Letter - Enough already with ‘climate change’ articles

Advertisement

Stop with the “climate change” nonsense unless you can present some facts that support those “man-made global warming” articles you keep printing.

A good example of what I mean appears in your July 25 paper: “Climate Change may reduce wheat, corn crops.”

In said article the author writes: “There is as much as 10 percent chance the rate of corn yield will slow and a five percent probability for wheat ...” and “Climate change has substantially increased the prospect that crop production will fail to keep up with rising demand in the next 20 years.”

What does all that mean? It is like your stock broker telling you that your stock may go up — or go down!

Further, when you research the issue of crop yield, you will find that global warming has had no effect whatsoever on crop yields here in the U.S., Canada or Mexico.

You will also find that crop yields,not only have increased here, but all over the world.

What makes this article even more ridiculous is found in the last paragraph of said article that states the United Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations predicts that yields for corn and wheat will further increase by some 13 percent per decade through 2030.

So what was the point of publishing said article?

Jerry Votendahl

Walla Walla

Comments

blueskies 3 months ago

What is the point in any forecasting? The police and military do it. Corporations and their accountants do it. Most responsible households do it. Even farmers do it. The DoD is planning in terms of Climate Change and so are coastal cities.

Not sure where you are getting your facts.

4

jubilado 3 months ago

As humorist John Oliver pointed out on his TV show, the subject is generally discussed on talk shows between a firm believer in the reality of climate change and someone who opposes this viewpoint. Viewers can be excused if it, therefore, looks like a 50-50 proposition. Oliver cleverly noted this is misleading and to illustrate the point brought in 97 pro climate change people to argue with 3 anti-climate change individuals. Virtually every climate scientist in the world (97%) believes climate change is real. The UB is not being truly impartial, or it wouldn't have printed your letter unless they had already printed 97 letters arguing the reality of climate change. Count your blessings.

6

GeneandCassie 3 months ago

Ah for the goode olde Ice Age days when the sea levels were 300 feet lower and the ice sheets were much deeper......

then came changes and the Missoula floods.......

Those were the days.....

1

Kevconpat 2 months, 4 weeks ago

I like your 'just enough' sarcastic thinking....you are, by the way- spot on!

1

dogman12 2 months, 4 weeks ago

The article in question was poorly edited to not make it clear that it was discussing a potential reduction in the rate of increase of yields. That is consistent with the letter writer's last complaint about the U.N.'s projection of a 13% increase. Yes, but that increase is threatened.

The letter writer can be forgiven for not understanding calculus, as it is not his field of expertise. (Biting my tongue on the snarky punch line.)

Perhaps climate change deniers can provide a ready market for sellers of coastal property.

0

downhillracer 2 months, 4 weeks ago

Enough already with the willful ignorance spouted by climate change deniers. Enough! This is thoroughly vetted science.

The US Department of Defense isn't waiting for the hand-wringing of the fools who want to cherry pick their data for their selfish, destructive paranoia: http://climateandsecurity.org/tag/department-of-defense/

3

namvet60 2 months, 3 weeks ago

Great links - Just speaks for the usual assets overshadow hypocrisy no matter how the assets are gained.

0

downhillracer 2 months, 3 weeks ago

Most people would actually read the entire article before commenting as not to look the complete fool.

0

namvet60 2 months, 3 weeks ago

Instead of wasting valuable oxygen maybe you should try to read and comprehend.

0

downhillracer 2 months, 3 weeks ago

Whoops, too late. We found our complete fool (see above).

0

GeneandCassie 2 months, 3 weeks ago

The group is also into Cattle Ranching; raising beef which can 'satisfy your conscience:'

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/26/AR2007062600989.html

But they are 'bolstering imperiled cattle ranches' while raising beef 'grown on lands of ecological significance,' which is good.....

It yust don't git no better Yogi......

0

downhillracer 2 months, 3 weeks ago

Weather and climate are obviously two separate things, but just in case you need reminding:

Weather is what the atmosphere does in the short-term, hour-to-hour, day-to-day. Weather is chaotic, which means that even a microscopic disturbance can lead to large scale changes. That's why those 10-day weather forecasts are useless ... Climate is the long-term average of the weather over a number of years. It's shaped by global forces that alter the energy balance in the atmosphere, such as changes in the sun, tilt of the Earth's axis, the amount of sunlight the Earth reflects back into space and the concentration of greenhouse gasses in the air.

It's also worth mentioning the 2nd law of thermodynamics is consistent with the greenhouse effect which is directly observed.

97%? That would be the approximate number of research-specific scientists that agree climate change is indeed heavily influenced by man.

1

namvet60 2 months, 3 weeks ago

Wow - downhillracer - San Francisco - You must be related to Nancy Pelosi. Same type of rhetoric comes spewing forth. Nonsense!

1

downhillracer 2 months, 3 weeks ago

I know - facts are scary to the woefully and intentionally uninformed. Hang in there, though. A double-digit IQ is a laudable goal for you.

2

GeneandCassie 2 months, 3 weeks ago

My vote says that "Can lead" does not necessarily equate to "Will lead" to something with respect to things climatic....

97% may say that man "heavily influences" things climatic; but then I ponder the power of the Sun and the power of natural events like Hurricane Katrina, Mt St Helens, or Mt Pinatubo; and I must respectfully question their conclusions on this.....

Perhaps man is akin to a flea on an elephant with respect to significance of size.....

0

namvet60 2 months, 3 weeks ago

Very good analogy. Another of Mother Nature's moves was how Sandy brutalized the East Coast.

0

NewInWW 2 months, 3 weeks ago

One of the predicted consequences of global warming is more and bigger storms, so using Sandy as evidence that global warming isn't occurring is sort of getting it backwards.

The "man is akin to a flea on an elephant" view is a fairly convenient way to avoid taking any personal responsibility, or making any personal sacrifice no matter how minor, because of what man is demonstrably doing to the earth. Oceanic "dead zones," islands of garbage in the seas, destruction of the rain forest and so on demonstrate that the "flea" is having a substantial effect on the "elephant. "

3

downhillracer 2 months, 3 weeks ago

And of the most significant concern is the recent discovery of methane gas releases in Siberia, and pools of methane beneath the ocean that may breach their historical holds.

Few here will be swayed by facts and science, their minds are made up. From the author of the letter on down, it's more akin to a meeting of the Flat Earth Society.

2

chicoli 2 months, 3 weeks ago

I guess we will be needing another head to plug that methane gas release in Siberia. Anyone with another patent for this one?

0

jesseela 2 months, 3 weeks ago

A study by NOAA researchers links climate change to Hurricane Sandy level inundation, and predict Sandy-level inundation events will occur more frequently. Using Sandy as evidence is laughable. http://www.ametsoc.org/2012extremeeventsclimate.pdf

How about wildfires? Climate change is leading to increased frequency of large severe fires, and will continue to do so into the future. http://www4.nau.edu/itep/climatechange/docs/om_WildfireFactSheet_081512.pdf

But downhillracer is right, it’s like trying to convince a meeting of the Flat Earth Society that the earth is round.

1

namvet60 2 months, 3 weeks ago

Do you people have a problem comprehending - I stated an event of Mother Nature's was Hurricane Sandy. I realize it's a little rough but try it sometime.

0

GeneandCassie 2 months, 3 weeks ago

Luckily I get my oil products from The Nature Conservancy's Texas well and buy only their Conservation Beef so shouldn't be adversely affecting the big events happening in Siberia.........

0

namvet60 2 months, 3 weeks ago

If you don't mind I will join you in the Conservancy's contribution to the Oil industry and the beef industry. I'm also inventing a filter plug for methane to be inserted in animals to contain the methane from putting more toxins in the air . . . . . . . . I'm just waiting on the patent now.

0

downhillracer 2 months, 3 weeks ago

No need for a new invention, it's quite clear your head would fit rather nicely.

0

namvet60 2 months, 3 weeks ago

Another brilliant ignorant opinion from the U-B troll!

0

downhillracer 2 months, 3 weeks ago

Not an opinion, merely well-documented fact. Others patients in the day room would like to use the computer is you're done.

0

GeneandCassie 2 months, 3 weeks ago

This item is a sentence from the Conclusions Chapter of the American Meteorological reference recently cited in a link at this site:

Similarly, while climate models may indicate a human effect is causing increases in the chances of having extremely high precipitation in a region (much like speeding increases the chances of having an accident), natural variability can still be the primary factor in any individual extreme event. The difficulty in determining the precise sensitivity of, according to our analogy, driving speed on risks of accidents in particular conditions (wet roads, texting drivers) can explain why somewhat different analyses of the same meteorological event can reach somewhat different conclusions about the extent to which human influence has altered the likelihood and magnitude of the event.

This item is from the Abstract from the same reference:

Approximately half the analyses found some evidence that anthropogenically caused climate change was a contributing factor to the extreme event examined, though the effects of natural fluctuations of weather and climate on the evolution of many of the extreme events played key roles as well.

I gather that there might be some lingering uncertainty with respect to 'natural' and 'anthropogenic' components of the equation.......

0

NewInWW 2 months, 3 weeks ago

As I read the language you've quoted, the uncertainty is the extent to which any individual weather event was caused, or exacerbated, by global warming. It does not, so far as I can tell, in any way undercut the conclusion that the overall trend is that the planet is getting warmer and that the warming is contributing to more frequent and more extreme.weather events.

0

GeneandCassie 2 months, 3 weeks ago

And I read from the statement quoted that 'natural variability' can be a 'primary factor' and that 'different analyses' of the 'same event' can arrive at 'somewhat different conclusions....'

0

NewInWW 2 months, 3 weeks ago

Well, sure, it can be read that way if you decide to ignore the part that says " can still be the primary factor in any individual extreme event."

0

kurtfr 2 months, 3 weeks ago

Scientific opinion on climate change is similar to the question on if smoking causes cancer. I for one don't believe cigarettes cause cancer and don't believe the nicotine is addictive. While the scientific opinion is overwhelming that tobacco causes cancer and is addictive, these videos clearly show that the science is unsettled. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6B1q22R438 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txYH8RCC-Qk. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NC4f_yfuR34.

0

Sign in to comment

Click here to sign in