The Insurance Tech Guru

So I called your bluff and actually read the article you referred to in the Eastern AZ Courier. And then I read the reader's comments that followed.

First, here is an example of The AZ Courier author's viewpoints in his last statement in this article:
"Many worry about our environment. I don’t because God created this world and everything in it. And God, not man, will take care of this world. Man is too greedy. We have on our money “In God we trust,” and that’s how our country was founded. So don’t worry; be happy and trust God, not liberalism."

Although I am a practicing Christian from a fairly conservative denomination, statements like that above not only are incredibly irresponsible, but also make me suspicious of the "facts" in the whole article. What's next? Go ahead and dump pollution in our rivers, lakes and oceans because God will clean it up?

Then I go on to read two readers' comments about the original sources of the information that were used to present the author's viewpoint about how Antartica is getting colder. Here is one:
" Lorren,[author] it seems to me that you just ripped off your entire letter from an extremely conservative Web site called "Liberty News Service." Much of your letter appears to be simply copied from its outrageous "articles." By the way, that Web site got the story from the "Christian Science Monitor" a very, very conservative publication. These extreme right-wing publications' fabricated stories should not be re-printed. By the way, Dr. Peter Dorman who you and both articles cite, is an assistant professor of Egyptology. How does that relate to Global Warming? It doesn't of course. "

So now we have this blog that continues to present this information as "facts" which ulitimately cite a professor of Egyptology as the source.
Enough said.

Ara,

You are spot on--cetitude on the subject of long-term weather forecasts is a sure sign of a dog in the fight. Whether it's selling carbon offsets or grabbing government grant money, there are no scientifically pure motives in play.

We--that is the inhabitants of the globe--need a time out from all this nonsense.

Charles

So let's see. Information from a conservative source is not reliable, and info from more liberal outlets is? I didn't know it had come to that.

But let's just stick to the facts. The cooling of Antarctica in recent years is a fact that is reported in many other places, such as the Web site of NOAA (in its summary of global warming facts). I reported on this on this blog in the past.

The really troublesome aspect of all this, however, is how political it has become. Suddenly, we have a vast, right-wing religious conspiracy going on when any expert on the left is challenged. That's a shame, but it will probably go on as long as shameless individuals try to profit from the public's fears.

Mr Trembly, you're missing the point. The point is not that the sources are conservative in slant, but that the sources of the information appear to be faulty. How much creedance can you give information supplied by professors of Egyptology, if in fact that's where it came from?

And who says that only the global warming proponents have something to gain here? Don't the proponents of the status quo --big oil, the auto companies etc. see their future at stake when they see encouragement to wean ourselves away from their products?

Usually the correct answers to these questions lie somewhere between Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore. NOAA may be one objective source (or it may not be considering the general viewpoint of this current administration). I suggest looking at the preponderance of the overall evidence and using real objective experts, not professors of Egyptology, to come to the correct conclusions.

It may be correct that global warming is not happening. But can we afford to gamble on that viewpoint?

It is enjoyable to poke fun at the doomsayers, especially when the science they use to pronounce our doom is so incomplete, and at least partially contradictory.

But while parts of Antarctica have been reported to be cooling, other parts are evidently warming, or else Antarctic ice shelves the size of small New England states wouldn't have dropped into the sea in the past couple of years.

And there seems little doubt that the Arctic has warmed considerably, and that explorers' dreams of a Northwest Passage may soon be fulfilled. Politicos and oil companies of the world are busy asserting their rights to Arctic areas they expect to be accessible soon.

While the science isn't definitive, the preponderence of evidence still seems to point to global warming. But perhaps rising energy prices have made the scientific arguments moot. We need to run our cars, houses, and businesses more efficiently or else rising energy prices will bankrupt us.

Greater energy efficiency will lead to lower costs, less pollution, and fewer carbon emissions. Talk about your win-win!

Ara,

First and foremost, the "article" you cite is NOT an article--it's a letter to the editor. When you say "article", I (and I think others would agree) imply that it's written by a reporter who investigated and sourced the material for their article rather than the ramblings of a random subscriber (none of which is sourced). I appreciate that you try to bring differing viewpoints, but I must say this post smacks of desperation. Wow. The Eastern Arizona Courier. Not to say the NYT or WSJ are "better" than the EAC, but with a paid circulation of 6227 (as of Sept 2007), and one full-time reporter, these guys just don't have the resources to appropriately address the topic of Global Warming.

I believe in the Global Warming effect; however, being an engineer, I am always looking for new data to either buttress or refute my position. I'll echo the comments of David above that the Ostrich Approach is unacceptable. Just let god handle it--wow. I am at a loss for words. How irresponsible. I believe it's that mentality (god is great and all-powerful and man is weak and insignificant with power over nothing) that is a driver of current global warming deniers. Believe it or not, man is extremely powerful and has the technology and power to change the earth in a multitude of ways.

I take offense at your stereotyping. Just because someone decides that Global Warming is a real issue, they are automatically cast as left (not that there is anything wrong with left/liberal, but coming from a hardcore conservative it's meant as an insult) and not sticking to the facts. Regarding sticking to the facts, you failed to link to the NOAA report(s) that you say proves your point. A cursory examination of the NOAA website revealed no report stating emphatically that Antarctica is cooling.

You failed to mention that the "article" you quote is actually a letter to the editor in the Eastern AZ Courier. And if you look at the website, you'll see it prompted MANY replies on both sides of the global warming divide-- none of which you cite. So, you get a C- on your journalistic skills. Even bloggers should be held to a minimal standard of competence. You also mischaracterize the scientific debate, as many experts have explained that climate change is a complex phenomenon. Meanwhile, it's already in the 80's in Houston and Phoenix with a brutal summer forecasted. Stop abusing your power of the pen and write something useful and intelligent.

Beth is correct in saying that I did not post all the responses and links to the cited piece, and I won't do that here. Readers can investigate to their hearts' content, however, just as Beth did. Interesting to receive a journalism grade, but keep in mind that what we are doing here is not journalism, it is Internet self-publishing of opinions. As for mischaracterizing the scientific debate, I have indeed represented its full spectrum in other pieces on this blog, which, again, you are all free to search out. Now excuse me while I try to find something intelligent to write about... ;-)

Ah, Joey Hales returns. I couldn't publish all of his response, although I would argue with the idea that he is "at a loss for words." Just so you know, ladies and gentlemen, when you quote other sources and post that to my blog, I have two choices: 1. check out your quote to make sure it is accurate, or 2. don't use it. I often choose number 2, because I just don't have time to check out everyone's quotes.

Yes, indeed, folks, the piece referenced was mistakenly identified by me as an article. Nonetheless, the info on Antarctica cooling is contained on the NOAA site, as a more close examination would reveal. In fact, I cited this same information last year and did not get an argument from anyone, including Mr. Hales.

Great stuff here, folks. A note to David. I am not saying that global warming is or is not happening. We'll only know that once the next 100 years roll by. What I am saying is that trying to predict the weather for the next 100 years is absurd, when meteorologists have a hard time being accurate for the next week. I remain skeptical of any enterprise that seeks to profit off of a projected future for which the evidence consists primarily of computer models that are based on human projections of what will happen.

Ara,

I didn't think you'd remember me! ;-)

I would like to add to my previous comment for viewers of your site to check out the work of Dr Peter Doran of The University of Illinois--Champaign-Urbana, who originally wrote the article that posited Antarctica (parts of it) was cooling as well as his follow up op-ed in the NY Times.

Oh, and I couldn't agree with you more on the poor performance of our weathermen/weatherwomen.

You're absolutely right, it is seldom that I find myself at a loss for words. ;-)

Thanks again for the lively discussion.