------------------
Mr. Warwood's letter is first:
Call me a denier. When I see sensational, above-the-fold headlines like “U.S. roasts to hottest year on record by landslide” in the Chronicle, I get hotter because it makes my blood boil. As an engineer who has worked for the same big “evil” corporation for the last 28 years, I help my customers save energy, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and construct alternative energy sources – all for that ugly ‘p’ word – profit.
The socialist left, who despise the”p” word, have taken up residence in the climate change debate. Their true aims are power and control – they always know what’s best for the unwashed masses.
Bozeman has a highly educated populace, and yet the Chronicle continues to foist this propaganda on us without questioning it in the slightest. A lie repeated enough times is soon accepted as the truth.
In doing a little research, I found this: Global temps have moderated over the last 15 years. The media has chosen to concentrate on the U.S., which accounts for 1.6 percent of the earth’s surface!
Apparently the National Climatic Data Center has two sets of data – the correct set, and an inflated set for use by the gullible media and populace (www.wattsupwiththat.com).
If the same measurement stations used in 1930 were used for 2012, 2012 would not crack the top 10 for record maximum. Many more stations have been added, skewing the data (www.climatedepot.com).
Polar bear populations are up by more than 13 percent (www.polarbearscience.com).
When Al Gore stops lining his own pockets with our money, starts flying commercial, drives a hybrid car, and moves to a small, energy efficient home, I might start to listen, but until then, question everything when it comes to this topic.
Scott Warwood
------------
Call me a denier. When I see sensational, above-the-fold headlines like “U.S. roasts to hottest year on record by landslide” in the Chronicle, I get hotter because it makes my blood boil. As an engineer who has worked for the same big “evil” corporation for the last 28 years, I help my customers save energy, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and construct alternative energy sources – all for that ugly ‘p’ word – profit.
The socialist left, who despise the”p” word, have taken up residence in the climate change debate. Their true aims are power and control – they always know what’s best for the unwashed masses.
Bozeman has a highly educated populace, and yet the Chronicle continues to foist this propaganda on us without questioning it in the slightest. A lie repeated enough times is soon accepted as the truth.
In doing a little research, I found this: Global temps have moderated over the last 15 years. The media has chosen to concentrate on the U.S., which accounts for 1.6 percent of the earth’s surface!
Apparently the National Climatic Data Center has two sets of data – the correct set, and an inflated set for use by the gullible media and populace (www.wattsupwiththat.com).
If the same measurement stations used in 1930 were used for 2012, 2012 would not crack the top 10 for record maximum. Many more stations have been added, skewing the data (www.climatedepot.com).
Polar bear populations are up by more than 13 percent (www.polarbearscience.com).
When Al Gore stops lining his own pockets with our money, starts flying commercial, drives a hybrid car, and moves to a small, energy efficient home, I might start to listen, but until then, question everything when it comes to this topic.
Scott Warwood
------------
Now for Ms. Weaver:
In response to Scott Warwood, the climate change denier:
I too am an engineer but come from a different school of thinking — one that values peer reviewed science over special interest drivel promoted by front groups with an obvious agenda. (Notice the either/or scenario: Either you agree with Ms. Weaver, or you believe special interest drivel. There apparently is no legitimate opposition opinion. This is an easy and convenient rebuttal method, isn't it? All you have to do is blow off your opposition with a couple of abusive assertions and your job is done.)
Scott, everything you find on the Internet is not true.(Um, what? Did she mean "not everything you find on the internet is true?" Anyway, besides the obviousness of this [corrected] assertion, simply tossing out a generic assessment does nothing at all to address the specific points Mr. Warwood brought forth. What SPECIFICALLY is wrong about Mr. Warwood's sources? I'll wager Ms. Weaver never even visited the referenced sites.)
As an engineer I would assume you’re familiar with the scientific process — the process that allows us to develop cancer drugs, launch the Mars Explorer to a distant planet, and tells us where to drill for natural gas. (Now Ms. Weaver gets condescending. "Mr. stupid man, you do know how science works, don't you?" Look at all the wonderful things science has been able to do! Look, we can send probes to Mars! And because we can send probes to Mars, this means that climate change is correct.
I too am an engineer but come from a different school of thinking — one that values peer reviewed science over special interest drivel promoted by front groups with an obvious agenda. (Notice the either/or scenario: Either you agree with Ms. Weaver, or you believe special interest drivel. There apparently is no legitimate opposition opinion. This is an easy and convenient rebuttal method, isn't it? All you have to do is blow off your opposition with a couple of abusive assertions and your job is done.)
Scott, everything you find on the Internet is not true.(Um, what? Did she mean "not everything you find on the internet is true?" Anyway, besides the obviousness of this [corrected] assertion, simply tossing out a generic assessment does nothing at all to address the specific points Mr. Warwood brought forth. What SPECIFICALLY is wrong about Mr. Warwood's sources? I'll wager Ms. Weaver never even visited the referenced sites.)
As an engineer I would assume you’re familiar with the scientific process — the process that allows us to develop cancer drugs, launch the Mars Explorer to a distant planet, and tells us where to drill for natural gas. (Now Ms. Weaver gets condescending. "Mr. stupid man, you do know how science works, don't you?" Look at all the wonderful things science has been able to do! Look, we can send probes to Mars! And because we can send probes to Mars, this means that climate change is correct.
Because science does other amazing things, climate change is unassailable. Really.)
The evolving understanding coming from this same scientific process is overwhelmingly in support of the view that climate change is real, that the changes we see today are primarily human caused, and that its impacts will be detrimental to our future vitality. (This all might be true, but what exactly does it have to do with the points raised by Mr. Warwood? Is there any point at which Ms. Weaver will address and refute the points offered?)
The evolving understanding coming from this same scientific process is overwhelmingly in support of the view that climate change is real, that the changes we see today are primarily human caused, and that its impacts will be detrimental to our future vitality. (This all might be true, but what exactly does it have to do with the points raised by Mr. Warwood? Is there any point at which Ms. Weaver will address and refute the points offered?)
As a self-proclaimed denier, you fuel the divisive and polarized politics that have made proactive community action on climate change so difficult. (See, Mr. Warwood? You're part of the problem. Dissent is not patriotic. Skepticism is not scientific. Challenging the status quo is divisive. Yup, Ms. Weaver has a real scientific perspective here, doesn't she? Can you feel the science oozing from her every pore? Oh, and by the way. Action on climate change is not a scientific activity, it's a political one.)
Your statements do nothing to help us build a strong and vibrant regional economy or encourage civil dialogue. (It's even worse for you, Mr. Warwood. You are damaging the economy! Does anyone note the irony of Ms. Weaver's statement. She has lambasted and impugned Mr. Warwood in a most venomous and puerile way, and suddenly now she values civility?)
While no one person or group has all the answers, in civic dialogue there is a hope that all parties coming to the table hold on to some small shred of reality. (Whoa, stop the presses. Did she really just say that no one has all the answers? Hasn't she spent her entire letter on a denunciation of deniers like Mr. Warwood? If the deniers cannot be admitted to the table, then could Ms. Weaver identify what parties would be allowed to dissent from the "consensus" and offer their small "shred of reality," since she has already excluded everyone who is not already marching lockstep with the "Consensus"?)
As for the socialists who can’t stand profit, which of these companies — GE, Shell, Wal-Mart, or BP — would you call the biggest socialist climate kook? (My head is now beginning to spin. These companies are hated by the Left. BP dumped millions of gallons of crude into the Gulf of Mexico a few years back. Walmart treats its employees like chattel. Shell's products pump millions of tons of carbon into the air every year. GE makes war machines that kill people all over the globe. So now they're friends of the environment because the donate a portion of their obscene profits to environmental causes and print their brochures with green ink and pictures of trees? How naive can someone be?
Further, Mr. Warwood did not make any claim about corporations being socialist. He said the profit-hating socialist Left has "taken up residence in the climate change debate." Rather than debate this point, Ms. Weaver drags corporations into the mix and refutes that instead. This is known as a Red Herring.)
And when did the U.S. military — which discusses climate change as a major force for global geopolitical destabilization in the 21st century — turn communist on us? I must have missed that headline... (Wow. The disconnect from reality is staggering. Mr. Warwood made no mention of the military. And when, exactly, did the military become a for-profit corporation? I didn't see the announcement. It shouldn't surprise anyone, even Ms. Weaver, that the military, as a government entity, implements government environmental policy.)
Years from now when I am sitting around the table with my grandchildren, I will know that I worked my butt off to do everything in my power to prevent and slow climate change. (This is so over the top. Everything in her power? I'm willing to be she owns a pollutant-spewing automobile, that she lives in a house or apartment constructed of wood and heated with fossil fuels. She buys food, which was delivered to the store in fossil burning vehicles, produce grown by extracting natural resources from the soil, and clothing made in a factory somewhere.
And when did the U.S. military — which discusses climate change as a major force for global geopolitical destabilization in the 21st century — turn communist on us? I must have missed that headline... (Wow. The disconnect from reality is staggering. Mr. Warwood made no mention of the military. And when, exactly, did the military become a for-profit corporation? I didn't see the announcement. It shouldn't surprise anyone, even Ms. Weaver, that the military, as a government entity, implements government environmental policy.)
Years from now when I am sitting around the table with my grandchildren, I will know that I worked my butt off to do everything in my power to prevent and slow climate change. (This is so over the top. Everything in her power? I'm willing to be she owns a pollutant-spewing automobile, that she lives in a house or apartment constructed of wood and heated with fossil fuels. She buys food, which was delivered to the store in fossil burning vehicles, produce grown by extracting natural resources from the soil, and clothing made in a factory somewhere.
Ms. Weaver is a hypocrite. She lives a lifestyle that could pay for hundreds of people who live on pennies a day in the third world. If she really wanted to do everything in her power to prevent and slow climate change, she would remove her carbon footprint completely. But of course, she isn't willing to do that for the sake of the planet, which means that some level of pollution is completely acceptable to her. The only difference between her and someone like Mr. Warwood is where that line is drawn.)
What will your legacy be? (Notice the smug, self-satisfied narcissism. She is so superior to Mr. Warwood, someone she knows nothing about, that she is happy to pass judgement on him. This imperious, pompous arrogance is distasteful especially in the context of her scattershot diatribe.)
Wendy Weaver
What will your legacy be? (Notice the smug, self-satisfied narcissism. She is so superior to Mr. Warwood, someone she knows nothing about, that she is happy to pass judgement on him. This imperious, pompous arrogance is distasteful especially in the context of her scattershot diatribe.)
Wendy Weaver
No comments:
Post a Comment