Lynette Weaver: Green on hold?

Advertisement

What a lost opportunity. Our City Council still does not get the message. OK, so the "Green Team" didn't go through the right channels and didn't have the right timing, but the team sure made an impression/awareness on the rest of us residing in Steamboat Springs.

So many towns and cities are ramping up initiatives for their residents in promoting energy conservation. Every day, someone, everyone, is reading, hearing, conversing about the need to reduce energy consumption. This covers purchasing wind power, compact florescents, energy-saving appliances, improved heating, cooling, lighting systems, xeriscaping and transportation.

Now more than ever, our City Council and our county planners need to hustle on implementing energy-saving standards. An example is the continued approval of mega-size homes. Why are there no restrictions in place or being planned for these energy-guzzling consumers? The city of Steamboat Springs and all of Routt County need to think, plan and prepare for the repercussions of all of the residential and commercial developments being approved.

Considering a sustainability coordinator for 2008 isn't good enough. It's time to get priorities in order. Thank again about protecting this beautiful valley starting, now.

Lynette Weaver

Steamboat Springs

Comments

Jon Casson 7 years, 7 months ago

Oh yeah...more selective facts from sbvor.

To quote his post:

"Cut down ALL the forests in the entire United States (and all other temperate regions around the world)!"

"In theory, growing a forest may sound like a good idea to fight global warming, but in temperate regions, such as the United States, those trees also would soak up sunlight, causing the earth's surface to warm regionally by up to 8 degrees Fahrenheit."

The study that sbvor cites in no way advocates the removal of trees from the United States. This is a further quote from the study:

"Using climate models, researchers from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the Carnegie Institution Department of Global Ecology have found that forests in the mid-latitude regions of the Earth present a more complicated picture. Trees in these areas tend to warm the Earth in the long run"

and goes to conclude: "The story is different for the tropical forests. In tropical regions, forests help keep the Earth cool by not only absorbing carbon dioxide, but by evaporating plenty of water as well.

Should we give carbon credit to the planting of forests? Probably not for countries in mid and high latitudes," Bala said. "But the tropical forests present a win-win because they cool the planet by evaporative cooling and the uptake of carbon."

For a more recent update to this study, go to: http://www.llnl.gov/pao/news/news_releases/2007/NR-07-04-03.html

The same institute that published the above study also published the following:

"LIVERMORE, Calif. - If humans continue to use fossil fuels in a business-as-usual manner for the next few centuries, the polar ice caps will be depleted, ocean sea levels will rise by seven meters and median air temperatures will soar to 14.5 degrees warmer than current day." http://www.llnl.gov/pao/news/news_releases/2005/NR-05-11-01.html

As well as: "LIVERMORE , Calif. - For the first time, new climate observations and computer models provide a consistent picture of recent warming of Earth's tropical atmosphere." http://www.llnl.gov/pao/news/news_releases/2005/NR-05-08-05.html

All of this published by the left wing think tank at the Laurence Livermore Labs. http://www.llnl.gov/llnl/about/

Hmmm....Global warming confirmed by the institute that as "a national security laboratory, (the) LLNL is responsible for ensuring that the nation's nuclear weapons remain safe, secure, and reliable through application of advances in science and engineering. With its special capabilities, the Laboratory also meets other pressing national security needs, which include countering the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and strengthening homeland security against the terrorist use of such weapons."

Yup, global warming- just a left wing conspiracy designed to advance the leftist agenda.

0

dundalk 7 years, 7 months ago

hear ye, hear ye...Ms. Weaver's attitude is not uncommon. She runs a successul business, (Weaver's Wagin' Wash) but I am curious as to how much she adheres to "green" when using galllons, upon gallons of water to wash the dogs. Or how much electricity her shop uses when fan drying the dogs in the back room, or how much destruction she contributes to the water from dog shampoo.

Its easy to sit back and critique a city's usage, green or not, when violating the same set of standards yourself.

I realized long ago that all the Al Gore-isms in the world don't count for two beans when you continue to blame others for the very pollution you contribute to.

0

Jon Casson 7 years, 7 months ago

Furthermore...

"But, the agenda, whether the average Leftist understands it or not, is NOT to save the planet, but to destroy Western Civilization (the true object of all their irrational hatred)."

That a pretty inflammatory statement. Where's your citation to back up this alleged "fact"? I hear more hate and vitriol coming out of you and other "rightists" than any "leftist".

It is precisely the hate and blanket statements you make about all "leftists" and your intolerance for people who dont share your opinions that lead to totalitarianism and the destruction of the Western Civilization.

0

Jon Casson 7 years, 7 months ago

The Fox article you cite isnt "news" but an editorial by Steven Milloy who publishes a web site called "Junkscience.com". His website goes to great pains to select scientific research to debunk in the name of promoting free enterprise. For the real info on CFL's, check out the EPA and the National Electrical Manufacturers Associations FACT Sheet about CFL's and their Mercury content.

http://www.nema.org/lamprecycle/epafactsheet-cfl.pdf

In FACT, I followed your links and actually read the articles you cite. It seems like you only read or quote a sentence or two that supports your point of view. For example, your article stating that growing forests would worsen global warming only refers to the northern hemisphere and temperate forests but still acknowledges that tropical forests have significant positive impact. The author of the study goes on to conclude:

"I like forests. They provide good habitats for plants and animals, and tropical forest are good for climate, so we should be particularly careful to preserve them," he said. "But in terms of climate change, we should focus our efforts on things that can really make a difference, like energy efficiency and developing new sources of clean energy."

I also noticed that most of your "citations" are to opinion pieces or editorials. One of your citations is even to your own previous message board post. I fail to understand how quoting yourself backs up your own opinion. I did follow other links on that piece, however, and your link to Tom Ross's column is especially hilarious to use in support of your "Global Warming is a Myth" stance. I reposted the link so that everyone can read the entire piece. Someone please tell me how this column supports sbvor's view? http://www2.steamboatpilot.com/news/2...

I also checked out the links to the Petition Project on oism. I noted that 17,600 members have signed the document, however, the Union of Concerned Scientists has over 200,000 members advocating conservation policies.

In FACT, 12 different National Academies of Sciences collectively released the following in May of 2007: http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8Statement_Energy_07_May.pdf

And to call this a Leftist conspiracy....check out the link to the REPUBLICAN Governor of California's Environmental statement. http://gov.ca.gov/issue/environment "Global warming is no longer a Democrat or Republican issue..."

0

Bill Wallace 7 years, 7 months ago

Commentor sbvor appears to be an ardent follower of a movement that I call "The Tyranny of the Incredibly Ignorant." With the advent of the Worldwide Web, people can easily isolate themselves from all thoughts and opinions other than their own, and at the same time, choose selectively those that reinforce what they believe. Given the vastness and unchecked quality of web information, it's easy to take absurd positions and back them up with lots of references.

0

Jon Casson 7 years, 7 months ago

More facts about sbvor's sources...

Here is the short bio on Frederick Seitz, whose research is the impetus for the Petition Project.

Also, really read through some of the articles and information posted on www.junkscience.com and form your own opinion about what is or isnt "propaganda".

Go to the EPA's site for a comprehensive volume on Climate Change

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/

Of course- sbvor's response will be that the EPA and the NAS are simply puppets of the left wing media and that I'm ignorant for believing their lies.

Here's the crux of sbvor's right vs left argument. The media is evil and left biased so you cant believe anything they say. Therefore, any information that doesnt come from the media is not biased and ergo is the real truth. The corollary is that anyone who bases their opinions on journalism and the media must be stupid and ignorant. Pretty convenient argument...heads he wins, tails you lose

sbvor- ever heard of a syllogism?

0

Jon Casson 7 years, 7 months ago

It has nothing to do with being a "Fox News Hater". You're citing a columnist- an opinion- as fact. Regardless of the source, a column is not a piece of journalism nor should be considered fact.

Is the National Academy of Sciences a reputable source up to your strict codes of "truth"?

If so... "In 2005, the Academies issued a statement emphasising that climate change was occurring and could be attributed mostly to human activities, and calling for efforts to tackle both the causes of climate change and the inevitable consequences of past and unavoidable future emissions"

I agree that there is debate and that there isnt 100% agreement amongst the scientific community as to the causes of global warming. But to call anyone with a different opinion than you a liar, ignorant and stupid is remarkably arrogant.

0

Jon Casson 7 years, 7 months ago

  1. Those 17,100 scientists that signed the petition are of the OPINION that: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

The IPCC and 30 other scientific institutions/academies are of the OPINION that

"An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities"

So, how is this difference of opinion resolved? Your solution is to call everyone whose OPINION differs from yours a liar.

  1. That is a completely loaded and leading question. With the exception of The National Review, the OISM and the American Association of Petroleum Geologists...there IS a general consensus that historical rises in temperature and CO2 are exacerbated by human causes. Consensus does not mean 100% agreement.

  2. You, not me, call everyone else liars. Throughout your posts, you attack people with opposing views as liars, evil, hate-filled, anti-American, Totalitarian and ignorant. I've cited articles that refute some of your claims, some of which come from the same source, yet I'm the liar and the character assassin?

  3. I have not ignored the fact that there are fluctuations in temperature and CO2 on a global scale throughout the history of the Earth. The debate is whether the current fluctuation is caused by humans or not. The linkage between the temps and CO2 is up for debate and not an undisputed fact as you claim. Many reputable scientific organizations have concluded the current rise in temps and CO2 are beyond historic patterns and are the result of human impact on the planet.

Lastly, you assume that I am "left". Is it possible for someone from the right to be concerned about climate change and environmental protection?

0

jeannie berger 7 years, 7 months ago

Remember the rock group from the 60's or 70's Ten Years After? Well it may take me ten years to read all of the articles you have cited. Not that I am a slow reader but I have other things to do.
just_ten_years_here, you make sense, sbvor, you are still blowing smoke.

0

Jon Casson 7 years, 7 months ago

Once again, sbvor, you assume that anyone who opposes your point of view and your OPINION is leftist and therefore ignorant and uneducated.

Remember what I asked you about syllogisms? Ever heard of the term "false syllogism"? Let me educate you...

A syllogism is a major fact followed by a corollary fact to reach a conclusion such as (and this is a simple example):

A: Reptiles dont have fur B: Snakes are reptiles Conclusion: Snakes dont have fur

A false syllogism is when the major or minor fact is not a fact at all, but an assumption or an opinion. This leads to false conclusions. This is your false syllogism

A. The media has a "left" bias B. The "left" is ignorant, uneducated and stupid C. Anyone who listens to the media is ignorant, uneducated and stupid.

Or, as you so eloquently state, anyone who doesnt hold the same opinion as you is ignorant, stupid and uneducated.

Isnt the very principle of a democratic society the tolerance for reasonable debate and the respect for other's opinions? Isnt the complete disregard for anyone else's thoughts and opinions the basis for the totalitarianism you decry?

Yet your response to anyone else's opinion is to accuse them them of ignorance, stupidity and anti-Americanism.

Yet, you also never answered my question about the "right" advocating environmental protection. Your underlying contention is that global warming is a hoax perpetrated by the "left". How do you respond to "right" politicians who embrace conservation and environmental protection. Are they ignorant and stupid as well?

I offered refutation and rebuttal to your claims about global warming and your response is to claim that "Understanding REAL science and preparing for REAL Climate Change is WAY beyond (my) grasp"

I can assure that I am intelligent, well-educated and perfectly capable of reading facts from a variety of sources and forming my own opinion. If you want me (or anyone else) to apologize for having the audacity to think for myself, then you are sadly mistaken.

Blind disregard for intelligent debate and deriding other's opinions as ignorant, stupid and un-American is a dangerous path, my friend. That is the true path to totalitarianism and fascism.

I offered opposing viewpoints about Global Warming from a variety of reputable sources, many of which you cite as well, and your response is to label me as incapable of understanding your "facts" as you see them. Its a fascinating game you play...accusing me of ignorance.

0

Matthew Stoddard 7 years, 7 months ago

Hey now! Take this thread to the Forum section where dead horses are beaten on a daily basis. SBhor (Pilotwatch) lets out enough hot air to open an Australia-sized hole in the ozone layer.

Wawallace2 is also correct. SBhor preaches to the choir only. The soapbox is infested with termites. A year or so ago, SBhor admonished me for coming back with Wikipedia links to dispute SBhor's info at times with a quote, "...any idiot can change edit Wikipedia's entries." Now, it's, "...Wikipedia is a tool that can be corrected by people instead of leaving it up to just the site owners..." or something close to that one. Just like John Kerry, SBhor is a flip-flopper when it comes to trying to one-up somebody. Unfortunately, SBhor has a very limited sense of humor and doesn't know how to accentuate points.

0

Jon Casson 7 years, 7 months ago

Mr Stoddard is correct. This is no longer the appropriate forum. For anyone interested in continuing to discuss this thread...go to:

http://www.steamboatpilot.com/forums/open/reader_forum/137/

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.