Earth isn't flat

Energy challenges are real -- but the solution lies in moderation

  • Follow Editorials

The most intemperate part of the global warming debate may be President Obama’s own rhetoric.

In announcing new executive-order restrictions on carbon emissions recently, the president ridiculed opponents in unbecomingly dismissive and condescending terms.

“I don’t have much patience for anyone who denies that this challenge is real,” he said. “We don’t have time for a meeting of the Flat Earth Society.”

But there’s apparently plenty of time to mock opponents, after nearly five years of inaction on the topic. Suddenly, we’re out of time to debate it, and if you don’t agree with him, you’re stupid anyway.

This is not the sort of rhetoric one normally would expect or want from a president of the United States.

That’s sad, particularly since there are many undecided and skeptical observers who might otherwise be persuaded one way or another by a more erudite – or just less disdainful – argument.

Many of those who remain skeptical – either of global warming or man’s role in it – are nonetheless willing to take reasonable steps to reduce pollution just in case the dire predictions ring true. The worst that happens under that scenario is that we clean up the planet a little.

Instead, there’s no room for disagreement, and those who seek moderation think the Earth is flat.

Syndicated columnist and apparent flat-Earther Charles Krauthammer said in response in that global temperatures have been flat for the past 16 years; the U.S. has reduced carbon dioxide emissions to 1992 levels, more than any other nation since 2006; and whatever we do, China and India alone continue to flip the switch on one new coal plant a week.

“Even if you believe in global warming,” Krauthammer said, “this is going to have zero effect on the climate.”

We wish it were going to have zero effect on the economy, but it’s likely to increase unemployment, cripple the nation’s coal industry and, as Krauthammer puts it, basically ship the industry overseas.

All through executive action – without the lift of a finger by Congress.

We do appreciate the president’s intentions. We all want a cleaner planet. No one wants that more than our kids; the nation’s young are especially supportive of the president’s plans.

Ironically, of course, no generation in history has used more electricity. And electricity has made their generation the most comfortable, wall-to-wall entertained generation in history as well.

But it has to come from somewhere. And while renewables are exciting and need to be brought online as quickly as possible, no one in any sector of the energy business believes they are anywhere close to fueling the bulk of our energy needs yet.

Mr. Obama’s actions are being called a “war on coal” – not just by Republicans, but by Democrats and – unbelievably – by the president’s own science adviser.

“It’s clear now that the president has declared a war on coal,” said Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va.

“The one thing the president really needs to do now is to begin the process of shutting down the conventional coal plants,” Obama science adviser Daniel P. Schrag was briefly quoted in the New York Times. “Politically, the White House is hesitant to say they’re having a war on coal. On the other hand, a war on coal is exactly what’s needed.”

By all means, let’s unilaterally disarm in the Energy Race and leave the future to the Chinas and Russias of the world. How would our children like that?

We happen to think a more productive and less punitive course of action, rather than trying to regulate coal out of existence, would be for the federal government to incentivize and cheerlead and accelerate the development of alternative and renewable energy sources while not hindering production of existing sources of mass energy.

That’s not saying the Earth is flat. It’s merely saying there are different approaches to a problem.

Comments (47) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
Bizkit
30803
Points
Bizkit 07/15/13 - 09:21 am
3
0
I was just reading an article

I was just reading an article how evolutionary biologist predict humans will lose their lips and likely grow beaks. Now there is a scientific prediction-should we act on it too. I remember scientist predicted that fire ants would have a limited range only in the South and would likely die out-oops wrong again. Science is a process and historically this process has had a lot of wrong ideas, diversions, then finally a break through-there is no linear growth (we've had Dark ages) and if it wasn't mostly wrong we would have made it to this point in technology thousands of years ago. We have spent billions on cancer research over the decades and that science has changed so much my head spins yet no magic bullet or cures. I am a scientist by trade and I am always shocked how much "belief" and "hope" people have in other people called scientist-reminds me of folks and their pastors. I have a lot of publications in my research that I provide evidence to support a hypothesis. Now all the data paints a pretty convincing picture that my findings are accurate-but you would be hard pressed to find any scientist who would say I am absolutely correct and it is a fact . That bar is unbelievably high for any science but especially for climate science where you have no controls nor means to manipulate the system.

RMSHEFF
15864
Points
RMSHEFF 07/15/13 - 09:22 am
5
1
RIVERMAN

Good point....a consensus of scientist told us the earth was flat. Truth is not found in a consensus.

seenitB4
85748
Points
seenitB4 07/15/13 - 09:36 am
3
1
A beak huh,,hah

Also that the boobs would fall off because we don't use them for nursing like we should,...soon men & women will have the same look.
Heaven help us.. LOL

Bizkit
30803
Points
Bizkit 07/15/13 - 09:43 am
5
0
Who said scientist are always

Who said scientist are always objective and unbiased? It is difficult to study something you can hold in your hand and then manipulate with the scientific method to gain information. There are no controlled studies in real climate conditions and given the liberal penchant of most scientist you have to wonder if their ideology isn't in the way. Now personally I believe the science that monitors global temperatures yet I do think it is debatable whether it is man-made or not. I would posit we do know that the earth has been frozen and then periods of global warming long before man's presence so "How do we know this just isn't a natural cycle rather than a precipitated event?" Scientist who study volcanoes can't predict when they will blow.

Bizkit
30803
Points
Bizkit 07/15/13 - 10:15 am
4
0
Eureka!!! I've got the

Eureka!!! I've got the answer. Everybody on the planet needs to hold their breath to reduce carbon dioxide emissions-oh and no flatulence either. We should reduce our carbon footprint in no time.

nofanofobama
6809
Points
nofanofobama 07/15/13 - 10:53 am
4
2
typical--the lefts experts

typical--the lefts experts are always right ...even though data was admittly skewed to produce the desired result...definition **an expert is a trained person in a particular field whom happens to agree with you...weather patterns have been changing for as long as the earth has been formed...why dont we look at sun spots as a major contributor to global weather change?...why is Greenland called Greenland?..why do we find signficant oil reserves in the artic?...what caused the ice age to melt? for all you who think science is precise its not..so dont act like its gospel .science is and will be skewed by money..so now we can all drink the obumler [...for now on, the white obumler..] koolaide ..kill current technology and our economy at the alter of the sun and wind god...great..white obumler sure love the middle and lower class with his higher energy costs..

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 07/15/13 - 11:28 am
4
2
I guess those rovers we sent
Unpublished

I guess those rovers we sent to Mars are melting the ice caps there.

Bizkit
30803
Points
Bizkit 07/15/13 - 11:35 am
4
0
If the premise is it is

If the premise is it is "Man-made Global Warming" then the only logical alternative is to eliminate man or at least eliminate industry and technology. So we need to turn back the clock about 200 years and everyone agrees to go back to that period of time before the industrial and technological revolutions. I don't see that happening. Right now China then the US have the largest carbon footprint and presently we are using 1.5 worth of the planet's natural resources-by 2030 we will be using two planets worth of natural resources. That isn't sustainable. The problem is humans and the world population of humans needs to be cut by a third or half. Now nature usually takes care of that with war, disease, and famines. So I predict all three will increase-now that is a prediction you can bank on. Sadly we spend an inordinate amount of time trying to end war, disease, and famine which help regulate the planets population-so we are going against Nature and science and it is anti-evolution. Twisted ain't it.

Bizkit
30803
Points
Bizkit 07/15/13 - 11:48 am
4
1
China, US, and Russia are big

China, US, and Russia are big players and contributors in this game so if all the rest of nations united to destroy the population of all three well then Global warming wouldn't be an issue for the planet for another 100 years. Gosh I hope I don't give anybody any ideas. Perhaps Obama should play his acquiescing game and offer to eliminate 200 million Americans to reduce our carbon footprint-he can use drones. Or we can unilaterally destroy all cars, industry, technology to go back and eliminate all the cause of global warming. Why play games where a company can still pollute by buying carbon credits-that doesn't do anything.

Bizkit
30803
Points
Bizkit 07/15/13 - 11:52 am
5
0
I don't see our government is

I don't see our government is really serious about this other than a political ploy. I have a friend who owns a huge swamp and he gets paid when people who want to destroy their wetlands for improvements by buying into his already existent swamp. What a game because there is still a net decrease in wetlands. I see the carbon credit game will be similar.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 07/15/13 - 11:59 am
5
2
Either Bod gave up the
Unpublished

Either Bod gave up the debate..........or his work schedule and posting style are exactly the same as Techfan's.

Bizkit
30803
Points
Bizkit 07/15/13 - 12:24 pm
4
7
Hey Humble, Is that your real

Hey Humble, Is that your real picture as your avatar for your moniker? If so you are a very attractive young lady and very well-reasoned. Not flirting but gosh you could easily make me wish I was back when I was a very attractive young man (I liked gals with looks and brains). Hey even Jesus was tempted. Ok this is even gettin' creepy to me. Sorry.

carcraft
25263
Points
carcraft 07/15/13 - 01:21 pm
1
1
Bizkit, I really do have a

Bizkit, I really do have a couple of questions. The Best study seems to indicate no warming in 16 years. Synopses of studies seem to infante CO2 lags temp increases. The current "models of climate change are at the low end of temperature increase and soon we will be off the scale indicating a " bust " for the current models.

afadel
474
Points
afadel 07/15/13 - 01:33 pm
2
2
Sam Collier of Climate Reality Project Comments

I heard Sam speak at an Augusta Sierra Club meeting in February 2013, and I sent him the editorial and asked him what he thought. This is an mp3 (audio) file.

https://app.box.com/s/zh29pga9k53l5ifl5jaz

Bizkit
30803
Points
Bizkit 07/15/13 - 01:36 pm
1
0
Car, I have a lot of

Car, I have a lot of questions too. I remember in the initial Wikipedia article Global Warming was defined as a finite warm period between so many years. Then it changed to this linear increase into infinity. I had problems in dealing with something I could hold in my hands (like a rat or mouse) in trying to understand phenomena -and with all the manipulation and data to provide evidence to support my observations or ideas it is just another piece of the puzzle. You don't "prove" things just provide evidence to support and this could go on 50 years and finally be disproven. Which I did publish a couple of papers which destroyed some popular notions and data that had lasted a couple of decades. Now after all my troubles in dealing with something I could manipulate and perform controlled studies I am really, really, really dubious of climate scientist and drawing conclusions on something they really can't manipulate, or control , nor have all the variables even been identified (too many variables). I would argue that climate science is in its infancy and it would be too premature to act on it.

Bizkit
30803
Points
Bizkit 07/15/13 - 01:49 pm
1
2
Sam is a front man for Al

Sam is a front man for Al Gore's Climate project and I can't find any publications that he is a climate scientist. So just another opinion or propaganda-take your pick. If the premise is it is man-made Global warming then the only answer is for mankind to "globally" respond. I noted he said all scientist believe it is man-made global warming which right off the bat is a falsehood according to Wikipedia, nor passes the logic test of why is there this debate then and some scientist publically disagree. Last I noticed the US hasn't joined the Kyoto protocol and tried an international effort.

Bizkit
30803
Points
Bizkit 07/15/13 - 01:54 pm
1
1
Ok where is the evidence that

Ok where is the evidence that US can regulate it's carbon footprint (from what I've seen it will be just like the wetlands ruse and people will still pollute-just pay for it) and that this alone will have a real impact on global warming. If there were no politicization of this issue that always muddies the waters then I would be more supportive. Pure science I can handle but politics I can't.

Bizkit
30803
Points
Bizkit 07/15/13 - 01:55 pm
3
1
Yeah I gave myself a thumbs

Yeah I gave myself a thumbs down for my comment to Angela. My Bad. No fool like an ole one.

carcraft
25263
Points
carcraft 07/15/13 - 02:01 pm
1
1
Bizkit, thanks, I have been

Bizkit, thanks, I have been skeptical ever since I read that the French Scientist Allgara (sp?) had recanted his previous position supporting man made global warming. A recent American Nobel laureate is also skeptical. Are these folks Flat Earthers ?

Bizkit
30803
Points
Bizkit 07/15/13 - 02:20 pm
2
0
Well scientist "believe" a

Well scientist "believe" a lot of things but that doesn't make it true. The consensus is homosexuality is genetic and biological yet with all the studies no can "prove with impunity" it is. The same for man-made Global warming-show us the studies that "prove with impunity" that their conjecture is a fact. You can't. The consensus was we are entering another mini-ice age like the one responsible for the Irish potato famine and migration to the US in the 70s. See the consensus can be wrong.

faithson
5145
Points
faithson 07/15/13 - 03:39 pm
2
3
common sense...

we can only poop in our own nest for so long before the natural consequences of 'we need proof' becomes our swan song. Acceptance that the continual pumping of co2 into our atmosphere WILL be a problem is pretty much all most are asking. From my vantage point, i see an energy industry that puts the 'money honey' before the good of humanity, kinda like those financial bundlers who sold 'dog---t' to investors and made a bundle of money, only to cause a meltdown that 'no one saw coming', oh yea, right. If one gets their jollies from following after the likes of Pat Robertson and his ilk of sceptisism, go for it... personally I kinda like the more mundane scientists who 'live' in the world of Science giving me advise. I must admit, some of the climate sceptics I have seen on the tube and internet 'look' pretty out there, with the attention they get I have a feeling a lot of ego may be involved with their conclusions, especially when they stand with the 8% who deny.

Bizkit
30803
Points
Bizkit 07/15/13 - 04:36 pm
2
0
Well before the last mini-Ice

Well before the last mini-Ice age the weather was much like it is now-wetter and warmer with tropical effects and more deserts (same predictions as global warming). This warming effect set the stage for disaster for Europe. Warmer weather allowed the population to bloom as did their food sources, however this also set the stage for disease too. But then came the mini-ice age which caused their major food source wheat to fail (remember ergotism) and forced them to change crops as the mini-ice proceeded-the Irish sadly picked one variety of potato that turned out to be sensitive to a protist. I have no doubt of the observation of global warming just all the conjecture of what is causing it and what to do about it-I'm skeptical. The consensus of the 70s maybe correct and all this warming is just before another mini-ice age. Now all the hoopla about carbon dioxide is just ridiculous anyways-it has been twenty times higher during other geologic periods and there is a carbon cycle that is integrally associated with all life, the seas, and peat bogs.
During the past geologic eras the carbon dioxide levels were much higher 20X and life continued to exist and the world didn't come to an end.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 07/15/13 - 04:33 pm
3
2
CO2 isn't "hoopla"....didn't
Unpublished

CO2 isn't "hoopla"....didn't you just read that "Acceptance that the continual pumping of co2 into our atmosphere WILL be a problem is pretty much all most are asking."

Didn't you know that if you state, firmly, that something is a fact, then it must be true.

carcraft
25263
Points
carcraft 07/15/13 - 06:23 pm
2
1
Faithson, I am not quite sure

Faithson, I am not quite sure your facts are correct on Scientists and global warming. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=forbes%20magazine%20and%20golbal%...

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 07/15/13 - 08:01 pm
2
1
Carcraft...but it was said
Unpublished

Carcraft...but it was said firmly with confidence....it must be true....verifiable facts don't matter, don't ya know?

carcraft
25263
Points
carcraft 07/15/13 - 08:19 pm
2
1
Angela, Allgera, French

Angela, Allgera, French scientist, member of the French Academy of Scientists, honorary member of American Academy of Scientists. Allgera did studies of atmosphere for the lunar program. Yes a real scientific light weight! O guess he must be a flat earther?

carcraft
25263
Points
carcraft 07/15/13 - 08:28 pm
2
1
Ivar Giaever Nobel prize in

Ivar Giaever Nobel prize in physics, another flat earther Obama is to arrogant to discuss global warming with!

carcraft
25263
Points
carcraft 07/15/13 - 08:32 pm
2
1
Yes if you are a liberal your

Yes if you are a liberal your heart is pure, facts don't matter, it is the sincerity of what you believe that matter!

corgimom
31471
Points
corgimom 07/15/13 - 08:44 pm
1
0
"Energy challenges are real

"Energy challenges are real -- but the solution lies in moderation"

Like spending $21,000 per month in taxpayer dollars for electricity to heat and cool a huge building that is almost never used

(Think TEE Center)

carcraft
25263
Points
carcraft 07/15/13 - 09:04 pm
1
1
Or spending several billion

Or spending several billion on "green energy "BS like Fisker motors and solendra!

Back to Top

Search Augusta jobs