern homes save on heating costs during these warmer periods. Forests expand northward. Farmers in Canada and northern Europe, Russia and Asia enjoy longer growing seasons between killer freezes,” he added. “Climate has been changing cyclically for at least a million years and has shown huge variations over the geological time frame. Human beings have adapted well, and will continue to do so.”

Amen, bother, Amen.

Special note: I wish to thank Tom Connor of Coeur d’Alene for sending me Dr. Singer’s newsletter.

North Idaho 90-day

weather outlook:

Yes, folks, Sunday, Sept. 9 did see some rare early frosts in many areas where chilly air pooled at the base of mountain slopes in Dalton Gardens, Hayden, Athol, Garwood and Twin Lakes, just to mention a few of the more frigid communities. Stan Opp of Dalton Gardens, for example, reported that his “tomatoes were nipped, but not seriously damaged,” by the unusually cold temperatures.

We may have to cover our sensitive garden plants again later this week, as some cooler air aloft will follow on the heels of a few scattered showers from the North Pacific regions. Widespread hard freezes, however, are not likely, even in the colder areas, until October.

I’m going to have my heat turned back on at the very end of this month just ahead of some expected (by me) cooler and wetter weather that should move in from the Gulf of Alaska.

I told Suzy at Coeur d’Alene Sheet Metal and Heating that, if my wife Sharon freezes, I’m also “frozen out,” if you get my drift. Better safe than sorry. A cold spouse makes for an even more frigid house. (Say, I just composed a poem!)

What we really need in this arid part of the country are some significant amounts of moisture. The first half of September was bone-dry and only scattered light showers will be possible at times in the next ten days or so to just past the Autumnal Equinox, the first day of fall on Sept. 23.

As I mentioned last week, much of Idaho continues to suffer from the dusty effects of extreme drought conditions, approximately a one-in-20 year event. That’s why we’re still experiencing critical fire danger levels across the Inland Empire into western Montana.

More than a dozen wildfires this blisteringly hot summer of 2007 have burned nearly a million acres of brushland and timber in Idaho alone, and that doesn’t count the three million acres consumed in the surrounding states of Washington, Oregon and Montana where blazes continue to burn in pristine Glacier National Park.

Longer term, however, I have some ‘good news’ hopefully when it comes to increased precipitation developing across the Inland Northwest, including tinder-dry North Idaho.

It appears that our rather long-lived cool and moist La Nina in the Pacific Ocean regions is actually strengthening (see chart). This should mean at least 20 to 40 percent more moisture than normal for the 90-day October through December time frame.

Since most of this added precipitation will be coming at us from the chilly Gulf of Alaska, there’s a good chance that the nearby ski resorts may be able to open by Thanksgiving or early December at the latest. I’ll have more details concerning this snowy outlook in next week’s Weather Gems.


Email this story Printer friendly version
POST YOUR OPINION
 View all of the latest commented stories!
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
*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login?
(requires cookies)
 

Do not use usernames or passwords from your financial accounts!

Note: Fields marked with an asterisk (*) are required!

*Create a Member ID:
*Choose a password:
*Re-enter password:
*E-mail Address:
*Year of Birth:
 

(children under 13 cannot register)

 

"A good community newspaper is a community in conversation with itself." - Walter Lippmann

The Press invites you to contribute your online comments, with positive statements whenever possible and, when necessary, your constructive, negative thoughts.

Commenting Rules
NEW- You must REGISTER in order to post on this forum. None of the information you provide will be used for anything that could be considered commercial in nature. The Press simply uses this information as a means to identify the poster.
- Do not use the comments area to promote commercial ventures.
- No libel (that means no NAME CALLING, OR USING PRIVATE CITIZEN'S NAMES)
- Use good taste
- Be positive whenever possible
- Do not Spam - post an advertisement or flood forum with the same message.
- Do not type entire post in CAPITALS - it means you are screaming. 
- THINK BEFORE YOUPOST and ask yourself these questions;
Is it a positive remark?
Will I be hurting anyone?
Children can come to this site, is it appropriate for their eyes?
Most importantly, would I want my name on this forum?

to Reality wrote on Sep 30, 2007 3:53 PM:

" Nice try, but I've been out of college 27 years now, and have a pretty good idea of how the world works, so your pesky little lies aren't really all that effective against me - I'm not a ditto-head, blinding following what Rush tells me, after all. As for control, read what YOUR president did when he pushed for the Patriot Act and all the surveillance implicit in it. Your own president sold our freedom so that he could make a few bucks. Despicable. "

Oh them golden slippers wrote on Sep 30, 2007 10:36 AM:

" Hello Golden Mean. Where's your column? You could give Marty a run for his money! "

Reality wrote on Sep 30, 2007 8:15 AM:

" Being a Liberal is the ulitimate case of "blindly following". Conservatives aren't against being a good steward of the planet, they also disagree with much of what Liberals come up with as diagnosis FOR the planet. Want some examples? Exxon Valdez- Liberals said that the oilspill would take hundreds of years to clean itself up. National Geographic did a story on it years ago showing that there is very little evidence left of the spill. The oilfield fires of Kuwait- Liberals said that the smoke would enshroud the planet for 100 years, minumum, and that the fires would take at least 5 years to put out. The fires were out in 5 MONTHS, and there was no evidence of the smoke in another five months. The problem with "libruls" is that they want to CONTROL what everyone else does in the name of SOCIALISM. It's all about what is best for us all COLLECTIVELY. But have no fear young "student", your side is winning. You are slowly taking away our rights as individuals in this country, and in the end all of you will reap the rewards of your own efforts. You will completely strangle our economy with your mileage standards & emission standards. Eventually, when you get out of college, you won't be able to find a job because you have saved the air. Here's what is REALLY easier for a liberal to do than think: Just have anybody say ANYTHING that is anti-human & pro-animal or planet, and you'll get agreement from a liberal. That is, right up until the liberal needs to use that wood for fuel, or until he needs to eat that animal for nourishment, or until he needs to drive that SUV for his family. Control, that what Libs are ALL about. "

Reality wrote on Sep 30, 2007 8:13 AM:

" Being a Liberal is the ulitimate case of "blindly following". Conservatioves aren't against being a good steard of the planet, they also disagree with much of what Liberals come up with as diagnosis FOR the planet. Want some examples? Exxon Valdez- Liberals said that the oilspill would take hundreds of years to clen itself up. National Geographic did a story on it years ago showing that there is very little evidence left of the spill. The oilfield fires of Kuwait- Liberals said that the smoke would enshroud the planet for 100 years, minumum, and that the fires would take at leats 5 years to put out. The fires were out in 5 MONTHS, and there was no evidence of the smoke in another five months. The problem with "libruls" is that they want to CONTROL what everyone else does in the name of SOCIALISM. It's all about what is best for us all COLLECTIVELY. But have no fear young "student", your side is winning. You are slowly taking away our rights as individuals in this country, and in the end all of you will reap the rewards of your own efforts. You will completely strangle our economy with your mileage standards & emission standards. Eventually, when you get out of college, you won't be able to find a job because you have saves the air. Here's what is REALLY easier for a liberal to do than think: Just have anybody say ANYTHING that is anti-human & pro-animal or planet, and you'll get agreement from a liberal. That is, right up until the liberal needs to use that wood for fuel, or until he needs to eat that animal for nourishment, or until he needs to drive that SUV for his family. Control, that what Libs are ALL about. "

to student wrote on Sep 30, 2007 2:44 AM:

" There's absolutely nothing wrong with being a good steward of the planet, unless you're a conservative. If you are, you MUST fight each and every thing them "durn libruls" are for, blindly and without thinking about the actual issue. Why? 'Cause Rush told you to, that's why. They find easier than actually thinking. "

Golden Mean wrote on Sep 29, 2007 10:28 PM:

" You say Stewart, I say Steward. Stewart, Steward, let's call the whole thing off. "

Student wrote on Sep 29, 2007 5:48 PM:

" Sorry, I meant to say steward - not stewart. "

Student wrote on Sep 29, 2007 5:47 PM:

" Whether you think that this issue is made up or is real, why is it so hard to come to a consensus that people in general should take care of the planet we live on? What is wrong being a good stewart of the planet? "

C Little wrote on Sep 29, 2007 1:50 PM:

" The sky is falling, the sky is falling! "

ChrisW wrote on Sep 28, 2007 9:40 PM:

" NASA produced information recently that shows conclusively that the temperatures on all of the other planets in our solar system have temperatures that are rising. I wonder if our SUV's are causing that? I bet a Liberal can show me how it's done-you just need a conservative in an SUV who voted for Bush.....then it all starts falling together. Just a big solar system warming conspiracy by the rich....to make more money, of course. "

I disagree wrote on Sep 27, 2007 3:33 PM:

" Joe, if this were a chat room I would make up a monkier and we could have some fun. As a blog however it is simply a place to post an opinion and get on with your life. We could argue the scientific aspects of CO2 emissions forever and probably not come to conclusion. This is especially true since it is mostly a "chicken and egg" issue. Warming is causing a melting of the Siberian tundra releasing billions of cubic feet of heretofore suspended methane and CO2. So, is this cyclic or man caused? And is CO2 from fossil fuel burning the only source from man's actions? The jury is still out. But, I think everyone can agree that nature depends on a certain balance. If ten thousand pounds on one end of the scale is balanced by ten on the other end, well, 3.4 lbs will tip it. If you fall off the cliff (no pun intended) and miss the branch by 3.4 ins or ten feet you still fall off the cliff. I have learned to live with the fact that the Earth is going to spin into the sun in a billion or so years. What concerns me is that it is going to be a radically different planet for my grand children and I do not believe any other generation can ever say that. If I can be a better citizen of the Earth and use less and make things better for the future I have a responsibility to do so. Saying otherwise in a public forum, in my opinion, is irresponsible. "

Joe Idaho wrote on Sep 27, 2007 1:31 PM:

" Here ya go: According to the National Hurricane Center: • The increasing number of Atlantic hurricanes during the last decade, including 2004's and 2005's above-average seasons, are part of a multi-decadal cycle scientists have monitored for nearly 150 years. • From the 1960s through the 1990s there was a relative lull in hurricane activity affecting the United States, with an average of fewer than 14 hurricanes per decade — five of which, per decade, were classified as Category Three or above (with wind speeds of 111 miles per hour or more and ocean storm surges at least nine feet above normal). [See the figure.] • Around 1995, the lull gave way to a more active phase of the cycle, similar to the period from about 1930 through 1950. Indeed, in the 1940s, 24 hurricanes — 10 of them Category Three or higher — hit the U.S. mainland. This current increased hurricane activity is likely to last 10 to 20 more years. Hurricane Research . In a paper recently published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society titled "Hurricanes and Global Warming," six noted tropical cyclone experts made three main points: • The level of greenhouse gas emissions has not been linked to the observed behavior of hurricanes. • There is a scientific consensus that any future changes in hurricane intensity will likely be small compared to observed natural variability. • Attempts to link future hurricanes to global warming for political reasons threaten to undermine support for legitimate climate research and will lead to the implementation of ineffective policies to reduce the impact of hurricanes. Statewide Precipitation Ranks for Montana , 2006-2007 Period Rank Aug 25th driest Jul-Aug 10th driest Jun-Aug 6th driest May-Aug 41st driest Apr-Aug 48th driest Mar-Aug 48th driest Feb-Aug 52nd driest Jan-Aug 44th driest Dec-Aug 41st driest Nov-Aug 44th driest Oct-Aug 56th wettest ( 57th driest) Sep-Aug 46th wettest ( 67th driest Dry maybe but not unusual. There is plenty of evidence that poor forrest management practice has led to more acreage burnning with the normal number of fires. "

to Joe wrote on Sep 27, 2007 11:36 AM:

" Why didn't you answer the insurance company claims? Oh, yeah, that's right. It's because they disagree with you and we all know that conservatives cannot handle people disagreeing with them. "

Joe Idaho wrote on Sep 27, 2007 10:44 AM:

" To Hey Joe and To Wrote, you disappoint me. You skipped the false choice argument and went straight for name calling. Is this an indication of the weakness of your argument or your intellect? Please present your false choice before proceeding to the shout down. Here are some questions for you “I disagree” (why don’t you make up a name and use it?) If humans are responsible for 3.4% of the annual CO2 emissions and the ocean absorbs 50% (some estimates are closer to 25%) and the ocean has a mechanism, however slow, for equalizing it, wouldn’t that mechanism and the increase in plant growth brought on by higher atmospheric CO2 levels over time make this a non problem? What makes human caused CO2 different from other CO2? If there have been times in the past when the CO2 levels were much higher than they are now why should we be concerned? "

well wrote on Sep 27, 2007 8:29 AM:

" Those wild and crazy insurance guys are going out on a limb and adjusting their stuff for global warming - how do you suppose they all got fooled by those crazy commies? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092602070.html?hpid=opinionsbox1 "

to wrote on Sep 27, 2007 7:42 AM:

" So, what you're saying is that you're willing to be your kids and their kids lives based on the fact that you hate them "durned libruls" - gad, no wonder conservatives are dying faster than the dinosaurs. As Dean Wormer once said "Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son." "

I agree with Cliff wrote on Sep 27, 2007 6:20 AM:

" So, let's see. We have a group of people that blame humans for almost everything they can and another group that thinks the planet is bigger & more powerful than they are. This is really what it boils down to. The group that blames humans ALSO is the same group that wants to legislate EVERYTHING that humans do, from the food they eat to the car they drive to FORCING their (lack of) educational standards down everyone else's throats. The same group that wants to have "Carbon Credits" is the same group that wants to take your guns and curtail your speech. And they want to think that the global warming myth is NOT a conspiracy of left wing liberals designed to control people? Please. Nothing could make left wing "people" more happy than making us all drive little cars with little protection for our families WHEN someone hits them at an intersection. The reason that it's SO important to them? CONTROL. I'm not giving in to you folks about this. The planet is a lot bigger than any of you realize, and regardless of any evidence to the contrary, you all lock step in line with your leaders all the way to our economic disaster in the name of doing good "for the people". There's a serious amount of analogy to communism here, and socialism, and the closer you get to a liberal the more you see it. One more thing- A liberal is ALWAYS OK as long as he or she has enough money to remain a liberal. Once they have to actually work in society for a living, their attitudes change. Same thing with hippies from the 60's, everything is SO different for them now, now that they "grew up". Amazing what maturity does to you. "

I disagree Cliff wrote on Sep 26, 2007 5:41 PM:

" The oceans of the world absorb approximately fifty percent of the CO2 we produce. Absorbing CO2 warms the water and increases the acidity of the ocean seriously disrupting the ocean's food chain. All experts agree this will lead to the extinction of many species, including pacific salmon, on which major portions of the world's population depend. Studies clearly show that the planet's CO2 levels have been steadilly increasing since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Regardless of your feeling about "global warming". regardless if you believe cilmate change is a natural phenomenon or man made, it is just common sense that we reduce the amount of CO2 being produced and slow the acidification of the oceans. Sitting back and saying that CO2 production is good for the planet and we should ignore the warnings is irresponsible. "

Hey Joe wrote on Sep 26, 2007 4:21 PM:

" Well, then, you're just a wealth of ignorance aren't you? Do you know who I could talk to that might be bright enough to answer my questions? "

Joe Idaho wrote on Sep 26, 2007 2:58 PM:

" To Hey Joe, I don’t know the answer to your question but since this is supposed to be about the article that Cliff Harris wrote regarding the weather why don’t we stick to that topic? I understand that when a liberals’ world view is challenge he gets angry and often resorts to attacking the messenger but if you try, you can resist this impulse by taking a deep breath and focusing. "

Hey Joe wrote on Sep 26, 2007 1:12 PM:

" Out of curiosity, was Williams filling in for Rush when Rush was in rehab for an illegal drug addiction, or for when he was out trying to find something to do with his smuggled Viagra? "

Joe Idaho wrote on Sep 26, 2007 11:56 AM:

" to yeah. Ca'mon, what's that got to do with it! Look at and then refute the information from ncpa.org. Defend your view without attacking. You can do it. Take a deep breath, focus, concentrate and articulate. Stay on topic. "

yeah wrote on Sep 26, 2007 10:55 AM:

" Ol' Williams sure is objective. Two sitations: 1) He is an occasional guest host of Rush Limbaugh's radio program 2) He also believes in the right of U.S. states to secede from the union as several states attempted to do during the Civil War.[2] Williams has supported or been sympathetic toward various secessionist ideas in his writings. **** Yeah, that's the guy I want representing me... "

Joe Idaho wrote on Sep 26, 2007 10:19 AM:

" First of all, I’m not using townhall.com as a source. I’m using Walter E. Williams. Dr. Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics. Dr. Williams is using the National Center for Policy Analysis (ncpa.org). What this has to do with evolution is not clear. It appears that the fact that the polar bear population is not decreasing do to global warming is something we both agree on. Now go ahead and start the name calling. By all means resist the temptation to check out the good professor’s source. "

to Poor Ol' Joe wrote on Sep 26, 2007 9:52 AM:

" you're using townhall.com as a source and then have the gall to whine about manipulation...geez..."ring, ring...hi pot, it's kettle - you're black!" Besides, according to you people dinosaurs didn't roam on the earth, because evolution never happened. As for the polar bears, don't be blindly stupid, the Oslo accord of 1973 greatly eliminated the sport hunting of polar bears, thus causing the increase of population you mentioned. "

Joe Idaho wrote on Sep 26, 2007 9:34 AM:

" And theres this from Walter Williams off of townhall.com: There's an excellent booklet available from the National Center for Policy Analysis (ncpa.org) titled "A Global Warming Primer." Some of its highlights are: "Over long periods of time, there is no close relationship between CO2 levels and temperature." "Humans contribute approximately 3.4 percent of annual CO2 levels" compared to 96.6 percent by nature. "There was an explosion of life forms 550 million years ago (Cambrian Period) when CO2 levels were 18 times higher than today. During the Jurassic Period, when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, CO2 levels were as much as nine times higher than today." What about public school teachers frightening little children with tales of cute polar bears dying because of global warming? The primer says, "Polar bear numbers increased dramatically from around 5,000 in 1950 to as many as 25,000 today, higher than any time in the 20th century." The primer gives detailed sources for all of its findings, and it supplies us with information we can use to stop politicians and their environmental extremists from doing a rope-a-dope on us. "

Joe Idaho wrote on Sep 26, 2007 8:53 AM:

" By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, September 24, 2007 4:20 PM PT How many people, for instance, know that James Hansen, a man billed as a lonely "NASA whistleblower" standing up to the mighty U.S. government, was really funded by Soros' Open Society Institute , which gave him "legal and media advice"? That's right, Hansen was packaged for the media by Soros' flagship "philanthropy," by as much as $720,000, most likely under the OSI's "politicization of science" program. That may have meant that Hansen had media flacks help him get on the evening news to push his agenda and lawyers pressuring officials to let him spout his supposedly "censored" spiel for weeks in the name of advancing the global warming agenda. You are being manipulated. Wake up. "

Chris Walsh wrote on Sep 26, 2007 6:19 AM:

" Haha-So it's good to wish bad things on people? (The "rich" people's houses go away first"?) Not to me. I also see a lot of poor people that live very close to the ocean/s. See "New Orleans". And another thing haha, your boy Edward Kennedy will also be losing a lot of oceanfront property too. Hopefully. Attention Goldenmean-Ice ages run on a cyclic schedule, and have for over 9 MILLION years. They come at an interval of every 11,500 years or so. The last one was 11,500 years ago. They are always preceded by global WARMING. If you would like to see proof of this go to the US Geological Survey. Public information even for those that say humans cause everything that is wrong on the planet. "

Golden Mean wrote on Sep 25, 2007 7:56 PM:

" Attention Earth People - The Ice Age is now officially over. Melting is inevitable. I reapeat, melting is inevitable. "

Uh, Joe wrote on Sep 25, 2007 4:24 PM:

" Did you have anything actually useful to say, or were just suffering from foot in mouth disease *again*? "

Joe Idaho wrote on Sep 25, 2007 10:54 AM:

" To the lefties, the only thing that will go away is our freedom. That includes the freedom of the useful idiots as well. "

to Haha wrote on Sep 25, 2007 7:02 AM:

" Yep, and it turns out that the Bush family compound in Kennebunkport, Maine is on the list to go away. How appropriate. "

Haha wrote on Sep 24, 2007 12:34 PM:

" You know what the really funny part about all this is? When the global warming really gets revved up, you who's homes are going to go away first? All the rich suckers beach homes, that's who! Ha ha. "

I hope wrote on Sep 23, 2007 4:01 PM:

" Cliff isn't Catholic, or God's gonna be very mad at him. ********* Pope to make climate action a moral obligation By James Macintyre Published: 22 September 2007 The Pope is expected to use his first address to the United Nations to deliver a powerful warning over climate change in a move to adopt protection of the environment as a "moral" cause for the Catholic Church and its billion-strong following. The New York speech is likely to contain an appeal for sustainable development, and it will follow an unprecedented Encyclical (a message to the wider church) on the subject, senior diplomatic sources have told The Independent. It will act as the centrepiece of a US visit scheduled for next April – the first by Benedict XVI, and the first Papal visit since 1999 – and round off an environmental blitz at the Vatican, in which the Pope has personally led moves to emphasise green issues based on the belief that climate change is affecting the poorest people on the planet, and the principle that believers have a duty to "protect creation". "

Chris Walsh wrote on Sep 23, 2007 4:27 AM:

" Actually, I refuted their opinion with a different hypothesis, from another GROOUP of scientists, plus my own personal experience. So, maybe after you learn to read & comprehend, things will look different to you. But thank you for your strong but weak opinion. This winter, we will see a lot more snow & it will be colder, much like Cliff states. There are good reasons behind this, SCIENTIFIC reasons. I have studied meteorology for some time,(over 20 years) as I am instrument Rated Pilot, and I own a weather reporting station for the National Weather Service. Obviously, my "intellectualism" is stunning. "

wow Chris wrote on Sep 21, 2007 10:15 AM:

" Pretty powerful argument, refuting the majority of the world's scientists with the lyrics from a washed up pop singer. You intellectualism is stunning! "

Chris Walsh wrote on Sep 21, 2007 6:33 AM:

" Cliff, your assessment couldn't be more on. The premise that we are controlling the planet's weather is absurd. The earth is what is changing, and it's not a new phenomenon. I believe, based on many things, not the leats of which is Robert Felix's book "Not By Fore But By Ice" that we are in the beginning stages of the next Ice Age. When I was a child in Michigna in the late 60's through the 70's, we had a cold spell that lasted about 12 years. Overly cold winters, 8+ feet of snow on the ground every year. The alarmists (say "Global Warming Cult" now) were busy telling us all, form their expert point of view, that the next Ice Age was almost upon us. SO, a LOT of people in Northern Michigan sold their homes & land for darn near nothing becuase the experts convinced them that the end was near. It wasn't, not then, not now. Like Billy Joel wrote in his song; "We didn't start the fire, it was always burnin' since the world's been turning". We are an influence that is vastly overrated. Thank you for a great article, Cliff. "

Hey Joe wrote on Sep 21, 2007 12:32 AM:

" Once again, we don't care. "

wow im suprised!!! wrote on Sep 20, 2007 8:08 PM:

" global warming is just bad bad bad!!!! "

Joe Idaho wrote on Sep 20, 2007 4:02 PM:

" Somewhere (Tennessee) there is a fat guy (Algore) sitting in his 20 room mansion (using 20 time the energy of a normal house) laughing his butt off at the thought of people believing that their breath and a buffalo fart ( however similar they may be) is causing global warming. In the mean time he is getting rich selling carbon credits. What a joke. "

to Joe Idaho wrote on Sep 20, 2007 10:41 AM:

" You're right, we don't care. "

Joe Idaho wrote on Sep 19, 2007 10:59 AM:

" I know you don't care about another point of view uut just in case: http://globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com/2007/07/31/the-cult-of-global-warming/ “However, there is no credible evidence that it is due to mankind and carbon dioxide,” Bryson told a reporter for Madison.com (in an interview published on June 18). “We’ve been coming out of a Little Ice Age for 300 years. We have not been making very much carbon dioxide for 300 years. It’s been warming up a long time.” Why then do so many scientists bring offerings to the altar of the Greenhouse God? Says Bryson: “There is a lot of money to be made in this. If you want to be an eminent scientist, you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can’t get grants unless you say, ‘oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.’” Or, as Big Brother told Winston Smith: “Right thinking will be rewarded - wrong thinking punished.” “Speaking out against global warming is like being a heretic,” Bryson significantly declares. Dennis T. Avery, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, observes that much of the recent warming trend occurred prior to 1940 - “before the emission of much greenhouse gas from human activities.” On March 22, 2002, the Associated Press reported that a study “appearing in the March 21, 2002 issue of the journal Science analyzed ancient tree rings from 14 sites on three continents in the northern hemisphere and concluded that temperatures in an era known as the Medieval Warm Period some 800 to 1,000 years ago closely matched the warming trend of the 20th century.” Is AP in the pocket of Exxon? Avery sees a sunny (you should pardon the expression) future: “We’re in a mild, erratic natural warming cycle (driven by a cyclical uptick in the sun’s energy) that will gradually return us to the finest weather pattern in all recorded history - the Medieval Climate Optimum (circa 900-1300 A.D.). Winters will be milder, storms less powerful, and rainfall more abundant. The polar ice caps will not melt, and the sea level will continue to rise very slowly.” "

Over the Cliff wrote on Sep 19, 2007 10:39 AM:

" Dang man! It must have been pretty painful pulling these opinions out! Carbon dioxide is indeed esssential to photosynthisis and plantlife survival but the flip side is balance between their use of Carbon dioxide and their production of oxygen. Why is the former increasing in such an alarming rate? Sorry Cliff but I don't know any animals that breath carbon dioxide! As for Polar Bears, seals etc, these are "sea sensitive" creatures and their plight is related to the sudden and alarming warming of the world's oceans which is a result of carbon dioxide emissions, not 'ol sol. It's starting with the ocean and the coastal land masses...It will get to your grandchildren soon enough.... "

wow wrote on Sep 19, 2007 5:44 AM:

" Once again, Cliff demonstrates that he's been paid off by the global warming deniers. How about this other "positive" effect of global warming - the continuing drought across the western half of the US? Also, the warmer winters don't kill off the pine bark beetles, so we end up with a lot of dead trees. Any more wonderful benefits you moron? "

don johson wrote on Sep 18, 2007 8:13 PM:

" Is this guy (cliff) in the bush adminastration, how can any respectable paper have on there staff someone who spouts such BS as this guy. He seems to be in lock step with bush,and everyone knows he has know idea of what is really going on with global warming. Get a responsible weather man!!!!! "

Next Ad