A reply to Ellis Burruss’ letter in the Dec. 23 News-Post: In my letter of Dec. 12, I used the term “watermelon” (green on the outside, red on the inside) in a paragraph pertaining to the U.N., the Paris Accord (a wealth transfer scheme), and Greta Thunberg (mouthpiece for her parents’ socialist agenda).

The U.N.’s IPCC is the world’s leading climate-change-associated organization, and U.N. leaders have stated that the aim of the climate crusade is redistribution of the world’s wealth (Edenhofer in 2010) and that the only way to fight the supposed climate crisis is to impose socialism worldwide (Figueres in 2015). The U.N.’s “Agenda 2030” is a blueprint for doing so. I assume that most warmists are honest, concerned citizens, unaffiliated with the socialist agenda. But these extremists, as Mr. Burruss labeled them, are not on the sidelines. They are in the driver’s seat. And “watermelon” is a mild term for those who use environmentalism as a cover for imposing the tyrannical ideology that slaughtered upwards of 100 million people during the last century.

Regarding statements about the climate made in Mr. Burruss’ letter ...

Yes, the world has been warming ever since the “Little Ice Age” about 400 years ago, which was the low point of a natural temperature cycle that last peaked about the year 1000. It should peak again in a century or two, then decline. Mankind’s CO2 contributes, but it isn’t the main factor.

Yes, looking back 400,000 years, the current CO2 level is high. But in the more distant past the CO2 level was as much as 10 times higher than it is now, and the Earth didn’t “go Venus.”

Yes, atmospheric CO2 is a greenhouse gas, providing about 6.7 percent of the greenhouse effect. It absorbs specific wavelengths of outgoing infrared energy and heats up. It then re-radiates the energy. The portion of the re-radiated energy that hits the Earth’s surface causes the greenhouse warming. That surface warming will match the warming of the atmospheric CO2 itself, but a little afterward and about one-third as much (in degrees). The current global warming doesn’t show that correlation, which indicates that it is not being caused by atmospheric CO2.

Tidal gauges show that the sea level has been rising at essentially the current rate at least as far back as the 1850s. So mankind’s CO2, which started becoming significant in the 1940s, has not increased the rate significantly, if at all.

The U.N.’s IPPC has stated that they see no evidence of a global increase in frequency or intensity of wild weather.

Finally, yes, the facts aren’t changed by stereotyping one’s opponents. Nor are they changed by implying that one’s opponents don’t have open eyes or open minds.

Walt Staruk

Middletown

(57) comments

Obadiah Plainsmen

Hunches and guesses the fate of mankind relies on hunches and guesses. And when someone or government "validates" these hunches and guesses it becomes truth. Only when it becomes truth will it become law. Only when it become law will the "world" adhere to it. By then will it be too late or will the "emergency" have passed. That's another hunch and guess.

awteam2000

‘Pontificate’ means to express one's opinions in a way considered annoyingly pompous, dogmatic, all knowing and dismissive of all others. 🤷‍♂️ Just sayin’.

Obadiah Plainsmen

You write your biography eloquently.

matts853

It’s so funny to hear Trumpeteers parrot the president and conservative talking heads that socialism is a grave threat to human freedom and that we’ll end up like Venezuela, which the president invoked today. News flash - most of the countries they draw comparisons to are run by dictators and other bad actors who don’t care about their own people.

MD1756

I wonder where the letter writer got his "expertise" in climate change. I suggest he and others read "The Death of Expertise" by Thomas Nichols. The FNP, by printing such letters, contributes to the problem.

CRSmith88

Im pretty sure windmills and solar panels are the real terrestrial socialists here. They take handouts from the earth and sun and give NOTHING back in return. They're just freeloaders! Dont even get me started on geothermal. If we heat up the earth too much via conductive cooling then the ground and air will be hot! Then there was that time BP tried to act like libs and build solar panels to create local jobs but they gave the earth a massive aneurysm and apologized by making America great and demolishing it when it was 90% complete. Libs owned.

Boyce Rensberger

Once again the FNP shows us that it receives too few sensible and original letters to the editor to fill its page. As a result that have to give this guy yet another block of space to repeat discredited assertions.

Staruk's claims are false or misleading on so many counts that it makes no sense to try to refute them here. But one would have thought that the editors of this page would see that his letter adds nothing to the discussion.

shiftless88

Boyce; you should write a LTE pointing out the repeated flaws/lies in Walt's letters.

Boyce Rensberger

Maybe so, but I did a long piece in the paper on January 24, 2016 that covered a lot of the key points I would make. The headline was this: "The science of global warming. Less controversial than you think."

Here's how it began: "The science of global warming began more than a century ago. It was controversial at the time, but since then all of it has become textbook science that should underlie today’s discussion of the matter."

Why does Staruk keep sending in his ignorant rants? Why does the paper keep printing them? Somebody at the FNP needs to tell Staruk to give it a rest.

I'll think about writing a letter.

DickD

Thanks, Boyce.

hayduke2

Boyce - [thumbup][thumbup]

jsklinelga

Boyce,

I read your credentials the other day. Why don't you write a letter I have no doubt that CO2 levels have risen. The whys, how and what to do are heavily debated. Fill the FNP with your perspective. Also,personally assuage my curiosity. If climate change is such a catastrophic, imminent danger, facts clearly known, then why are elected officials wasting time on study groups?

Boyce Rensberger

Maybe I should write a letter. Study groups are a favorite tactic of politicians to defer decision making. Of course, there can be a reasonable basis for studying something to determine the most cost-effective ways to address a matter. That's what Kai Hagen and Jessica Fitzwater are currently doing.

jsklinelga

Boyce,

please correct me if I am wrong. A majority view is that emissions are the leading cause of climate change. Fossil fuel burning is the leading contributor. Vehicles account for 20% of GHG emissions measured in lbs for gallon of gas. Coupled with emissions from the generation of power together they account for 3/4 of the emissions. Residential cooling and inefficient commercial space heating and cooling are by far the biggest electric users.

So my question is:why a study group? If it is indeed so urgent, why not cut down on traffic (not expanding), impose strict efficiency regulations on commercial properties .and place economic incentives for smaller dwellings. These items could be addressed quickly on the county level. Truthfully I wonder if these folks really do think the problem is that much of an eminent danger.Or, if they are confident it is really an urgent concern?

Boyce Rensberger

Replying to your question below, Mr. Kline. Your statements seem roughly correct. No study is needed to learn what's causing the warming. I think the study that's needed, at least on the county level as Hagen and Fitzwater are doing, is to determine the most effective things county government could do to contribute to a solution. I imagine political feasibility is a factor.

Winchester Hall can't very well ban coal-fired power plant because there aren't any in the county. But it could offer tax breaks to local homeowners and businesses that go solar. But would the lost tax revenue stop the county from buying more electric buses? Is it worth the up-front cost of installing more electric car charging stations? Should the county force local cement and concrete manufacturers to capture more of the carbon dioxide they emit?

I can think of several ways county governments could respond to the crisis. There are more than 3000 counties in this country, but it is open to each to deal with its own share of the problem.

Dwasserba

Can we have a footnote on a writer's background when they write on important hot button topics? Rebutting in the comments seems to reach only a small audience that can be influenced. Climate issues have life/death consequences.

matts853

Walt’s “more distant past” was 50 million years ago, at a minimum. And his 400,000 year lookback only tells half the story. NASA has tracked it back to twice that - see link. According to data from NASA - the people with satellites and other really cool stuff - CO2 has risen “relentlessly” since the industrial revolution. It’s risen more than 100 ppm just since 1950. And they predict that if we exhaust the remaining carbon reserves over the next 2 centuries, CO2 will approach 1500 ppm. So, Walt, Venus is in the near future.

https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/

threecents

Over the years many of us have actually looked at the data Walt sites and found that it was cherry picked, taken out of context, or just wrong. If Walt does not already know he does that, then we are not going teach him

BunnyLou

100 ppm total increase over 70 years, thats actually a very small percentage over the time span. I’m ok with that.

Boyce Rensberger

The amount of gas in the atmosphere that makes Earth warm has increased by 23 percent since 1978. I'm not okay with that.

matts853

That represents a 1/4 of today’s level. If you bother to look at the NASA chart, which I doubt you will, roughly the other half came between the industrial revolution and 1950. 1950 was significant in that’s when we crossed the 300 threshold. Something not seen for a long time in Earth’s relatively recent past.

And while you may be ok with causally dismissing statistics you clearly can’t put in proper perspective then let me ask - are you with us doing nothing and burning our way to 1500 ppm in 200 years? Earth would be totally uninhabitable then and we’d go down in Earth’s history as the shortest lived animal on the planet (assuming our history isn’t lost for all time with our self extinction).

hayduke2

Good post - shows your complete misunderstanding of the issue.

matts853

And Walt’s suggestion that the IPCC doesn’t correlate “Wild” weather to climate change stressors is utter balderdash.

This guy Walt has some nerve to constantly spew his nonsense, and I really wish the FNP would take 20 minutes to do a little research like I just did and realize this guy is full of hot air and then take a pass on printing his “opinions” which are noting more than a regurgitation of phony science.

It takes a lot of audacity for people to constantly try, but fail, to counter the real science from real scientists at NASA, NOAA, the IPCC, etc. that take there work seriously and present it without bias. Walt would rather listen to political pundits and computer geeks instead than some of the best and brightest scientists, who actually HAVE predicted, with much accuracy, the “Wild” weather events that actually are happening.

The only thing that’s wild is Walt’s imagination.

matts853

More nonsense from Walt. Everything the man writes has been and can be diesctedited.

First, I finally figured out where Walt gets his “science” data. It’s a website called Skeptial Science which is run mostly by computer science people and journalists. None of them are climate scientists. What they do is take data from real climate scientists and then manipulate to fit their “Skeptical” narrative. It’s intellectual dishonesty at the highest level.

Now for the facts of what really caused the LIA. Here’s a brief summary from a 2012 study by a University of Colorado PALEOCLIATE study, who actually did field work instead of sitting behind a computer. And, as others have said, the 13th century spike in volcanic activity over time effected ocean currents in the northern hemisphere resulting in a regional - NOT global - cooling effect in the 19th century. So, I’ll give Walt a little credit for acknowledging a lag effect in temperature increases from the onset of climate stressors.

“LIA summer cold and ice growth began abruptly between 1275 and 1300 AD, followed by a substantial intensification 1430–1455 AD. Intervals of sudden ice growth coincide with two of the most volcanically perturbed half centuries of the past millennium. A transient climate model simulation shows that explosive volcanism produces abrupt summer cooling at these times, and that cold summers can be maintained by sea‐ice/ocean feedbacks long after volcanic aerosols are removed. Our results suggest that the onset of the LIA can be linked to an unusual 50‐year‐long episode with four large sulfur‐rich explosive eruptions, each with global sulfate loading >60 Tg. The persistence of cold summers is best explained by consequent sea‐ice/ocean feedbacks during a hemispheric summer insolation minimum; large changes in solar irradiance are not required.“

shiftless88

People like Walt only seem to care or are aware of climate issues in the US and Europe.

Boyce Rensberger

I don't know why you put down skepticalscience.com. It is an excellent compilation of global warming myths and the scientific data that refutes them. As they describe themselves, it's "Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism."

I recommend it for anyone who is not familiar with the science of global warming and the broader matter of climate change. It lists many of the claims made by denialists and responds to them with the science, presented at a basic and intermediate levels (reader's choice).

MD1756

I find it hard to understand those who find climate change hard to understand unless maybe its because they've been staring at sunspots too long. Just look at the "ozone hole" problem we had. It was man-made chemicals (primarily CFCs) that caused the problem. When we finally recognized the problem and the impact man was having on the ozone layer, we were able to successfully address the problem. If we can impact the ozone layer that much, with all the fossil fuels we use and habitat we destroy, why is it so hard to understand that we can and do impact the climate (and not for the better because the changes are too rapid)?

matts853

And we also have the uncosciable ability to kill of entire species - both directly and indirectly.

And data is now out indicating that the Amazon is drying out because of all the deforestation. So absolutely yes, we are screwing up the planet BIG time. And this ain’t Star Trek yet - there’s no one out there to help us. We are all alone, at least in our galactic neighborhood.

threecents

MD[thumbup][thumbup]

matts853

That should have been paleoclimatologist

threecents

Remember when a prominent Republican, who ran against Trump in 2016, said, "We've got to stop being the stupid party. It's time for a new Republican Party that talks like adults." This is what he was talking about. If I was a Barry Kissin type conspiracy theorist - which I am not - I might think that there is a connection between blue states being mostly on or near the coasts and global warming predicted to put those states under water. Is that what you guys are planning?[alien][ninja]

sevenstones1000

Red on the inside?

Why aren’t you folks more concerned about your Putin- loving President? He’s red on the outside.

jsklinelga

Mr. Staruk,

It is obvious that the "warmists" do not believe their own hype. But it is a great, feel good, political platform. How man impacts the climate has been studied for years. And a lot of initiatives, programs and big"corporate bucks" have instituted very beneficial changes. How is the smpg? How about the hole in the ozone? Or the banning of CFC"S or HFC's or HCFC's? Or the multi-billion dollar investment in industrial scrubber systems. How about ultra efficient heating and cooling systems

etc.,etc.

The proposed resolution by the Council's concerning climate change unmask the truth. With great alarm they proclaim we need a mobilization similar to WW2, urgently. Yet they take months drafting a resolution for a year study period. Do they really seemed alarmed. And it could be considered a socialist product. The ties between FCPS, the County Council and the State majority are definitely socialist in nature.

marinick1

[thumbup]

DickD

Yet you don't mind giving farmers tax dollars for not growing food, isn't that Socialism Jim. You don't mind giving large corporations and billionaires special tax cuts, isn't that Socialism? I am sure you and others can think of many more examples, like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, etc.

CRSmith88

I heard being a federal employee or serving in the military is essentially a government handout what with the benefits and all. As a proud capitalist I would really just like to pay zero taxes, have I-270 redone as a gravel (preferably dirt) highway so I can drive my Audi SUV down to MoCo at full speed with my illiterate children in the back and zero seat belts because thats how you own the libs. High five bro.

rbtdt5

DickD - please explain how special tax cuts to billionaires is socialism. Thanks.

hayduke2

Socialism -- a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. One could argue that the corporation or billionaire group and their lobbyist " regulate the productin, distribution and exchange as a whole." When they get tax cuts, subsidies, legislation, deregulation of protections, etc., isn't that a form of socialism for their "group" ?

rbtdt5

hay - isn't the letter writer talking about global socialism?

hayduke2

rb- you questioned Dick - I was responding to that...

gabrielshorn2013

A bit of a stretch beyond the elastic modulus hay. Your definition could encompass anyone or any group. If I alone get a tax break for whatever reason, is that socialism? No. Let's leave it as the government control of the means of production. As for the "tax breaks that went to the millionaires and billionaires", I believe that most of us qualified for them, but the amount received in the break was proportional to the amount paid. Therefore make less, get less. Make more, get more. I know I got a break in Federal income taxes.

hayduke2

Many articles refute the outcome of the tax law in terms of benefiting the majority. As far as socialism- my point is that there are many nuances to the term and , yes, most of us accept and benefit from it in some form. Corporate welfare is a nuanced type of socialism.

DickD

It's Socialism because it's redistribution, not based on need; but greed. We know that the wealthy control wages and cannot pay a higher percentage of their income, under Trump that has happened.

awteam2000

“ special tax cuts to billionaires is socialism“ Wouldn’t that mean tax exemptions for the most rich, the ones most benefiting from our economic structure, not paying taxes?

Companies that paid ‘No’ taxes in 2019 include Netflix and Amazon who paid no federal taxes. Other companies on this list include Chevron, Delta Airlines, Eli Lilly, General Motors, Gannett, Goodyear Tire and Rubber, Halliburton, IBM, Jetblue Airways, Principal Financial, Salesforce.com, US Steel, and Whirlpool.

I think most reasonable citizens would consider that billionaires socialism. Don’t you?

gabrielshorn2013

Huh? No. You could then define the capitalistic concept of stock ownership as socialism. Are you equating the two? What you are accusing millionaires and billionaires of might be properly termed corporate welfare.

"Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management as well as the political theories and movements associated with them. Social ownership can be public, collective or cooperative ownership, or citizen ownership of equity."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Aw, As to all those companies you listed, what were the reasons that they paid no income taxes? Order a copy of their annual reports and look it up. It will all be there. Reinvestment is tax deductible. Donations to charities, employee training, and many others are all legally tax deductible. Do you not take all your tax deductions? I sure do. I personally advocate for a flat income tax for all. No deductions. Make less, pay less. Make more, pay more.

hayduke2

Sorry gabe but welfare is defined as "financial or other assistance to an individual or family from a city, state, or national government:" Does that not fit under the larger umbrella of socialism????

gabrielshorn2013

Hay, with the proposed definition of socialism so broad, are you arguing now that capitalism is really a subset of socialism? After all, even though shares are part ownership of a company (private ownership), they are sold to the public. Therefore the ownership of the means of production are truly public and not private?

hayduke2

No, I am simply pointing out that corporate welfare, grazing rights, subsidies to gas/oil, etc. are forms of socialism, not much different from the traditional criticism of welfare programs designed for those with economic handicaps. People, particularly those who hate "handouts" of any kind, overlook that..

shiftless88

JSK; does it strike you as just a tad bit dishonest to dismiss scientists and their work just because you (who are not an expert in this area at all) do not want their conclusions to be true?

jsklinelga

Shiftless88

First. Some scientist. Many variables exist. My main point was if it was such an urgency it is certainly not being addressed in that fashion. Please answer why.

This is not new. Man's impact on the environment has been an issue my whole adult life. I worked as an engineer for Bechtel on two multi=million dollar industrial projects where air scrubber systems were installed. I studied solar energy systems and techniques in college 45 years ago. I helped work on my first residential geo-thermal heat system 40 years ago. Most projects I designed I utilized passive solar.

But also, importantly, I have seen many situations where the theories and cost outlays were ineffective The Alaska pipeline spent ridiculous sums of money on wasteful environmental concerns.. The LEED program based on years of sophisticated research and high altruistic intentions cost our local school system excessive overruns on local projects. And anyone with an objective, technical perspective knew the handwriting on the wall. "The USGBC admits that "current information indicates that most buildings do not perform as well as design metrics indicate. As a result, building owners might not obtain the benefits promised."

In the end I have faith in practical science an innovation. Not theoretical science campaigns used as political tools.

shiftless88

You are conflating two issues. The first, which is clear, is that global warming is happening and is being heavily influenced by mankind and our releases of CO2 (primarily). That is a scientific claim that is well supported by existing science. Yes, there are some scientists (most of them not experts, but generic "scientists" that dispute the science, but there are also medical doctors who don't believe in chemotherapy and so forth. They are generally called "quacks". The second issue is "what can or should be done in response to the science" and that is where politics and economics comes into play. Maybe you think it is not economically feasible to make the changes required and that is certainly a valid position. But do not conflate the science with the politics.

hayduke2

I suspect it isn't being addressed as such a crisis because of a concerted effort by lobbyist and the propganda arm of the fossil fuel industries, just as the concerns about tobacco was downplayed for such a long time. The current administration, by removing science from many sites and deregulating to allow verified pollution and toxic emmissions, is also contributing to the issue. See https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks.html

jsklinelga

shiftless88

I am not conflating the issue. If the Council members were absolutely convinced that the science was correct they would not be holding study groups. Not to be impolite I think maybe you should research the issue more. Just the other day I talked with someone who has been deeply involved in this issue for years. Actually he runs a national Green Energy program plus a start up Disaster program. He referred to sunspots as the possible cause for warming. Many theories exist from many disciplines..

shiftless88

jsk; I have many friends and colleagues who have PhDs in atmospheric science and related areas of study who have been studying these phenomena for decades. If your buddy thinks sun spots are the driver then that person needs to do some reading themselves. There is not a lot of discussion around the reasons for climate change, though there are few loud voices trying to pretend like there is.

BunnyLou

I agree with you, but will wait for the inevitable s$&@ storm that will ensue once the rabid ‘warmists’ wake up. Beautiful!

hayduke2

Thanks Bugs...

DickD

Bugs, Bunny's first name. [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.