facebooktwitterRSS
- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up

- Advertisement -
 

« News Home

Editorial cartoon aside, we must take global warming seriously



Published: Sun, February 2, 2014 @ 12:00 a.m.

Editorial cartoon aside, we must take global warming seriously

The Jan. 28 editorial cartoon in The Vindicator repeated the theme of a drawing featured about a week ago, namely that reputable scientists who describe the causes (human) and effects (preventable) of global warming are crackpots. Though I’m all for poking fun at self-important know-it-alls who rattle on and on about their speculations, what you and I are doing to damage the planet for future generations is not funny.

The fact — no, not anyone’s opinion — that the continued use of fossil fuels as our primary energy source is affecting the weather worldwide can no longer be ignored.

The recent numbing cold makes it easy to joke about this important subject. Instead of making light of something so serious, why not begin learning some basics about carbon-dioxide buildup over the past century? And while we’re at it, we could look into what it would take to develop renewable and sustainable energy sources or at least make more of an effort to conserve.

Such steps can have a positive impact not only on the environment but the economy as well. Super storms and other weather extremes are becoming more frequent because of our choices, and that is certainly no laughing matter.

John Polanski, Mineral Ridge

A fair proposal on calamity days

I would like to offer some sug- gestions on how school districts can better handle the inevitable need to use calamity days. First, stipulate in contract negotiations that calamity days are inevitable. Next, lay out a school year that is five days longer than the customary 180-day schedule currently used by most districts. Once agreed upon, begin the school year a week earlier than usual.

During the school year, use the current system to cancel school or implement a later start time in response to weather conditions. Keep track of the number of hours missed.

After winter, do the math and adjust the last day of school. If the winter was mild, end the school year a couple of days early. In this manner, children get the benefit of having more instructional days, and taxpayers get the benefit of having their tax dollars used for instruction rather than additional paid time off for employees.

Rich Ferenchak, North Lima

Fee increase for dog license unfair

The Mahoning County com- missioners have stooped to a new low to raise funds for the county. With all of the talk of the now-canceled 3 percent raise for the Board of Election employees, I can’t believe that no one has complained about the 33 percent increase in the dog license.

The Mahoning County commissioners approved an increase of $15 to $20 for a dog license. This is like a tax on dog lovers.

What about cats? Plus, I’ll bet only half of the dogs in Mahoning County and one-quarter of the dogs in Youngstown have a license. Why don’t they go after those people and not the ones who buy a license?

Stan Rydarowicz, Youngstown

49-cent stamp is a true bargain

Personally, I have no com- plaints about the rate increase to 49 cents per stamp. What can you buy for 49 cents these days?

But that 49-cent stamp can bring me a beloved greeting from a friend. It can also allow me to send greetings or cards to those who are shut-ins or ill or just could use an uplift. The 49-cent stamp on my card accomplishes that.

I am really puzzled to know why people are so eager to pay bills online and extend the opportunity for hackers to access their accounts.

I don’t want to lose mail delivery, and the more people choose to do online banking and bill paying, the greater that risk becomes. We have a lot of people working in the postal system who would lose their jobs.

By the way, I do not work or have anyone I know in the postal system. Just consider, please, where that 49-cent stamp can take your mail.

Georgie Arkwright, Youngstown


Comments

1evio(43 comments)posted 8 months, 3 weeks ago

@John,
Right on, John. What we are doing to the planet is no joke.
Too bad that some people can't see beyond the immediate forecast.

Suggest removal:

2NoBS(1959 comments)posted 8 months, 3 weeks ago

What about the Ice Ages, and the warming that followed them, loooooong before man was even upon this planet? Who caused them?

Suggest removal:

3Jerry(500 comments)posted 8 months, 3 weeks ago

@John,

In the 1970's it was "global cooling" and a dawning ice-age; and the wind chill index became popular in weather reporting, making the reported temperatures sound colder.

In the 1990's it was "global warming" (due to fossil fuels); and the heat index became a popular part of weather reporting, making the reported temperatures sound hotter.

As we moved into the 21st century "global warming" stopped working, so now it's "climate change".

If it's hot, it's due to carbon.
If it's cold, it's due to carbon.
If it snows, it's due to carbon.
If it doesn't snow, it's due to carbon
If it's wet, it's due to carbon
If it's dry, it's due to carbon.

We are chastised that "weather" patterns are not an indication of "climate" changes, and told anyone who suggests otherwise is ignorant...........unless and until the weather patterns or events can be used to promote the religious fervor of the anthropogenic climate change faithful, then their all over it.

Climate change theology has itself situated pretty well, doesn't it??

John, you and I agree that there is no doubt we in the USA need to alter our energy strategy. The question of how we will change it, however, needs to be determined by scientific evaluation of fact and logical analysis of performance and economics; not by emotion and political considerations..........and emotional extremism and the grasp for political power is all I see coming out of the AGW crowd.

Suggest removal:

4redeye1(4560 comments)posted 8 months, 3 weeks ago

John Could you please explain how a ship goes to check on the shrinking ice floes. It then gets stuck in the ice that formed very quickly around it. I'm sorry But I feel it just another phase that the world go through. The ice age only took three days to happen That's right just three days.

Suggest removal:

5Jerryl(105 comments)posted 8 months, 3 weeks ago

Global cooling was a CONJECTURE during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere culminating in a period of extensive glaciation. This hypothesis had LITTLE support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the full scope of the scientific climate literature, i.e., a larger and faster-growing body of literature projecting future warming due to greenhouse gas emissions. The current scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth HAS NOT durably cooled, but undergone global warming throughout the 20th century.

evio: Do you have irrefutable scientific evidence that the ice caps are getting thicker or that the polar bear population is increasing, or is this just another conspiracy theory?

Suggest removal:

6KSUgrad(144 comments)posted 8 months, 3 weeks ago

@evio,

Why do you find it necessary to begin your discussion with John by insulting him?

Saying " As hard as this will be for you to do", is not a very respectful way of starting a discussion, it suggests John is intellectually disabled.

Suggest removal:

7HappyBob(285 comments)posted 8 months, 3 weeks ago

Arctic sea ice extent for December 2013 was 12.38 million square kilometers (4.78 million square miles). This is 700,000 square kilometers or 270,300 square miles BELOW the 1981 to 2010 average, making it the 4th lowest December extent in the 36-year satellite data record. Arctic sea ice expanded in December by 1.85 million square kilometers (714,000 square miles), slightly LESS than average, with some periods of very slow growth and even retreat as storms briefly pushed the sea ice edge northward.
- NASA.gov

Suggest removal:

8walter_sobchak(1922 comments)posted 8 months, 3 weeks ago

The one thing that is certain about the climate is that it is always changing. However, anthropogenic global warming is a hoax, perpetrated by scientists looking for research money and poorer countries trying to shake us down like Jessie Jackson. Mankind is so arrogant. If humans were indeed causing global warming, then we would also be able to stop global swarming and reverse it.

Suggest removal:

9Jerryl(105 comments)posted 8 months, 3 weeks ago

Eivo,
You may dispute the cause of global warming, but indicators are measurable. Satellite observation of artic ice pack are very clear, the annual ice pack is diminishing.
Instead of relying on the MSM, check out the NASA Earth observatory.
As far as polar bear populations, all the estimates are based on guesswork.

Suggest removal:

10evio(43 comments)posted 8 months, 3 weeks ago

Denver is winning the Super Bowl and global warming is a hoax..... Beliieve me, 'cuz I know it all!

Suggest removal:

11HappyBob(285 comments)posted 8 months, 3 weeks ago

Walter,
The same argument was used against Galileo (hoax, conspiracy, greed).
How did that work out?

Suggest removal:

12HappyBob(285 comments)posted 8 months, 3 weeks ago

@evio,

Why do you find it necessary to begin your discussion with John by insulting him?

Saying " As hard as this will be for you to do", is not a very respectful way of starting a discussion, it suggests John is intellectually disabled.

still waiting your response........

Suggest removal:

13HappyBob(285 comments)posted 8 months, 3 weeks ago

Eivo, Fails to explain why you are rude and disrespectful to John.

Suggest removal:

14HappyBob(285 comments)posted 8 months, 3 weeks ago

eivo,
You explained nothing to excuse your rudeness and disrespect towards John Polanski.

He gave his opinion, made no reference to you or your comments and you immediately responded with a personal attack on him.

A respectful person would have stated his disagreement and the reasons for that disagreement and not launched into implying that John may not be capable of understanding.

You have explained nothing as to why you took to disparaging the letter writer.

And now you are telling me that "I already explained it", and suggesting that I'm incapable of understanding.

Suggest removal:

15Jerryl(105 comments)posted 8 months, 3 weeks ago

eivo,
You stated that: " anonymously released to the public YESTERDAY" (my emphasis).

A honest person would have said released in 2011, not yesterday.

An honest person would give HappyBob an honest answer, not a dodge.

Suggest removal:

16HappyBob(285 comments)posted 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Eivo,
You said, "As hard as this will be for you to do'".

The implication is clear, that you imagine that John will have great difficulty in understanding a different point of view.

This was your first ten words in commentary on John's letter. He wrote nothing about you, he did not disrespect you, he did not attack you. So why are you disparaging his ability to see another point of view?

The point is, why begin the discussion with a characterization of John's ability?

Respectfully, I disagree with your statement that there is "no way to post and not offend". You can post without the unnecessary and provocative personal characterizations.

Suggest removal:

17SheDevil(120 comments)posted 8 months, 2 weeks ago

happy,
Explanation: bully tactics

impune, disparage and intimidate

Suggest removal:

18GoPens(397 comments)posted 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Wow eivo you've really been busy cutting and pasting on this letter.

Suggest removal:

19Jerryl(105 comments)posted 8 months, 2 weeks ago

eivo,

Are you being honest when said that 'letters released yesterday', when it turns out that the actual release occured in 2011?

As far as your implications about the original letter writer - I agree with Bob, it's clear. That you don't recognize your propensity or inclination to demean others is really your problem.

Suggest removal:

20Elf2(75 comments)posted 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Jerry, Jerry, Jerry.....

Are you kidding about his honesty?

Part of the issue is that some folks think that the globe consists of only the US (to some global means Mahoning county).

Read the following:"While the US is stricken by freezing cold, Australia is suffering a record heat with temperatures approaching 50C (122F) in some parts of the country and leaving thousands of animals dead.

A wave of stifling heat started began around Christmas and continues to move counterclockwise across Australia's north and into the south. The latest scorcher comes on the heel of Australia’s hottest year on record."

Just because it's cold in Atlanta, doesn't mean that the earth is not warming.

Suggest removal:

21KSUgrad(144 comments)posted 8 months, 2 weeks ago

@Jerry,
Right on all counts (# 27).
Unfortunate that many people can't see beyond their own area and what Fox News tells them.

Suggest removal:

22dontbeafool(946 comments)posted 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Global warming or not, who knows for sure. But I don't think that anyone will dispute that many of these pollutants, toxins, and emmissions can't be good for the environment or the health of humans. Look at China during the last Olympics. People were wearing masks because they couldn't breathe from all of the pollutants. Oil leaks in the Gulf, chemical spills in WVA waters.... NOT GOOD. I'm not an irrational tree hugger, but you don't have to be a genius to know that these things can't be good for the environment. I'm not sold on global warming, but it isn't because we are having a bad winter.

Suggest removal:

23SheDevil(120 comments)posted 8 months, 2 weeks ago

eivo's view on world climate : 'I just have to look out my window'.

97% of the scientists that study the entirety of the earth's climate agree - but eivo knows better because he's looking at his front lawn.

Suggest removal:

24HonestAbe(274 comments)posted 8 months, 2 weeks ago

evio,

Regarding the Climategate2 emails :
Today's leak (28 November 2011 ) may also be timed to disrupt the next session of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change next week in South Africa.
The new email leak is accompanied by a text file which appears to protest against the huge expense of anti-warming technologies - highlighting deaths from poverty against the $36 billion expense of 'green' energy

The emails have been released in the form of quotes carefully 'chosen' to show bias, or that scientists were pursuing a particular agenda in their research.

The unnamed individuals who released them chose the 5,000 emails from keyword searches, saying, 'We could not read every one, but tried to cover the most relevant topics.'

"None of the material appears to be new, either: it seems to date from the first release in 2009.

It also occurs against a rather different scientific background, after the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature review of climate-science data by prominent climate sceptic Richard Muller, which analysed 1.6 billion temperature records, and concluded that global warming was a genuine effect.

It is still unclear what effect - or combination of effects - is causing the current warming of the atmosphere, which has risen around one temperature in the past 50 years."

Thank you for pointing out the Organization Studies report. It is a very interesting read as it is a study of the differences between Scientists and Engineers who are associated with different sides of the issues as provided in the abstractive description: "we contribute to the understanding of ‘defensive institutional work’ by professionals within petroleum companies, related industries, government regulators, and their professional association. "

According to the Organization Studie article in Forbes (Which believes that Global Warming is good for crop production) that is about a year old, of the 64% that are listed as "Skeptical" of man-caused climate change only 24% fully believe that Man has nothing to do with the cause. You may actually want to read the paper rather than the spin.

Suggest removal:

25KSUgrad(144 comments)posted 8 months, 2 weeks ago

@evio,

You should have read the OS report itself, rather than the Forbes spin on it.

There doesn't seem to be any significant dispute about the warming of the earth's atmosphere.

What is being debated is what has caused the observed warming.

You are dead wrong about the facts of global warming.

Man made pollution MAY contribute to global warming, or it may not. But even if it doesn't, should man just continue to pollute?

Suggest removal:

26stateline(73 comments)posted 8 months, 1 week ago

Its entertaining seeing people pretend to be scientists.

A large part of the overall budget the government and environmental group have goes towards propaganda instead of actual research. If man made global warming didn't exist these people would lose their jobs. So of course their findings are gonna be biased. There are many climatologist out there that that agree climate change exists and but its a natural change that occurs not influenced by man. If the US was 100% carbon-based energy free, it wouldn't be that effective since China, India and the rest of the world would still be contributing

Suggest removal:


News
Opinion
Entertainment
Sports
Marketplace
Classifieds
Records
Discussions
Community
Help
Forms
Neighbors

HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2014 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes | Pittsburgh International Airport