Further response to the three previous letters (12/16 J.C. Vaughan; 12/22 V. Gress; 1/1 W. Staruk) is needed. The Frederick News-Post should no longer give climate-change deniers a platform. There are not two sides to every issue. There are opinions we don’t tolerate (like hate speech). There is full scientific consensus about climate change. Voices purporting debate or denying basic science must be ignored. This problem is too serious. There is debate about whether to use solar or offshore wind to mitigate climate change, but there is no debate in the science of the problem.

Ms. Gress is correct. Earth has warmed nearly 2 degrees since 1850. This is causing the climate to change dramatically. Nomads would migrate away, but we can’t just abandon our homes, farms, cities and vast infrastructure. We continue to affect our way of existence at our own peril — not to mention that of the world’s future grandchildren.

Mr. Vaughan is wrong. The excess carbon dioxide (CO2) that humans dump in the atmosphere absolutely must be labeled a pollutant. An analogy — mercury occurs naturally in the Earth’s crust, but when we concentrate it in our waterways and atmosphere through industrial processes, we label it a pollutant. And the EPA thankfully regulates it.

Mr. Staruk’s letter is so completely full of errors, I cannot fully comment. It’s a collection of misinformation, jumbled together with a smattering of facts.

Yes, CO2 is a trace gas. The air is 78 percent nitrogen and 21 percent oxygen, leaving CO2 as less than 1 percent. But this is meaningless. Trace amounts of some poisons can kill millions. CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas that, along with several other gases, is causing our atmosphere to trap excess heat.

And yes, the ocean is basic. But it is becoming a weaker base (hence, more acidic). The pH has dropped from 8.21 to 8.1. This is a 29 percent change, because the pH scale is not linear (it is a negative log scale). By 2100 the pH is on track to acidify further to 7.8. This would be nearly a 150 percent change. This is acidic enough to dissolve shells, destroying the base of the marine food web and thereby putting most marine life at risk of extinction.

The October 2018 Special Report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is fact and should be read by everyone interested in understanding this issue and wishing to help solve it.

Joyce Tuten

Middletown

(92) comments

gary4books

For the sake of amusement only: https://www.iceagenow.info/headed-for-space-age-record-cold-warns-nasa-scientist/?fbclid=IwAR1wHYSAoUHvP_fyPd7kIkjhFyptUjAPKuSkC081jCd2XZPlVG1kGC_w_Y4

bswiger

Bless you Joyce for the bravery to address climate change as there are so many “experts” to contradict you. Also, Boyce, who brings common sense explanations on the current situation that is happening worldwide. Sadly, there are many that still think the earth is flat too.

BunnyLou

Censoship is always the answer from the left when someone opposes there point of view. Imagine a world wihere 100 percent renewable energy is achieved, do you actually think that the climate will not change? If anything is constant on earth it is change. The geologic record tells us that.

Boyce Rensberger

I'm about as leftie as one can be, and I would never want to censor anyone, even for spouting ignorant opinions. Earthling energy sources definitely will be 100 percent renewable, but it probably will take a century to get there.

Change on Earth is not constant. The geologic record tells us that dramatically.

awteam2000

[thumbup]

BunnyLou

And you call yourself a scientific reporter, so I am to believe you just because you say it. Having a smidgeon of training in the field of geology and earth science would tell you that change is in fact constant. The planet’s surface, for one, does not look the same today as it did say 1 billion years ago. Ice ages, volcanic events, plate tectonics, etc are infact change agents would you not agree?


Boyce Rensberger

You can look me up to learn about my background.

My problem with your statement about geological processes is that you come across as a uniformitarian. We've known for more than a century that although many processes do move slowly, there are also sudden, catastrophic events.

The key difference with global warming is that the current rate of change is thousands of times faster than it was in the past. I think that counts as something quite different from uniformitarian geologic change, which typically takes tens of thousands to millions of years to unfold.

Mickey7

So experience and a long examined life are meaningless? Are you a scientist?

hayduke2

Wow, just wow. You really should learn to argue from a point of strength, not personal opinion.

BunnyLou

Do you think plate tectonics, volcanoes, the weather from the standpoint of erosion are not agents of constant change?

Mickey7

[thumbup] Boyce!

Mickey7

"If anything is constant on earth it is change." Then why are you a Conservative?

Scott_grimes1

And I love the solutions to all the greenies. Tax your gas, tax your car...tax tax tax. The green movement is alll about one thing, and onething only. COMTROL. It always has been. Control what you think, do, etc. Such as Ms Tutens submission. She wants FNP to control the message. She wants to CONTROL what you read. You know, if it is a concern of C)2, a very NATRUAL occurring molecule...it also has a very easy fix, doesn't it? How did nature do it for the past millions of years, unless I missed something. Most species of animals on this earth, in present, and int he past, breath in the oxygen, exhale CO2. Can we all agree on that from our days in grade school science? Been going on millions of years. Now, what takes in CO2, breaks apart, and expels the oxygen? Bueller? Bueller? Tuten? Tuten?....Waiting....plants and vegetation. So, what would be the answer? Instead of asphalting over most of this earth for hi ways...and nice manicured lawns, and cutting down tress to put up...solar panel and wind turbines, we should be planting lots and lots of trees. Simple answer really. But you never read that as a solution, because? Well, taxes would be minimal and unnecessary, and it would not make a lot of people a lot of money like building solar plants and wind turbines. Yet, the likes of Ms Tuten would like talk of that silenced.

hayduke2

A little to simplistic of a solution

hayduke2

too

drudake

So your argument against the "greenies" is to...agree with them? You're quite right of course, a huge expansion of plant life would bind the CO2 and eventually cool the planet. That is what the earth did last time temperatures rose. The land and sea were full of plant life, which bound the CO2 and that CO2 was eventually buried and locked away...until we unearthed it and started to burn it and put it back in to the atmosphere. Now the temperature is rising again. Our planet and it's atmosphere are a closed system. As the temperature rises, plants will proliferate again of their own accord and other species will be snuffed out (including ours) unless we take proactive measures now. It is that simple.

Boyce Rensberger

Actually, we're not a closed system. Earth is bathed in solar radiation amounting to about 1000 watts per square meter when the sun is directly overhead. It's less when the sun is lower in the sky, but still enormous amounts of energy coming in.

DickD

And that energy can be used so fossil fuels do not need to be burned.

gary4books

Oil is finite and eventually we will need to use solar and wind energy. So, why not start the conversion to solar and wind now and perfect them as we go?

Scott_grimes1

Ckicken littles like Ms Tuten who believes mankind has had this much impact, with out looking all the factors is a chicken little that believes in silencing oppossing opions, like the Socialists and Nazis did. It is her way or the highway. As with most, she tries to deflect that few debate that climate is changing. It always has for the millions of years this planet has existed. Either life adapted, or it died out. However, she is a shrill and so arrogant to think man can undo something nature is doing on its own. Has it ever occurred many of natures disasters that have been blamed on climate change are in fact from other factors? The flooding after Katrina for instance. It was all blamed on climate, but in fact, it was from re-directing the MS in many ways, the dredging of the MGO, that allowed the disaster to occur. I would like to look at Ms Tuten financial portfolio though. Al Gore has made over $200 million in green investments the past 10 years by sending out shills like Tuten to push people to his green companies. He is slated to be the first "green" billionaire courtesy of Ms Tuten. And she would take away your first amendment rights in the process. THAT is censorship.

Mickey7

Lol, Scotty you and your tax tax even though the united states is one of the lowest tax countries in the world. Why don't you go trickle on down

denahr

When I see the phrase "climate denier", I know the person who wrote it has succumbed to the hype so prevalent today. Ms. Tuten, you could benefit from more articles on climate change, not only the ones with which you agree. Unfortunately, these articles are very technnical and will not appear in the FNP. Modern climate science is in its infancy, and the "science" is not settled. The changing data of IPCC reports will confirm that fact. Many researchers who want to work in this field won't get funding unless they align with the politicians who control most of the research funding. Some researchers have been bullied out of universities when their views don't align, and some have been sued (thankfully, unsuccessfully). So you will never see the bigger picture if you limit yourself to the popular media; I can tell from your writing that you follow that closely. You should note that no serious researcher considers CO₂ a pollutant. That definition comes straight from ignorant politicians and their sycophants in the media. And finally, understand that the IPCC is as much a political entity as it is a scientific body -- some would say much more so.

hayduke2

denahr - what exactly are your scientific credentials? I tend to trust the prevalent data - see https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ for one that destroys your argument.

Mickey7

[thumbup]hay. It's amazing all the climate denier scientists that are on this website says 97% of the actual scientist support global warming scenario

Boyce Rensberger

I don't have a problem reading IPCC reports, and I don't mean just the summary for policymakers. I've read several of the underlying technical volumes and interviewed the authors, although I haven't done it since I retired ten years ago. But I would appreciate it if you could supply two or three references that support your , especially if they are online and not behind a pay-wall.

If you're familiar with AGW skeptics, you'll known the name of Richard Lindzen. In 2014 paper he delivered in France, Lindzen laid out four statements that he and, he said, most skeptical climate scientists agree with. They are:
– Climate changes.
– Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
– Adding greenhouse gas to the atmosphere causes warming.
– Human activity increases greenhouse gases.
In other words, most global warming “skeptics” agree that human activity is causing the climate to warm.

Labeling carbon dioxide a pollutant or not is irrelevant. But someone who wanted to argue before a crowd might point out that the gas is commonly used to euthanize animals.

denahr

BR, I have seen Dr. Lindzen speak, and agree with his assessment. I also am interested in the postings on Dr. Judith Curry's site, judithcurry.com.

Mickey7

Dr. Lindzen has been disputed by his colleagues at MIT. The fact that he does not consider carbon dioxide a pollutant has been disputed and ridiculed.

Boyce Rensberger

I'll take a look, thanks. ... Well, I just spent about half an hour browsing her site and reading various articles on it. It's a blog, as you know, with lots of opinions and links to OpEds, her congressional testimony, interviews and such. What I'd really like to read is peer reviewed scientific articles in reputable journals with findings that undermine the consensus. IF those exist. There's more on that blog that I haven't seen. Maybe the hard data are in there somewhere.

drudake

I think perhaps you might benefit from your own advice and "read some articles on climate change, not only the ones with which you agree". To suggest that the vast majority of scientists have somehow abandoned scientific method for fear of funding threats and are being bullied by nefarious politicians to align with the popular media is ludicrous and delusional. Please provide some references regarding your allegations of bullying and suing, I couldn't find anything credible. I did however find quite a bit of support for categorizing CO2 as a pollutant...

denahr

Ha, I don't believe you did any of those searches.

threecents

And again, what are your credentials/accomplishments - other than visiting web sites and hearing people.

Mickey7

[lol]

Mickey7

One of the few that has reported carbon dioxide as not is retired a mighty Professor Dr lindzen. His colleagues at MIT said his research is extremely flawed and the fact that he does not consider carbon dioxide a pollutant is ridiculous

Boyce Rensberger

I've spent a fair bit of time with Lindzen during my ten years at MIT. He is highly respected for being a genuine atmospheric scientist, unlike most of the climate deniers. But you're right, all the other atmospheric scientists at MIT consider some of his interpretations wrong. Nonetheless, Lindzen does agree--as I noted above--that people are causing global warming by emitting carbon dioxide. He just doesn't think the rate of warming is going faster than our ability to cope--build seawalls, move inland, etc. Hence, he says, there is no need to be alarmist.

Mickey7


[thumbup] thanks for the educated response Boyce.

Comment deleted.
Boyce Rensberger

Several prominent climate change deniers *have* switched side. The evidence became too much to ignore.

One you may have read about is the guy Trump nominated to head NASA, Jim Bridenstine, formerly an Oklahoma Republican congressman. Look him up. He once testified forcefully for the doubters' side. I personally know two climate scientists at MIT who moved gradually from skepticism to acceptance.

There are many others, of course.

Boyce Rensberger

As a science reporter, I started covering climate projections seriously in the 1980s. I perceived a reasonable controversy among scientists as to whether "anthropogenic [human-caused] global warming" (AGW) was happening. So naturally, I took care to include information from both sides.

By the way, there has never been a genuine controversy among atmospheric scientists as to whether increased levels of carbon dioxide in the air should "force" a warming. That's been accepted science for more than a century. But there was legitimate debate about whether there were opposing forces, other factors that might force cooling. The opposing forces might cancel out each other.

Over the 30+ years since then, the balance of evidence has shifted dramatically. The evidence for AGW has only grown stronger. And, of course, the measured warming has been increasing, more rapidly than early projections suggested. And, by the way again, Earth is not warming at the average temperature in all places. Warming is happening several times faster toward the poles. And its actually cooling in a few smallish regions.

Over those decades, serious science writing (which I tried to do) has shifted its practice from including the so-called skeptics on an equal footing. Over time skeptics got less and less prominence in stories. Today they get none in most stories from serious, professional science journalists.

I've given many talks to meetings of science journalists about covering this subject and encouraged the concept that properly balanced coverage should be based not on how loud advocates speak but on the preponderance of the scientific evidence. That concept of balance is pretty widely accepted.

One side of a debate keeps losing evidence or not gaining any. (I still follow them through weekly emails from the skeptics' side.) At the same time, the other side keeps gaining evidence As a result, proper journalistic balance shifts. After all, that's simply telling our readers where the science is going.

Today the evidence for AGW is undeniable. That doesn't mean there won't be years that see a cooling now and then. There are several natural cycles that, depending on which you measure them, push temperatures warmer or cooler.

Those who wish to learn more might appreciate this site: www.skepticalscience.com.

Mickey7

[thumbup] thank you, Boyce. Many of the Layman AWG deniers don't understand the difference between climate and weather

awteam2000

[thumbup]

hayduke2

Boyce- [thumbup][thumbup][thumbup]

Comment deleted.
Mickey7

FCPS what's you constant reference to pot as an attack on someone's scientifically supported opinion? Chill and go have a beer.

Comment deleted.
hayduke2

FCPS-principal - your first sentence is an indication of your own thoughtful response. Get your foil helment on.

Comment deleted.
gary4books

Rude and crude, to be sure.

gary4books

Yes there is climate change and yes it is a problem to solve But it is not the only problem and we had better be ready for both warming or cooling in the future. The most likely future will be warmer we will have to adjust to it. Now why do I say that? How could it happen? If the orbit of the Earth were to change, or if the space between Earth ad the Sun have ore dust or gas and even if the Solar Constant" declines the Earth would be cooler. How much? Who knows? But it is a slight possibility. Otherwise, I do think we could cut down on Carbon fuels and be ready for warmer weather I want some Palms on the DC Mall.

Boyce Rensberger

Gary, The motions of Earth's orbit are extremely well understood. And the solar "constant" is known to vary according to several overlapping cycles--sunspots every11 years or so. I read that there's also an 88-year cycle, a 208-year periodicity and one of about 1000 years. Those do change the amount of solar radiation. But the amount of change is small. For example, the sunspot cycle makes solar irradiance go up and down by 0.1 percent.

gary4books

True, but any quasi stellar objects could change the orbit significantly. My point was that many factors are possible and not important now. but they could be. So we really need to be ready for many events and not stuck on one likely future.

Comment deleted.
drudake

The problem and solution have been very clearly laid out by Joyce and the rest of the scientific community, if you choose to hear it rather than bury your head in the sand. PROBLEM: The earth is warming because of excess CO2 in the atmosphere. This will in a relatively short time cause widespread flooding of the places where much of humanity lives and the extinction/collapse of many of humanity's food sources. SOLUTION: Let's develop alternate sources of energy that do not generate CO2 as a byproduct, rather than continue to pour gasoline on the fire (pun intended).

shiftless88

Why are people so quick to imagine that atmospheric scientists are lying but when I ask "why would they lie" no one can seem to provide a motive?

Comment deleted.
shiftless88

The job of the scientists is not to pose the solution. That is up to the politicians who make policy. Most scientists I know would be ecstatic if politicians would seriously start to address this with meaningful policy.

Comment deleted.
bryan

Love they idea, yup you're right, now solve it. Kind of like Harold Hill in the Music Man. There was no trouble in River City but he had to create a problem in order to solve it. ie: the Pool Table. "You're gonna have TROUBLE".

bryan

One last thing: I am not an expert in this field at all, but thought I'd do a quick google on it. The very first thing I found was a peer review of the IPCC 2018 report that easily discredits it. Two articles below:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/15/why-un-climate-report-cannot-be-trusted/
http://www.climatedepot.com/2018/10/11/major-error-found-in-new-un-ipcc-report-un-distorted-data-from-discredited-study-scientist-reveals/

shiftless88

They key is "I am not an expert in this field at all". Hey, I googled some stuff on the Bible and I can see it is easily debunked. Does that make you value my opinion? Pay attention to people who ARE experts.

hayduke2

bryan - do your research on the sponsors of the two articles that you quoted. They are not un-biased and are supported by those who want to deny climate change.

threecents

Bryan, since you are not an expert, why not google the experts and what they think? Unless of course you are not under a rock and have heard that over 95% of experts think that climate change is real and caused by people. Why do we need to re-visit this argument over and over? The answer is obvious. It is easier to suggest there is so problem than to acknowledge it and deal with it. Of course you could be like those Houston developers who keep building, even though anyone with open eyes can see that more powerful hurricanes are going to come through (due to climate change) and wreck whatever they build.

bryan

Also, read Revelation. I got news for you- the world DOES end, turns back into dust. Nothing you can do about it, it's not a surprise. All you can do is be sure you're prepared for it and live your life to the max while you're here.

Dwasserba

Yeahhhh you don't want to be here when it ends. You don't want your great grand children to be here. No need to rush headlong. Jay Inslee has it right!

Mickey7

LOL, so bryan you consult Revelations for the weather report? So this is your pov? "Excuse me while I kiss the sky"

public-redux

I’m really glad you weren’t elected Alderman now that I know you think 2000 year old sci-fi/fantasy ought to be the basis of public policy and that you don’t understand the first amendment to the Constitution. I’ll be sure to vote against you in the future if I ever see your name on a Republican primary ballot or a general election ballot.

DickD

Not fair, Gladys, you get two shots at him. Us Democrats only get one. There ought to be a law against that. [beam]

bryan

Sorry, I stopped reading right after you wrote: "The Frederick News-Post should no longer give climate-change deniers a platform." What ever happened to free speech? Or is free speech only acceptable when it complies with what you think is the truth?

shiftless88

You seem to mis-understand the First Amendment. It does not require the FNP to post anything anyone wants. It only says that the GOVERNMENT cannot restrict speech. Since you do not comprehend this fundamental aspect of the Constitution then I certainly won't take your climate change opinion seriously.

FCPS-Principal

Newspapers are private entities and thus are not required to respect the 1A. They can pick and choose what they print.

Dwasserba

Which is what is usually assumed and what they are criticized for, where oh where have I heard it, "fake news"...

awteam2000

Secpol, “Climate change is being disproved everyday .” Really? Just the opposite is happening.

Even this past November, Trump’s NOAA National Centers for Environmental released a dire warning about climate change and its devastating impacts, saying the economy could lose hundreds of billions of dollars -- or, in the worst-case scenario, more than 10% of its GDP -- by the end of the century.

The Trump administration tried to bury the report by releasing it over the thanksgiving weekend.

tonyc51

Gist of this LTE, "I am right and no one else needs to say anything!!!" Typical of the shout downs of the left and right, by those who live in insulated cocoons of self righteousness.

shiftless88

The point is that because it is a complex issue it is not straightforward to understand and many people are taking advantage of that to protect their carbon-based business models. They sow disinformation. That is unhelpful.

Dwasserba

"The October 2018 Special Report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is fact and should be read by everyone interested in understanding this issue and wishing to help solve it." Or, typical of those who read thoroughly.

hayduke2

tony - do you believe in climate change? I believe the author of the letter presented some pretty strong reasoning and evidence, not just an opinion.

threecents

Tony, nothing gets done if we can't agree on the most obvious concepts.

olefool

Perhaps secpol could post his curriculum vitae here so that we will have an opportunity to see what his/her qualifications are to make statements based on scientific knowledge. The mere opinions of a hoax troll just don't cut it.

secpol1970

Whats worse is your request of FNP of a citizens right to free speech. Shame on you.

marinick1

[thumbup]

public-redux

[thumbdown]

public-redux

The FNP is not part of the government. Are you suggesting that the government should have the legal authority to compel a privately owned newspaper to publish certain points of view? This isn’t the Soviet Union, you know.

FCPS-Principal

But it's getting closer every day the Orange Fornicating Cockoach remains in the once-honorable Oval Office.

hayduke2

Come on FCPS - your name calling is getting quite borish and adds nothing to the discussion.

bryan

[thumbup]

shiftless88

You, like Bryan, have a complete misunderstanding of what constitutes "free speech". You also have a misunderstanding of climate change (which is even more complex than the first amendment).

secpol1970

No its climate myth promoters like you that must be ignored. Your :facts" every day are being disproved. Sheer lunacy at its best.

bnick467

Where are you getting your information that Ms. Tuten's "facts" are being disproved? What scientific study is disproving those facts? Ms. Tuten quoted the study from where she got her information, so surely you can provide the reputable source from where you formed your opinion that her statements are wrong.

marinick1

[thumbup]

marinick1

[thumbup]

marinick1

[thumbup]

olefool

I've had enough of the blowhards on cable TV and the self-righteous anger I hear from people whose only accomplishment in life is their ability to turn the dial on an AM radio.

Dwasserba

The dial??

threecents

I miss dials! I have to press so many buttons just to change the station on my car radio. Every radio I have uses buttons instead of dials.[thumbup]

Mickey7

Most of these Climate Deniers tune to WFMD.

threecents

WFMD is poison. When I first moved to Frederick I loved WFMD. Traffic, weather, pleasant people, news (even though they were just reading it from the FNP). Clinton was president. But then I heard Bob Miller call our first lady a bit__. I could not believe someone would actually say that on the air - much less on the only Frederick news station. Some news station. It's main goal is not to inform but to divide people.

hayduke2

secpol - NONSENSE

Mickey7

Apparently secpol is from the Jim Imhofe School of climate deniers. Could possibly be a graduate from Trump University

phydeaux994

secpol, sheer lunacy is making statements but offering no proof of their truthfulness. Give us a few examples of Climate Change science that is being disproved every day. You are still confusing "weather" with "Climate Change". Please, back up your blather with "concrete" or "steel" proof. Take your pick.[smile][beam][lol]

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Engage ideas. This forum is for the exchange of ideas, insights and experiences, not personal attacks. Ad hominem criticisms are not allowed. Focus on ideas instead.
TURN OFF CAPS LOCK.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
No trolls. Off-topic comments and comments that bait others are not allowed.
No spamming. This is not the place to sell miracle cures.
Say it once. No repeat or repetitive posts, please.
Help us. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.