Healthy Skepticism Toward Climate Crisis Denial

Today, I noticed an article in The Register warning of YET ANOTHER HEAT WAVE striking us in Orange County this week. maybe for some people, this just means another chance to go to the beach or to throw a “BBQ by the Pool” party. But for me, I see more than just that. I see yet more evidence of a global climate in crisis that has already begun to affect us locally.

Yet Jubal/Matt Cunningham somehow had the nerve to post this a week ago on OC Blog:

It goes without saying that injecting any degree of skepticism toward the figures and findings wafting from the climate change industry will likely lead to being branded a “traitor” by the Mahdi of Climate Change, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — but it’s still a free country in which we can voice such skepticism. In the old Soviet Union, dissent was treated as a form of mental disease — which isn’t too different from the way the EnviroLeft views any who don’t unquestioningly follow the party line.

And that’s my point — we ought to be skeptics on this issue, especially since the policy solutions being pushed by the Left involve the expansion of government power over our lives. Barbara Boxer flies over a glacier and to her that’s “proof” of climate change — as if she needs proof — the aggrandizement of government power inherent in the Left’s “save the planet” strategies is enough for her to believe in global warming.

HUH?! What on earth is happening to those folks at OC Blog? I guess they haven’t been able to wake up and smell the inferno the way the rest of us in the reality-based community already have.

Follow me after the flip for more…


OK, first off… When did the far right begin to value dissent? After all, Matt has called all of us who oppose this disastrous occupation of Iraq “defeatists“. So when did it become acceptable to question known science, but not bad foreign policy? Now I’d never want to take away Matt’s right to question known science, but I’m just wondering why he has a problem with people like me who don’t see any value in continuing Bush’s failed war.

Next off, when did the real science of climate change become “a matter of controversy”? And when did it become “anti-business” to recognize that in finding solutions to this crisis, that new opportunities may arise? The science is real: Nearly all scientists agree that climate change is happening, and that we humans are contributing to this. Oh yes, and even most businesses today recognize that they need to be a part of the solution not only to survive on this planet, but to also survive in the global marketplace. I guess these right-wingers who want to continue denying reality are the ones who are truly “anti-business”, as they don’t want our economy to remain competitive against other nations’ economies that have already adapted to the new environmental reality.

And finally, why must all of us who believe scientific reality be branded as “EnviroLeft extremists”? When did reason become “extreme”? When did science become “extreme”? And when did science denial become “normal”? I just don’t get that.

Maybe I’ll never be able to enlighten the folks at OC Blog who aspire to become the next Flat Earth Society in their extreme denial of scientific reality. Whatever… If they want to deny reality, let them. I just hope that we, as a society, never base public policy on the denial of reality. That’s all.

  140 comments for “Healthy Skepticism Toward Climate Crisis Denial

  1. Andrew Davey
    August 14, 2007 at 9:12 pm

    Pat Benatar fan-

    Give me a break. If I were REALLY after setting a record, I would have been making EVEN MORE COMMENTS more often. Try agin, and why don’t you hit me with your best shot. 😉


    LOL! Ya know, the other half of my comments were trying to talk to you while I was unspinning Matt’s nonsense. You’re so demanding on me! 😉


    Good point, as always. Here’s for telling it like it is! 🙂

  2. d'Anconia
    August 14, 2007 at 10:00 pm

    I find it amusing that you find time to reply to all these other comments but not to do your research before writing a post like this.

    Oh and give it up with the smileys already man. Hurting my eyes…

  3. You GO Pat Benatar!
    August 14, 2007 at 10:32 pm

    30 minutes with no response from Andrew Davey?
    Now THAT’S a record!

  4. August 14, 2007 at 11:22 pm

    You know Andrew, instead of setting a smilie record, you might try motivating yourself to respond to those two articles I brought to your attention regarding the Sahara and global warming.

    Or haven’t you been able to Google something up yet?

  5. August 14, 2007 at 11:48 pm

    Considering that opposition to the war is now in the 70% range I would say it is more than than the anti-war left that believes this foreign policy nightmare is exactly that.

    And which poll would that be?

    Public opinion hasn’t turned, but it is turning as the military situation improves. Unlike the anti-war Left, mainstream America minds losing wars. They don;t care whether or not “Bush Lied” — they want to win, and if we have hit upon a strategy that is producing results, woe betide the Democrats who get in the way of pursuing a result that is as close to victory as possible.

    You are going to tell us with a straight face that Bush and Co. used massaged intel to gain public support for the war? Are you?

    There’s no point trying to pierce the “Bush Lied” fog of selective memory from your brain, RHackett. As far as you and the rest of the loonies are concerned, the entire debate about going into Iraq was solely about a claim there was certainly WMDs in Iraq.

    You speak of progress in Iraq. What is the goal where we can all say “we landed on the moon” and now we can leave Iraq?

    I’m not sure, but it will be easier to determine when the Iraqi security forces can handle things more and more themselves — and draw down accordingly — than for the the global warming industry to declare the problem licked and there’s no longer any need to pay rapturous attention to their every utterance.

  6. RHackett
    August 15, 2007 at 1:35 am

    From your article.

    In the July survey, a record high of 62% had called the invasion of Iraq “a mistake.” That view is now held by 57%, roughly where it’s been for more than a year.

    Those numbers still indicate support for the opposition goes beyond the loonie left.

    As far as piercing the “Bush Lied” fog of selective memory. Could you tell exactly which aspect of the talking points used to sell this war has been accurate? We were going to WMD’s. (We haven’t.) We were going to be viewed as liberators and it would be a walkover (one was true, now it isn’t). The war wasn’t going to cost the US taxpayer a dime since oil revenue would pay for it. Technically true, the war has cost much more than a dime.

    As far as security Iraqi security forces being able to handle things? I am for a timeline. Nothing would inspire a group to get motivated knowing the clock is ticking down with the support from their big brother. As it stands right now, the Iraqi parliament decided to take a month off while our forces are fighting and dying. Explain to me why I should have a sense of committment to this effort when those directly affected don’t seem to have a sense of urgency.

  7. Dan Chmielewski
    August 15, 2007 at 12:20 pm

    well, the White House will be drafting Petraeous’s (sic) report, based onj feedback from him. Guess how it will read? The surge is working…we need more time. Problem is the general’s told Ilinois congresswoman Jane Schakowsky that we’re looking at another 9 to 10 years in Iraq.

    America does mind losing wars Matt; and the Republicans in charge are the ones who lost it years ago.

  8. Dan Chmielewski
    August 15, 2007 at 12:29 pm

    Andrew; I know you’re busy so I found these for Matt. Here you go Matt:

    “Where there remains much uncertainty and debate concerns the potential impacts of climate change upon the global weather. A lot of this uncertainty centers around the inadequacies of climate change modeling computer software. *****According to some research, the Sahara should become an even worse desert than it is today.***** According to other research, we should expect the greening of the Sahara. In both cases these contradictory results are predicted by computers programmed to model climate change.”

    Published on Wednesday, December 20, 2000 in the Guardian of London
    Sahara Jumps Mediterranean into Europe
    Global warming threatens to create dust belt around the globe.
    by Paul Brown in Bonn

    ****The Sahara has crossed the Mediterranean, forcing thousands to migrate as a lethal combination of soil degradation and climate change turns parts of southern Europe into desert.******
    A major UN conference was told yesterday that up to a third of Europe’s soil could eventually be affected.

    A fifth of Spanish land is so degraded that it is turning into desert, according to figures released for the first time yesterday, and in Italy tracts of land in the south are now abandoned and technically desert.

    Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece are the four EU countries already so badly affected that they have joined the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (CCD) which is meeting in Bonn this week.

    One expert, Maurizio Sciortino, said that there were many causes of the soil degradation, including changing weather patterns and the rise of global farming, which is making it uneconomic to run smallholdings and is driving people from the land.

    “Land that has been carefully cultivated and preserved for 2,000 years, with terracing for soil conservation and careful irrigation to keep up productivity, is being abandoned and lost,” he said. “The walls of the terracing break down, the soil is washed away and we are left with bare rock. Once that happens there is no way back.

    “The conditions are particularly bad in southern Italy, Spain and Greece. Even southern France is not immune but so far they do not admit it for political reasons.”

    The problem is not confined to the EU. Bulgaria, Hungary, Moldova, Romania and Russia


    Sahara spread
    “The jet streams mark the edge of the tropics so, if they are moving poleward, that means the tropics are getting wider,” says John Wallace, who took part in the study at the University of Washington in Seattle, US.

    “If they move another 2° to 3° poleward in this century, very dry areas such as the Sahara desert could expand further towards the pole, perhaps by a few hundred miles,” he adds.

    The researchers used evidence from satellite measurements of temperatures in the lower atmosphere from the start of 1979, through to the end of 2005. It showed that the lower atmosphere warmed most over that period, at latitudes of 15° to 45° in both hemispheres.

    The warming raises air pressure, affecting air circulation between those latitudes and the equator, explains team member Thomas Reichler, at the University of Utah, US.

    that’s just three; there’s a lot more.

  9. Andrew Davey
    August 15, 2007 at 12:49 pm

    Thanks, Dan! You rock! I really have been swamped today, so I haven’t had much time to work on finding that info on the Sahara. So I really was right on my facts there! Thanks for saving my behind. 😉

  10. Dan Chmielewski
    August 15, 2007 at 12:54 pm

    there are articles supporting Matt’s contention as well, but he didn’t offer those in his challenge to you, so I didn’t feel compelled to add them either.

  11. d'Anconia
    August 15, 2007 at 1:50 pm

    Actually Dan, Jubal offered two articles and asked for feedback. You didn’t feel compelled to add arguments from the other side because it’s not helpful to yours.

  12. August 15, 2007 at 2:46 pm

    d’Anconia: Jubal offered two articles and asked for feedback. You didn’t feel compelled to add arguments from the other side because it’s not helpful to yours.

    Oh, come now. By that logic I should still be waiting for Matt to comment on some stuff I posted back in April regarding the toll road extension. People don’t always respond to everything everyone else says.

    How about the item I wrote yesterday about the irony of you disliking the so-called climate change fearmongering, when just about everything the cons say today is fearmongering? You didn’t have any response to THAT. Is your lack of response due to my point not being helpful to your side?

  13. Dan Chmielewski
    August 15, 2007 at 3:55 pm

    d’A — My articles were a rebuttal and I plainly admitted there were articles that supported his viewpoint. I believe that is what conservatives mean by “fair and balanced.”

    Matt – everytime you write something about “how liberals think” (i.e. the poverty eradication example way up there), it gives me license to post on how I think conservatives think. En garde!

  14. Andrew Davey
    August 15, 2007 at 4:09 pm


    You’ve been quite “fair and balanced” here. I think at this point, d’A just wants to throw sour grapes at ALL OF US.


    I guess in right-wing world, it’s only “fearmongering” if liberals say it. If right-wing folks scare people with over-the-top nonsense, then they’re just “warning” people. Cheese louise, when will these right-wing folks stop with the double standard nonsense?!

  15. d'Anconia
    August 15, 2007 at 4:24 pm

    Great, more high-fiving.


    “How about the item I wrote yesterday about the irony of you disliking the so-called climate change fearmongering, when just about everything the cons say today is fearmongering? You didn’t have any response to THAT. Is your lack of response due to my point not being helpful to your side? ”

    Excuse me for trying to keep the conversation on subject. This thread is about global warming so I asked for a debate about global warming. If you want to talk about the conservative ideology, you can always start a thread about that and I’d be happy to comment. Changing the subject and looking for a good parallel does not win a debate. Listing facts and laying out an eloquent argument does.


    Fair enough.


    You must be holding those sour grapes in your hands. I’ve asked you dozens of times to list your pro-global warming crisis argument including data and you’ve chosen to forfeit. No sour grapes about that over here.

  16. Flowerszzz
    August 15, 2007 at 9:09 pm

    good gawd you guys still arguing about this? LOL….jsut adding to the posts for Andrew 😉

    High five d’Anconia & jubal! 🙂

  17. August 15, 2007 at 9:53 pm


    Ditto what d’Anconia said — fair enough.


    You’re right — I haven’t gotten back to you about the 241. Forgot all about that. What was the question again? 😉

    But the difference with Andrew is he refused to even acknowledge the information I put forward, but just dismissed it as “spin.” An honest “I haven’t had to time to look further into it” would have sufficed better than the juvenile debate tactics.

    Dan again:

    Funny about the climate debate. Your Guardian article from December 2000 talks about the Sahara jumping the Med into Europe. Then my September 2002 New Scientist article talks about Africa’s deserts (including the Sahara) in “spectacular retreat.” My September 2005 Guardian article’s topic is global warming could end Sahara droughts. Then there’s your May 2006 New Scientist article about global warming stretching subtropical boundaries.

    It’s like a ping-pong game. A 2007 Guardian or New Scientist article about how climate change is greening the Sahara would keep the pattern going.

  18. August 15, 2007 at 9:53 pm

    Sorry for not including enough smilies in that comment.


  19. August 15, 2007 at 9:54 pm

    I’ll try again:

    😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉

  20. August 15, 2007 at 9:56 pm

    In the July survey, a record high of 62% had called the invasion of Iraq “a mistake.” That view is now held by 57%, roughly where it’s been for more than a year.

    Those numbers still indicate support for the opposition goes beyond the loonie left.


    Believing invading Iraq was a mistake isn’t remotely the same thing as saying “I don’t want to win this war — let’s bug out.”

  21. Andrew Davey
    August 15, 2007 at 10:00 pm


    Hmmm, I wonder who’s looking “juvenile” now? Dan was kind enough to provide info on desertification in Africa, and you “thank” him with insults. How sweet. Here, have a snarky smiley. I know how much you like it. 😉

  22. August 15, 2007 at 10:04 pm


    Excuse me for trying to keep the conversation on subject. This thread is about global warming so I asked for a debate about global warming. If you want to talk about the conservative ideology, you can always start a thread about that and I’d be happy to comment. Changing the subject and looking for a good parallel does not win a debate. Listing facts and laying out an eloquent argument does.

    The reason I bring this up is that you were complaining about someone not responding to issues brought up further up-thread. My point is that sometimes this just happens, and I gave an example of your having done the same thing (yesterday, I think) in another thread.

    I really am not a simpleton, I assure you. If something I say seems completely out of whack to you, in the future you might ask me for a clarification rather than accusing me of being illogical. Just a suggestion.

    Matt — you’re off the hook, for now, on that 241 thing. ;^)

  23. Carl Overmyer
    August 16, 2007 at 12:05 am

    First off, BS does not emanate from a cow, it comes from a bull. If you don’t know that simple difference I can’t even begin to have an educated discussion. If you saw BS spewing forth from said cow, your eyes are lying. Bulls are male, cows are female. I spent enough time on a farm, I know the difference. Both are bovine, but I would love to see you try to milk a bull. A short film that I’m sure would make the top ten on the web. If your going try to seem intelligent at least try to have some of the basic facts straight. Then the same person has donated to a terrorist organization like Greenpeace? They have zero right to destroy personal property and yet they have. Greenpeace has also supported with money and resources other groups that have in fact resorted to eco-terrorism, that has resulted in loss of life, limb and property. But that’s OK?

    Second, one of the first lessons in Physics class is; “The only thing constant in nature is change.” If you try to stop the earth from rotating you are wasting your time. Trying to stop global warming is precisely that. Even NASA (Oh that great conservative bastion of thinking) has changed their data that is available, because they screwed up when they interpreted the data from their satellites. Pointed out to them by a Canadian gentleman. They have removed most of the later years that were the “hottest”. So basing theory about desertification from the data supplied by NASA previously, is flawed. Sorry, that’s just good science. Reassessment is needed for many of the current “scientific studies and reviewed agreements” because of this quiet and recent change in data.

    Third, Mars has been experiencing an increased temperature, that in fact is parallel to ours (as I posted on an earlier thread here, that no one commented on, I wonder why?) Did our air pollution cause that too? Or is that too hard a question to answer? Perhaps the sun’s output is simply fluctuating, as it has forever. If we change everything we do now, we could not change that. Taking steps that would in fact be detrimental to our already shaky economy is just plain stupid. Carbon credits and the like are simply mental masturbation. ( I know the mantra, “If it feels good do it” I lived through those years too, and remember some of it too!) I choose not to participate.

    Fourth, the lack of any sensible planning by those who would send us back to horse and buggy days to stop/slow our CO² emissions are irrational, as well this is the same bunch who have effectively shut down the one clean source of power we now have the technology to produce, nuclear power. The same type of power the seemingly powers the universe. Yes, I know the differences between fission and fusion, never the less, it is the only really clean power we can currently produce in any reasonable quantity. Yes, I have great hope that in the near future we will have working fission plants that will make most of these arguments mute.

    Fifth, the second hand smoke crowd are basically the same folks that are bringing this subject forward. The real “science” (or lack there of) that has fear mongered the way forward for draconian anti-smoking laws, by putting forth the lie that second hand smoke kills, but how many of you know that is a statistical lie. The report that is most often quoted when folks make that assertion is just plain manipulation of statistics. Pure and simple. If you actually do the research and read the reports you will find that it was a totally manipulated to say what they wanted it to say. That is a fact, it is not debatable, that they lied.
    The media (which is frankly too stupid to know what to think on their own for the most part) have parroted what they want to believe to be true. They don’t research most of this stuff. We the general public eat it up, like some diva’s upskirt pictures. Even when someone comes along that points out the real truth they are pilloried by those who are herding the rest of them, because it simply isn’t on their agenda. Don’t believe me, ask John Stossel of ABC, he has fought this for most of his career. He actually had the guts to do some research on his own and got fired for it, several times. Just because he found arguments that refuted the “experts”. Luckily he has found a home now and gained some protection by the network. Go figure how that happened. But then again, so did Penn and Teller and they do know BS!

    Debate is good for all of us. Name calling isn’t, neither is hiding your head in the sand and believing all of what your told. Scientists lie just like the talking heads on TV and radio. Taking for granted that anyone can predict climate changes is like predicting what the throw of the dice will be. You get enough of them together you will find someone who is right, at least some of the time. If they are right all of the time, they rigged the dice. Wake up! It’s a theory not a fact, only time will make it a scientific fact or fantasy.

    Call me whatever you like. In my perfect world you have a Right to believe what you want. You don’t have a Right to take my freedoms nor my hard earned money to advance your agenda. I do not and will not support either bad science nor the politics of plunder. A liberal agenda, I think more an agenda of creating those who don’t question the “experts”, those who are “educated”, who know better what is good for me. Gore and Moore are both makers of movies with agendas, that are not documentaries. I hope that all of you will someday wake up before it’s too late, when we have all lost our liberties because we have given them up on the alter of public safety. Face it, life isn’t safe! Heck if the government is so freaking smart why can’t any of them balance a budget? If I did that I would go to jail…and we just keep re-electing them. You want them to save the world? Please, give me a break!

  24. d'Anconia
    August 16, 2007 at 10:42 am

    Nice rant Carl.

    I dig your style and would like a subscription to your publication.

  25. Dan Chmielewski
    August 16, 2007 at 1:17 pm

    Carl —
    I speak for all of us when I say we’ll start using the term “horseshit” from now on.

    Draconian anti-smoking laws? Is that like a swimming pool that has a peeing section and a non-peeing section.

    I know I will take grief for this, but if I were in charge, no subsidies to tobacco companies and I would put a $20 tax per pack on cigarettes to fund cancer research. $20 is too much, how abut $50?

  26. Dan Chmielewski
    August 16, 2007 at 1:24 pm

    Matt —
    My point in posting the articles shows the research is all over the place; some sources are more credible than others. You say the Sahara will get wetter. MY articles say dry. I also acknowledge finding articles that support your contention.

    In general, Republicans and conservatives don’t place as much stock in science if it refutes their ideaology. And when yo can point to a “scientist” who supports a conservative viewpoint, they are bought and owned by some right wing think tank.

    There’s a whole book out there on the Republican War on Science.

  27. Andrew Davey
    August 16, 2007 at 1:35 pm


    Good point. Republicans just don’t like science whenever it gets in the way of their ideology. That’s why we have “abstinence only” instead of fully comprehensive sex-ed taught in many public schools, and why we have this campaign to teach “intelligent design” instead of evolution taught in public school science classes. And of course, we’ve had this campaign against the “EnviroLeft Global Warming Alarmists” going on for a while now. And these right-wing folks wonder why we’re falling behind the rest of the world in this global marketplace…

  28. August 16, 2007 at 1:35 pm

    My point in posting the articles shows the research is all over the place;

    I was trying to make the same point in my comment, but it didn’t communicate well. Different articles from the same publications pointing to different conclusions about global warming and the Sahara.

  29. August 16, 2007 at 1:37 pm

    Dan was kind enough to provide info on desertification in Africa, and you “thank” him with insults.


    My intention was definitely NOT to insult Dan. See my previous comment.

    Smilies times infinity!!!!

  30. August 16, 2007 at 1:38 pm

    I know I will take grief for this, but if I were in charge, no subsidies to tobacco companies and I would put a $20 tax per pack on cigarettes to fund cancer research. $20 is too much, how abut $50?

    I’m with you on canceling the subsidies.

  31. Dan Chmielewski
    August 16, 2007 at 1:49 pm

    Matt – we probably agree on more things than either of us would care to admit.

    And while we’re on the subject of banning subsidies, I’d stop paying farmers to not farm. If we’re going to subsidize them, why not pay them to grow food and use to to eradicate hunger throughout the world?

  32. Dan Chmielewski
    August 16, 2007 at 1:50 pm

    Matt/Andrew — I am not insulted. If Matt and I ever have a real issue to resolve, we take it offline.

  33. Andrew Davey
    August 16, 2007 at 1:59 pm


    OK, sorry about that. I’m glad to see us all reaching an understanding here. I like it when that happens. Here, Matt, have a happy smiley. You deserve it! 🙂


    Right on! I’m totally with you on ending these ridiculous subsidies. Why do we pay farmers to grow tobacco, but NOT food crops? Instead of paying them to destroy food crops, we should be paying them to GROW food that can go to hungry families in this nation AND around the world. Oh yes, and cut the tobacco subsidies altogether!

    You’re awesome, Dan! 🙂

  34. August 16, 2007 at 2:57 pm

    I’m glad you boys are finally finishing your playground tussle. Now, to make up, Jubal should read the Harper’s Magazine piece from last year about the rubber duckies that continue to float around the world 10 years after a cargo ship capsized off Alaska, and the Liberal OC gang should buy John Stossel’s greatest hits!

  35. Carl Overmyer
    August 17, 2007 at 5:49 am

    I’m so glad that anyone here can begin to refute any of the points I brought forward about the posted topic.

    Once again you have proven all you want to do is pee in the sand box, rather than clean it up.

    As well you have total disregard for individual freedom, and would use the heavy hand of govt to advance your scientificly weak public policies. Like manmade global warming…?

    I agree about an end federal subsidies however, all of them. Take all the federal admins. of such programs and let them find productive work in the “for profit world”, and stop sucking off the teat of taxpayers. Let the market pay the farmers, like it should have always been.

    If I want to kill myself over a protracted period of time, and pay high taxes while doing it, with a legal substance, why should I have to hide in a closet to do it? Oh I forgot, it’s all about how you feal about it that really matters!

  36. Andrew Davey
    August 17, 2007 at 6:03 am


    I see you’re late in coming to this party. OK, so have you checked out ALL the links I provided in my story? Have you checked out ALL the links that Dan and I provided in this thread? And after seeing the scientific consensus on the real threat on climate change, how can you still call it a “weak case”?

    Oh, and forget enjoying your “liberty to pollute the planet” once the climate crisis has done all its damage… There probably won’t be anything left to pollute.

  37. Aunt Millie
    August 17, 2007 at 6:26 am


    You’ll be happy to know that our gift of appreciated stock to Greenpeace, which is non profit organization, reduces our tax burden in two ways, not only as a charitable contribution, but also by allowing us to avoid taxation on the substantial appreciation in the Chevron stock that we are donating. After reading your opinions, we actually increased our donation, resulting in even greater tax savings.

    So I’m with you in reducing the government’s revenue, especially while this borrow and spend group of Republicrooks still has their hands on the executive branch.

    As to the rest of you points, first, you appear to be highly versed in excrement of all kinds, so I will defer to your expertise.

    The balance of your opinions on science appear to be the most recent talking points of the climate change deniers, which are patiently and exhaustively refuted by actual scientists at places like

    You may not be engaged in any long-term planning with your suicidal impulses, but Peak Oil and Global Warming provide some extraordinarily valuable investment insights that have been extremely profitable, and allow me to support not only progressive candidates, but also a wide variety of environmental organizations in growing amounts.

  38. Dan Chmielewski
    August 17, 2007 at 7:49 am

    well Carl, shit is shit. It doens’t matter if its from a cow, a bull, a horse or a chicken. You introduced a number of topics that have little to do with the topic at hand, but let me address second hand smoke.

    Research disagrees with you:

    Secondhand smoke is classified as a “known human carcinogen” (cancer-causing agent) by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the US National Toxicology Program, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a branch of the World Health Organization.

    Tobacco smoke contains over 4,000 chemical compounds. More than 60 of these are known or suspected to cause cancer.

    Secondhand smoke can be harmful in many ways. In the United States alone, each year it is responsible for:

    an estimated 35,000 deaths from heart disease in people who live with smokers but are not current smokers

    about 3,400 lung cancer deaths in nonsmoking adults

    other respiratory problems in nonsmokers, including coughing, phlegm, chest discomfort, and reduced lung function

    150,000 to 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections (such as pneumonia and bronchitis) in children younger than 18 months of age, which result in 7,500 to 15,000 hospitalizations

    increases in the number and severity of asthma attacks in about 200,000 to 1 million asthmatic children

    increased incidence of middle ear infections in young children
    Pregnant women exposed to ETS are also at increased risk of having low birth weight babies.

    As far as Global warming goes, there is significant research on the subject. Believe what you want, but try to at least educate yourself on this issue. On this blog, we pretty much agree man is contributing to global warming and we are interested in adopting ways to reduce the harmful affects of greenhouse gasses. You can do whatever you want.

    But since you are a proponent of individual freedom, I wonder if you have a position on the issue of gay marriage. Should gays and lesbians exercise their individual freedom to marry the person they love?

  39. Carl Overmyer
    August 18, 2007 at 9:10 am

    While I have come to the conclusion that any debate here is simply useless on global warming, I will answer your question Dan.

    I support the rights of anyone who wish to engage in a civil union, (as ironically the anti spam word for this post is) or marriage, or whatever other name you wish to give it. I am not hung up on the name as many are. I both friends and relatives who either have or wish to enter into such and have always supported them.

    I am a true believer in individual Rights and Liberty.

  40. Dan Chmielewski
    August 18, 2007 at 11:08 am

    Carl, then we can agree on some things after all.

Comments are closed.