A Comment

I got a comment on a post I had done 3 October. I actually had to search for the post the guy was talking about. Criminy, that was a whole 15 days ago. It turns out it was from the guy who's letter I was siting, with a response or two or three from other sources. It was a very long comment, so I'm going to give him his own post, right here, right now. In reference to my post I'M MELLLLLTING!, Ryan Simatic, of Madison, sent me this:

The author of this blog uses two articles published by right-wing think tanks to disprove the evidence of global warming. Hardly what I would call credible evidence. Contrast to the list of groups who assert that humans have influenced the increased rate of climate change: the National Acadaemy of Science, the American Meteorological Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Scientists at NASA. One could go on, but I'll sum it here: these are repsected scientific instiutions that along with universities provide the most reliable evidence to climate change, which would mean they publish a lot of reports. According to the journal Science: "The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9). The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position." There are availible solutions to climate change, which will effect the world of environmentalists and non-environmentalists alike. It's time you pulled your head out of the sand and joined conservatives and liberals alike in forming solutions.

Mr. Simatic, I'm no expert, but I have lived long enough to be aware of the consequences of our actions. Is the air as clean as it was when I was a kid? No, it's not, however it's not as dirty as it was during the Industrial Revolution either. The air quality has actually improved in many areas, compared to what it was 30 or 40 years ago. Many "science" magazines have their own agenda, pro and con, which, for the most part, I take with a grain of salt. Are we suppose to stop driving cars? What's the alternative, horses? Think methane. Ride bicycles? Well, that might be a good idea if you live in a temperate climate, but Wisconsin is NOT a place I'd be riding a bike in January. Think how a bicycle is made... where does the frame come from, the tires? Walking is good, however the distance between where one works and lives has increased over the last 60 years. And I don't know about you, but walking to the grocery store in temperatures of 5 to 10 below zero is not wise. The environmental types want cleaner alternative fuels, but won't allow the building of nuclear reactors, which is a serious alternative. The Earth goes through cycles, our affect on it is minimal and it was going on long before we made an appearance. Let's face it, if there were no human beings on the entire planet, there would still be heating and cooling. We just aren't that important, and to believe that we have such a profound affect is blatantly arrogant. On a personal note, as "the author of this blog", I have never much cared for sand, so I do try to avoid having my head planted in it, or anywhere else, for that matter. :) I've also never claimed to be an expert on much of anything, although I'm pretty good at shopping.