Michael Jensen

Bit of global warming might be welcomed

Sunday, March 1, 2015

Global warming was rebranded as climate change when the environmentalists had trouble explaining the lack of temperature increase they had long predicted.

By labeling all weather variation as climate change, those who profit from this quackery could claim evidence regardless of the weather conditions.

Now keep in mind, these were the same zealots who said the world was doomed because of the depletion of the ozone layer. That argument seems to have taken a back seat to the climate change mantra that is now in vogue.

Yet, as I scan the local landscape and witness miles upon miles of "climate change," I find myself yearning for the good old global warming days.

The "Green" lobby has bamboozled the gullible American public into the insane notion that changing lightbulbs will somehow reserve this dire weather pattern. The same lobby has failed miserably in promoting all sorts of phony science to convince the American public that our lifestyles are threatening the extinction of mankind.

Al Gore - Mr. Green himself - has made a tidy sum of greenbacks from peddling his snake oil. You may recall just a month ago, Gore proposed spending $90,000,000,000,000 to remove automobiles from urban areas to save mankind.

I could have easily said $90 trillion but I just love typing all those zeroes.

I read a report this week where the environmentalists are certain that the massive snowfall in the eastern United States is a result of climate change. And rest assured, when the summer heat arrives, as it always does, that too will be the result of climate change.

This sick science in itself is a virtual laughing matter. But it hits home in Sikeston and other areas where our utilities are provided by coal-fired power plants. These plants have long been the target of the "Green" folk and the cost of proposed regulations on Sikeston residents alone is frightening to say the least.

Let's say - by way of example - that all of the Obama administration regulations are implemented and the American economy is disrupted by these changes.

It's important to note that China, with over 1 billion people, is building one new coal-fired power plant per week. And India, also with 1 billion people, has virtually no environmental regulations.

Our proposed changes, while crippling our economy, are just a drop in the global bucket. And don't think what happens on the other side of this planet does not make its way here.

The recent cold wave we are experiencing actually originated in the Siberian region of Russia and then meandered across the north pole, through Canada and, in my observation, settled right over Sikeston.

OK, that's a stretch but you get my point.

All I know for certain is that I - like you - am sick of this cold weather and I will welcome spring with open arms. I will no longer curse mowing the yard or fighting the insects.

Where's that global warming when you really need it?

Comments

View 2 comments

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

To the Editors of the Sikeston Standard Democrat:

The opinions expressed by Michael Jensen regarding Climate Change / Global Warming today, 1March15, are completely wrong. I would say he is uninformed, but it is more likely that he is misinformed. Unfortunately, by publishing his opinion, you are misinforming many others. Let's start at the beginning ...

Para 1: Global warming was rebranded as climate change ...

There have long been claims that some unspecificed "they" have "changed the name from 'global warming' to 'climate change'". In reality, the two terms mean different things, have both been used for decades, and the only individual to have specifically advocated changing the name in this fashion is a global warming 'skeptic,' like Jensen. The individual to actually advocate changing the term from 'global warming' to 'climate change' was Republican political strategist Frank Luntz in a controversial memo advising conservative politicians on communicating about the environment:

"It's time for us to start talking about 'climate change' instead of 'global warming'...

"'Climate change' is less frightening than 'global warming'. As one focus group participant noted, climate change 'sounds like you're going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.' While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge."

So, from the very first paragraph, Jensen is repeating a lie that has been explained and debunked many, many times. Is he unaware, or does he simply want to re-tell this lie? See Skeptical Scientist web-site:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=326

Para 2: Jensen uses the adjective 'quackery' to refer to a body of science produced by thousands of professional climate scientists over many years, and supported by the US National Academy of Sciences and ten other national academies from UK, Germany, France, Italy, China, India, Japan, Russia, and Brazil. Jensen needs to produce some prodigious credentials or references before off-handedly castigating scientific findings in juried publications. There is quackery afoot, and it is Jensen's. See National Academy web site:

http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

Para 3: Ozone Layer . . .

Jensen conveys the impression that the discovery and warnings about the ozone layer were wrong. Wrong, Mr. Jensen. These findings were accepted, chloro-flouro-carbons and other ozone-depleting agents were banned world-wide, and the ozone layer has been recovering. Thank goodness, because this layer protects us from harmful ultraviolet light. Mr. Jensen is ignorantly repeating some denier nonsense he has accepted without investigation, or he is choosing to repeat yet another lie/item-of-misinformation. See EPA web-site: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/strathome.html

Now I could go on and on, but this is tedious to write, and tedious to read. Suffice it to say that Mr. Jensen is completely wrong. Period.

I write this with feint hope that Mr. Jensen will see the light, but I do hope that the Editors of this newspaper will realize that there is more to editing opinions than just grammar, spelling, punctuation. Opinions are one thing, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But this newspaper needs to do at least a little fact-checking, too. When you discover that the first three paragraphs lie somewhere between misguided-misinformation and outright falsehoods, then the editors should reject the opinion. Am I right?

-- Posted by DonSTL on Sun, Mar 1, 2015, at 5:38 PM
DonSTL,

I'm a little confused about how Mr. Jenson is wrong. Let's follow you point by point:

1) You claim only skeptical people like Mr. Jenson use the name interchangeably. Funny, but the Global Warming fanatic, Bill Nye, was all over the news this last month advocating using the name interchangeably. Is Bill Nye some kind of under-cover spy for the skeptics?

2) You then follow with a "thousands of professional..." (I.e. majority-believe) claim. I'm sorry, but in the real world, science is not conducted by some kind of democratic/majority vote. Science is supposed to follow the scientific method which demands testing, demonstrating, and repeating. It's ironic that the same people who claim "majority" opinion on climate change probably make fun of the medieval "majority" opinions on the flat-earth, geo-centricity, four-humors, etc.

3) The ozone layer. Ozone is O^3. Oxygen is O^2. Ultraviolet light changes O^2 into O^3. It's a self-regulating system. Almost like it was designed that way... It's called the ozone-oxygen cycle (discovered way back in the 1930's). Unless we spew more chemicals than the sun puts out ultraviolet light rays, the Ozone will never be depleted.

4) You stopped because this is tedious? Or because your brain hurts because you really can't explain any of it? I know, I know, now it's time for your next chess move (I will predict what it will be):

A) Mr. Jensen, myself, and all skeptics are un-educated, ignorant, or otherwise stupid.

B) Mr. Jensen, myself, et al. are paid by the coal/petroleum companies.

C) Mr. Jensen, myself, et al. are evil.

Global Warming/Climate Change = a blind religion (that has replaced God with mother earth, and priests with climate-change scientists).

-- Posted by methanemaker on Thu, Mar 5, 2015, at 10:41 PM

Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration:

If you already have an account, follow this link to login
Otherwise, follow this link to register