Watchdog Milwaukee

• Home
• Comment Policy
• Contact
• Our Mascot
• Quotes
• Log in

10 Comments

1. Concerned Tosan:

   The world has been warming for 10,000 years (give or take). This hardly warrants worshipping Al Gore.

2. Les Nakamoto:

   Actually, if you studied science, you would know that temperature studies of this planet, based on ice core samples, go back 650,000 years. …. The studies show that there were three major warming trends in all that time, prior to the present date, none of which showed as high of a level of CO2 in the air. Temperature is directly related to CO2 concentrations. But the most significant fact is that CO2 levels are higher than they’ve ever been in all that time. Increased CO2 levels increase the amount of heat from the suns rays, which are retained by the atmosphere. CO2 levels have never been above 300 ppm during that entire stretch of 650,000 years before the present date. They are almost three times that maximum level now and if current trends continue, they will be more than double that in ten years, and double that again in 50 years.

   That is what is causing the increases in number and intensity of tropical storms, hurricanes and typhoons.

   That is what is causing Greenland’s and polar ice melt. Giant glaciers are disappearing, and most of that has occurred in the past 50 years.

   If you own land in Florida, you’ll most likely be underwater. So when Republicans are petitioning Congress to build a giant levee around Florida, and all the seaside resorts are below sea level, you won’t be able to, because Sensenbrenner and the rest of the nut-jobs in Congress are already working to earmark all of those funds to build a wall between Mexico and the United States, and Bush will have spent all the rest on his never-ending wars.

   The last time the ocean levels rose as a result of glacier melt, the Gulf Stream, the giant ocean current (that cools hot water from the tropical regions and warms water near the polar ice caps), was cooled so much from the glacier melt, that it stopped flowing, and in a matter of ten years, most of Europe was thrown into another Ice Age. That is another concept that Republican talking heads don’t want you to understand, which all the scientists agree upon. Global warming causes a breakdown of the earth’s air conditioning system which is the Gulf Stream, which results in normally inhabitable areas becoming uninhabitable. Deserts are thrown under water, and temperate climates which humans need to live in, are frozen or become desert wasteland. (Yes, deserts used to be under water, that is one of the reasons why there is so much sand. The Grand Canyon used to be under water as well. That is what left behind the different colored striations from the different mineral content deposits. Water erosion created the canyon formations.)

   Imagine 100 million people without a place to live. The jet stream has already shifted and is causing earlier springs and later falls, along with milder winters. As a result, more disease carrying vectors (insects, rodents, and microbes), are flourishing and spreading previously unknown diseases worldwide and killing more and more animals and humans.

   But, don’t worry, and don’t be bothered by silly little things like scientific fact. I’m sure that Bush and Co. will take care of everything for you – just like they took care of the Hurricane Katrina victims.

   And as for “worshipping” Al Gore, I merely recognized him for his thoughtful, intelligent and scientific approach to this issue.

   Those characteristics unfortunately aren’t required for the Bush Idolatry exhibited by those few who still believe that Bush has a brain in his head, or compassion in his heart, or is infallible simply because he calls himself a Republican.

3. Concerned Tosan:

   Ok Les…

   I surrender. Global warming is all George Bush’s fault. Amazing what only a half-dozen or so years in office can do to wreak such havoc on the earth’s climate.

   Reversal of the Gulf Stream, disappearance of the glaciers, disease and rodents too. Since you have science on your side; will there be a plague of locusts and a parting of the seas in the remainder of Bush’s term?

   Make room so I too can worship at the alter of Gore.

4. Jim McGuigan:

   Tosan,

   Maybe you ought to go see the movie. I’ll admit that I haven’t yet but it’s on my to-do list.

   I’ve noticed dramatic climate changes here in Wisconsin since I was a kid. To deny these changes defies logic.

   Science supports the impending crisis of global warming despite the inconvenience it causes big business. Worshiping the almighty dollar at the expense of the air we breathe and the environmental health of the world we live in is folly.

5. Concerned Tosan:

   Jim…

   Gore’s film is simply more preaching to his choir and offers little more than circumstantial arguments. Gore’s retired and he has to pay the bills; what better way than pitching his story in movie form. He’s a smart capitalist.

   The fact of the matter is that there is very little concensus on global climate change and human influences on the same. Take your anecdotal observation about “drastic changes here in Wisconsin”. In the film, Gore makes the same observation noting that a couple of hundred western towns set all-time high records. Drawing conclusions such as that can be misleading.

   If you asked Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville he’d tell you that it’s not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records. According to him the actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. have not been unusual.

   Nakamoto’s hates Bush and the Bush administration and its policies. Big deal. He’s entitled to his opinion. But to lay all of this at the feet of the current administration simply raises his arguments to that of hysterics and reduces his credibility.

   A cogent discussion of human impact upon climate change as a result of centuries of industrialization would have been more meaningful. Or maybe a discussion of geoengineering would have been more thought-provoking. Instead of a critical examination of entertainment posing as science we get gushing adoration of Al Gore.

   Nakamoto’s longwinded epistle regarding CO2 is so much hot air so to speak (sorry but I couldn’t resist). If he had had the presence of mind to discuss this with a paleoclimatologist he would have learned that when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. Go figure that one out.

   Look, I’m as much an environmentalist as you’ll find. I don’t like dirty water or dirty air. But I’m also a realist and not given to the hysterics of focus groups and lobbyists who attempt to twist junk science for short term political gain. You and both know that the time horizon for those folks is never longer than the next election cycle…something considerably less than geological time.

   Like I said before, the earth has been warming for the last 10,000 years. A hundred centuries ago, the northern two thirds of Wisconsin was mostly under an ice sheet that in some locations was a mile thick. The earth’s crust is still rebounding from the weight of all that ice. That’s pretty remarkable. Who do you want to blame for all of that ice going away and leaving us where we are today?

   It would be fun to have this discussion with you in another 10,000 year; but I’m afraid that isn’t going to happen.

6. Les Nakamoto:

   Tosan,

   It is typical for a Republican who worships Bush, to ridicule anything that science has proven. But to imply that anyone stated that Global Warming is all George Bush’s fault or that it all occurred within a half-dozen years is such a fabrication, that it simply goes beyond ludicrous. If that is the whole of your argument, I doubt that anyone with the ability to read the article could even find you credible.

   The fact that I had mentioned both in the article and in my response to you that the scientific research had been compiled over 50 years seems to have escaped your comprehension. How could anyone infer from that, that anyone was blaming Bush for causing Global Warming over the past six years? The fact is that Global Warming has coincided with increases in CO2 emissions, and burning of fossil fuels along with uncontained forest fires are what create those CO2 increases, and that has occurred largely within the last 50 years. However, pollution in the United States HAS increased under George W. Bush.

   It is true that the Oil Companies have fought against legislation in increased fuel efficiency in fossil fuel burning vehicles, and that they have the Republican Party to thank for preventing those advances to take place in the United States. Other civilized nations throughout the world have been able to double their fuel efficiencies beyond what are currently available in the United States, making us last in those technological capabilities. It also doubles the amount of fuel that most Americans are forced to buy and double what they have to pay for fuel for their cars, which goes beyond the issue of limited resources available. That keeps us dependent on foreign sources of energy. But Republicans have never cared about those “little concerns”. They simply want to milk the American Public for whatever cash they can squeeze out of them.

   George W. Bush did not cause this problem himself, although his family and their industrial practices and policies going back at least three generations certainly had a huge impact on it. (Go back to Samuel Prescott Bush, George. W. Bush’s great-grandfather, who was the CEO of Buckeye Steel in Ohio, which recently went out of business. Samuel Prescott Bush was the first elected head of a consortium of 150 U.S. industrial manufacturers, so polices that he set, had an overwhelming impact on U.S. manufacturing practices and pollution.)

   What George W. Bush and the Republican Party are responsible for, is their continued intransigence in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, and their unwillingness to even acknowledge that there is a problem, let alone start to deal with it. That is the same intransigence demonstrated by your own comments.

   As for your reference to a plague of locusts and a parting of the seas, Progressives don’t go around misquoting the Bible or twisting the lessons in it. That’s what Republicans are known for.

   But I am not here to attempt to sway your beliefs. It is obvious that no amount of logic will shake your faith in what you choose to believe, regardless of the scientific evidence. But I will leave you and other viewers with this quote.

   “There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance – that principle is contempt prior to investigation.”

   Robert Spencer

7. Concerned Tosan:

   Les, Les, Les…

   I didn’t bring up the Republicans or Bush…you did. Your last diatribe simply confirms my suspicions about your fixation on all things Republican. That’s interesting.

   Tell me Les, can you find anything in my post that is overtly supportive of Bush or Republicans? How do you know that I don’t hate Bush as much as you (and possibly for different reasons)? All I did was criticize the glorification of Al Gore’s movie and suggest that the jury is still out concerning the root causes of global climate change. Point of fact, I never suggested that global climate change WASN”T occuring; only that there is conflicting science on the subject.

   You are hasty man that jumps to conclusions. A healthy dose of skepticism would be a good tonic for you. Not everything from Hollywood should be taken as the gospel truth. Hollywood has proven itself to be a rather effective propaganda medium.

   Your post is curiously bereft of any response to the scientific postulations that I tossed out for consumption. Long on personal attack and short of facts. Sad.

8. Concerned Tosan:

   Les…

   I should have included a comment and observation about our concern over “uncontained forest fires”.

   Wild fire is part of the natural forest ecosystem. It is nature’s mechanism for keeping the forest in balance. Wildfires do not in any way contribute to global warming

   In fact it is man’s manipulation of the forest by containing fire has contributed to problem. When you do not allow nature to run its course (artificial suppression of fire) you have a build-up of combustible material which accumulates in the forest’s under story. Centuries of fire suppression have exacerbated this problem. Add to that the continuation of sprawl and you have an even bigger problem. The result of all of this is larger and more intense fires and more property destroyed as a result of the urban-rural interface.

   Any supposition that fire in the forest is a meaningful contributor to global climate change is simply erroneous.

9. Les Nakamoto:

   Actually Tosan it isn’t difficult to refute your argument at all. And you had no scientific postulations presented to refute at the time that I made my original response to your statement that “the earth has been warming for 10,000 years.”
   Also, readers should be aware that posts are moderated, and not time stamped, so there are times when posts which have been posted before other posts, should have been listed after them. Your response to Jim should have been listed after mine, not before. It didn’t exist at the time that I wrote my initial response to your “worship at the alter of Gore” comments. That is why there was no response to your later “scientific” arguments, in that post, but I will respond to them here.

   First of all, it is unlikely that any humans were in existence during the time (450 million years ago), that you refer to as being an ice age when there was a huge amount of CO2 in the air. And again, you miss the point completely. Human beings, let alone most other plants and animals, couldn’t survive in that environment even though the earth existed then. To claim that it doesn’t matter that we might be causing the earth to go into another global warming cycle, or ice age which would effectively wipe out most of the life on this planet, just because it happened before (when those life forms didn’t even exist), is beyond insanity.

   There are recent studies by geneticists who have been tracking genetic markers who believe that humans almost went extinct about 60,000 years ago, and that there were at most around 1,000 human beings in existence at that time, who are the ancestors of all of us. Some global catastrophic event almost wiped humans off the face of the earth then. But today, people who are supposedly much smarter than our distant ancestors are willing to make this issue a matter for political spin-meisters to determine the outcome, based on their loyalty to the oil and coal companies and consumption and profit at any cost. These corporations ignore science and affect everyone on the planet because they have the money to manipulate the media and the politicians who don’t have the intelligence or the will to stand up to them.

   And far from being difficult to understand that there was an ice age during a period of high CO2 concentration, the explanation is actually pretty basic. High CO2 concentrations prevent the reflected heat off of the surface of our planet from escaping the earth’s atmosphere, thus heating the earth. Reflected heat and light don’t have the same energy as the heat and light which came from the sun and got into our atmosphere in the first place, so as CO2 concentrations increase, they can get in, but can’t escape as easily, therefore increasing the global warming effect. But that only warms the earth up to a certain extent. Once you have exceeded the concentration of CO2 and other hydrocarbon gases beyond the point that the sunlight can penetrate it to get to the earth’s surface in the first place, a cooling effect begins. Excessively high CO2 concentrations along with other hydrocarbon gases from burning fossil fuels or forests being burned to clear pasture, or volcanic activity, prevents the sunlight from penetrating the earth’s atmosphere to begin with, so it can’t warm the earth, making it extremely cold. Thus it is possible to trigger a huge ice age which covers a great part of the earth with glaciers, even with high CO2 concentrations.

   This cooling effect has been demonstrated on smaller scales. Volcanic eruptions like Krakatoa and Mt. St. Helen’s produced so much ash and gases that it encircled the globe and caused a noticeable decrease in temperature around the world.

   But don’t worry. If the CO2 levels ever get so high to match what we had 450 million years ago, humans won’t be alive to see it, because they won’t be able to breath. If you don’t believe it, try sucking on a CO2 fire extinguisher and see how long you can survive breathing CO2 instead of oxygen.

   You use Dr. Roy Spencer’s quotes to “refute” the scientific data, yet Dr. Spencer’s studies hardly accomplish that at all. Spencer says human activities have “likely” contributed to climate change, but he argues that “since we do not understand natural climate fluctuations, we don’t really know how much, quantitatively, of the present warmth is man-made versus natural.”
   http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/20/AR2006052001151.html?sub=new
   Those are his opinions, which aren’t in any way grounded in scientific fact. What he is saying is that we weren’t there when it happened so we won’t ever know what happened.
   Scientists, who recognize the global warming effect is real, are saying that fossil fuel emissions are not the only cause of global warming, but that they are significant because they enhance the warming of the planet from the sun (a natural source of heat, magnified by human activity). That effect can be reversed if we significantly reduce CO2 emissions. What Dr. Spencer is arguing is that we don’t know whether the global warming is all man made or mostly natural climate change so we shouldn’t do anything. The point is that it doesn’t matter if it is all man made (which was never the contention of Global Warming proponents at all) or mostly natural climate change. The effects are potentially catastrophic, and they are occurring now, but we do have a way to change that by reducing fossil fuel emissions.
   Arguing that we can’t do anything about it because we don’t know what is more at fault, doesn’t deal with the reality of the situation. Saying that you won’t do anything because you haven’t determined what the cause is, even when you know that “it” is happening as Dr. Spencer does, is like saying that you aren’t going to evacuate out of your flooding home, because you don’t know if it was caused by a levee failure or a tsunami.
   You might want to check out this report from the National Research Council which refutes Dr. Spencer’s contentions:
   http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13474997/?GT1=8211
   Earth warmest in at least 400 years (and possibly 2000 years), panel finds
   National Research Council report focuses on ‘hockey stick’ data
   WASHINGTON - Weighing in on the highest profile debate about global warming, the nation’s premier science policy body on Thursday voiced a “high level of confidence” that Earth is the hottest it has been in at least 400 years, and possibly even the last 2,000 years.
   The panel of top climate scientists told lawmakers that the Earth is running a fever and that “human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming.” Their 155-page report said average global surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere rose about 1 degree F during the 20th century.
   The report was requested last November by the chairman of the House Science Committee, Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., to survey what science says about climate change over the last 2,000 years.
   Last year, when the House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, launched an investigation of three climate scientists, Boehlert said Barton should try to learn from scientists, not intimidate them.
   The Bush administration also has maintained that not enough is known about the threat to warrant new emission controls that the White House says would have cost 5 million Americans their jobs.
   Boehlert said Thursday the report shows the value of having scientists advise Congress. “There is nothing in this report that should raise any doubts about the broad scientific consensus on global climate change,” he said.
   Many scientists tie warming temperatures to rising emissions of certain gases like carbon dioxide. While essential to survival, carbon dioxide has seen a spike as fossil fuels are burned by cars and factories, leading to concerns that it and other gases are exacerbating the greenhouse effect that keeps Earth inhabitable.
   “The numerous indications that recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia, in combination with estimates of external climate forcing variations over the same period, supports the conclusion that human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming,” the panel wrote.
   In their report, the panel said it had less confidence in the evidence of temperatures before 1600, but still found it “plausible” that temperatures during the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer “than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium.”
   They also considered the data reliable enough to conclude there were sharp spikes in carbon dioxide and methane, the two major greenhouse gases blamed for trapping heat in the atmosphere, beginning in the 20th century, after remaining fairly level for 12,000 years.
   Between 1 A.D. and 1850, volcanic eruptions and solar fluctuations were the main causes of changes in greenhouse gas levels. But those temperature changes “were much less pronounced than the warming due to greenhouse gas” levels since the mid-19th century, the report said.
   The National Research Council is part of the National Academies, a private organization chartered by Congress to advise the government on scientific matters.
   The full report is online at http://www.nas.edu/morenews/20060622.html.
   It is also important to note that “Spencer’s serious academic work has sparked controversy. While at NASA — between 1984 and 2001 — he and University of Alabama at Huntsville professor John Christy pioneered satellite monitoring that indicated the Earth was warming more slowly than surface temperature readings would indicate. In 1991 the two researchers won NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for that work, but this month (May 2006) a government study concluded there was no statistical difference between the two climate records.
   Spencer acknowledged that other satellite experts have found two errors in how he and Christy processed their data.”
   (Also quoted from the above mentioned Washington Post article.)
   Dr. Spencer ADMITS that his own studies “proving” that the earth is warming slower than predicted are FLAWED.
   (But then Dr. Spencer is supportive of this Administration’s policies, so there is some clear bias on his part. He also believes that “Intelligent Design” is as valid a theory as evolution. Go figure. He also admits that he makes money by writing for TCS Daily, a website partially funded by EXXON-MOBIL. Now there’s a way to keep scientifically objective!)
   Naturally, Spencer is less than popular with scientists who believe that industrialized nations need to take swift action to curb carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
   “It tends to cloud the issue by playing media attention to the uncertainties,” said Drew Shindell, a research scientist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. “In fact, we know a lot more about this issue than a lot of things we take action on.”
   Many scientists who actually are attempting to deal with this issue seriously, and scientifically as you claim to be, are not very happy with Dr. Spencer because of the fact that he has been very flippant about this issue, rather than dealing with it seriously. Dr. Spencer has a “spoof” website, EcoEnquirer.com, where he ridicules global warming science with satire, which many people aren’t smart enough to recognize is not real. His satire reduces the level of intelligent discussion on this issue, just as you have done with your posts on this subject.

   What George W. Bush has done has ignored real science and refused to do anything to deal with environmental issues, while gutting environmental laws to enable corporations to pollute at even higher levels. Even former Governor Christine Todd Whitman (Republican) resigned her position as the Administrator of the EPA, when it became clear to her that Vice-President Cheney had no interest in dealing with environmental problems. And where was George W. Bush in all this? He wasn’t even engaged in the discussion. Even she agrees with Global Warming, but wouldn’t publicly disagree with the President who appointed her.

   The Bush administration filed a lawsuit against the State of California claiming that the State of California had no right to demand that car companies sell a certain percentage of electric vehicles to reduce emissions, and the oil companies and General Motors worked hard to kill the electric cars.

   In 1997 electric cars were built that could drive as fast as 180 mph with the speed regulators removed. We have the technology to build cars that don’t emit pollutants, but if the oil companies want to sell the estimated oil remaining in the ground of one trillion barrels of oil at $100 per barrel, by preventing new, cheaper, more efficient and less polluting technologies from replacing the gas guzzlers, they will do anything they can to do so.

   And as far as not liking Bush and his idiotic policies, well, I’m in good company. The vast majority of the people on this planet don’t like Bush, and that includes the majority of people in the United States who aren’t falling for the Bush/Rove dog and pony show lies anymore. So, to use a phrase which Republicans like to use rather flippantly - What part of Majority rule do you not understand?

   You claim that there wasn’t anything in your posts which were remotely supportive of Republicans or Bush, yet you flippantly claim that I said that “Global warming is all George Bush’s fault”, and that I would somehow have the ability to determine “if there would be a plague of locusts and a parting of the seas in the remainder of Bush’s term.” You also claim that I “lay all of this at the feet of the current administration” (I never said anything of the sort. That would be YOUR obsession.)

   You consistently claim that I lay this at the feet of Bush. You also claim that I somehow claimed that this all happened in his six years in office. I never said any of that. You said that. And that is clearly an intentional misrepresentation of my position on your part.

   I’ve refuted your “scientific arguments” which just don’t hold water. But then, if you would have done some real research, you would have already known that.

   What is really sad is that you don’t have the courage of your convictions to come out in the open and acknowledge who you are and what your motivations are in putting out your intentional misrepresentations of the truth.

10. Les Nakamoto:

    You can’t win a debate over global warming so you switch the debate over to uncontained forest fires, as if that was ever a point of contention.

    I’ve never supported manipulating nature by burning forests as you seem to imply, but if you really want to attack someone for not dealing with keeping forests healthy why don’t you direct your anger against Bush and his “Healthy Forest Initiative”, which in reality only gives logging companies the right to clear-cut healthy trees to harvest the lumber, rather than cleaning out the dead underbrush, (which is a key factor in fires which get out of control)? That policy eliminates healthy root systems which allow for uncontrolled erosion of entire mountainsides, effectively eliminating hundreds of years of forest growth, and depositing such large deposits of mud into already shrunken river streams so that the life is choked out of them. It is funny that you would have to restate your position in a second post on uncontrolled forest fires in order to fall in line with the “official” Bush/Rove/Republican propaganda, when you didn’t follow the party line in your first post on uncontrolled forest fires. First you state that humans shouldn’t unnaturally manipulate the natural order of forest fires because it is poor policy. You also state that there is simply too much combustible material accumulating in the understory.

    Then you switch over to your more (Republican) politically acceptable explanation to say that “Wild fire is part of the natural forest ecosystem. It is nature’s mechanism for keeping the forest in balance. Wildfires do not in any way contribute to global warming.” That unfortunately is the Republican excuse for going in to clear cut forests which destroys them. What they should be doing is to go in and thin out the forests in order to prevent the excessive build up of the combustible understory in the first place. But that takes too much time and too much conservation, and too much money, and would affect profits for the logging companies.

    I don’t disagree that wildfires naturally occur. I also don’t disagree that wildfires can be exacerbated by the presence of accumulated combustible material which hasn’t been allowed to be burned off by naturally occurring fires. But to state that wildfires do not in ANY way contribute to global warming is not accurate at all. Naturally occurring and naturally limited wildfires are a normal part of the natural cycle. But when those wild fires go beyond the norm because natural limits are eliminated by human interference or because drought conditions are so severe that they can’t limit themselves then wildfires do contribute to global warming. That affect is exacerbated even more as global warming becomes more severe.

    Small wildfires, normally occurring, which clear out the underbrush, are necessary and don’t have as much of an impact. The extent to which the wildfires in the U.S. have been allowed to get out of control, because they were improperly monitored and fire suppression crews and equipment were not adequately provided by our government to stop them has clearly increased the amount of CO2 in the air, and caused mudslides, and millions of dollars of damage to thousands of homeowners, particularly in California and other western states. But some of those fires were set by arsonists and some were set by well meaning but incompetent forest service personnel, so they wouldn’t be considered true “wild fires”. These have probably caused some of the greatest damage in the U.S.

    But beyond that, the biggest cause of CO2 from fires is not from “wild” fires at all. They are from third world countries that use fire to strip the land of trees and vegetation so that they can grow crops or graze cattle, at the direction of and for the benefit of large multinational corporations that don’t consider, or care about, the impact of their “agriculture”. The greatest threat of CO2 from true wildfires is coming from areas which are drought impacted to such an extent that the fires burn without natural barriers, like lakes and rivers to stop them. The drought is in large part caused by global warming, and the resulting wildfires are even more severe, beyond what would have normally been seen.

    Both Presidents Bush, were responsible for cutting the budgets in the U.S. for fire fighting crews and redirecting assets so that desperately needed firefighting planes and helicopter fleets were not replaced or built upon. The first President Bush, as then Vice-President, redirected some of those planes which were supposed to be added to the firefighting fleet, to Nicaragua with some of his CIA friends to smuggle arms to the Contras in exchange for Cocaine, which was sold in Los Angeles by the CIA so that they could buy more arms – all documented in the Iran – Contra scandal during the Reagan administration.

    You argue that you’ve personally planted 41,000 trees at your own expense, so that somehow justifies your weak argument against global warming.

    As an individual, I’ve always done the standard things that most people would do to keep their energy consumption down to a minimum, like buying energy efficient vehicles and appliances, making sure that they are working at their highest efficiency, or fix or replace them; insulating the houses I’ve owned so that they leak as little heat as possible; and reducing waste as much as possible so that I’m not filling up landfills with useless junk, by not buying a lot of useless junk in the first place. I use things as they continue to be useful, and don’t throw things out simply because they are old, and can be replaced by something newer or fancier. Nothing particularly heroic, but I’m not expecting anyone to do anything heroic either, rather just do what you can personally or politically, to reduce your waste and pollution where ever you can.

    I’ve also been personally involved in a few different environmental cleanups – one which eventually brought back a dying river.

    In addition, as a scientist/chemist in one of my previous careers, I formulated a number of different environmentally friendly products which replaced many competitive compounds which used old technology and old, toxic raw materials, thereby reducing the use of those toxic materials. Some of my formulations are still being used in several countries to clean up chemical spills which need to be broken up chemically so that they can be bio-degraded, and allow textiles to be brought to like new condition so that they could continue to be used rather than discarded.

    I was also involved in producing water treatment products for “Aqua Chem” (a water treatment company which used to have a location in Milwaukee, but was bought out by the French Government, and then – the story goes - was barred from selling products to the U.S. Government). The processes use a combination of chemical treatment and osmotic processes to filter out contaminants in water to make it “potable” or, safe to drink, in layman’s terms. These processes were used primarily by private yacht owners, large ships and by the U.S. Navy to provide drinking water from sea water or potentially unsafe sources of fresh water, and are still being used today.

    I also pushed for the installation of an air cleaning device in a chemical plant where I used to work, which reduced the exposure of the workers to harmful vapors; and fought against the use of processes and chemicals which I knew would be dangerous and probably even deadly, not only for the workers, but for neighbors in the area, which included a children’s playground across the railroad tracks where a plant was located in another job. That stand ended up costing me my job, because I refused to sign off on the use of dangerous chemicals and went on record opposing its use.

    So, if you want to compare what you’ve done, versus what I’ve done to protect the environment and what it has cost me financially, I don’t believe there is any comparison.

    My family had been involved in farming for 70 years. And killing animals in the wild to eat them without doing the necessary testing to determine whether or not the animal has been infected with a disease which can kill you after you go “mad”, just isn’t very intelligent.