Choking the Canaries “in the coal mine.”

This moved me. Call me a liberal sissy. Call me a bleeding heart. Thank God, I am not a Republican. The hypocrisy would kill me.

Yesterday, Cheryl Lockwood of Alaska Youth for Environmental Action, an 18-year-old Inuit from Alaska sobbed through her opening testimony before the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming as she described the disastrous effects of climate change on her community.

True to form, right-wing drug addict, Rush Limbaugh didn’t hesitate to attack her on his radio show.

, , ,

  1. #1 by glenn on November 9, 2007 - 9:28 am

    The latest to jump off the sinking anthropogenic warming ship. The founder of the weather channel.

    As I said earlier of course, and I am becoming hoarse, the world is warming, how else did a volume of ice on the land, that lowered sea level by 300 feet, melt otherwise?

    Answer please. Don’t know? Well perhaps you could, just maybe, think that human induced global warming is not what is causing the warming. The crusade is to raise a global tax, and to regulate economy in my view.

    The poor Inuits. 13,000 years ago where the are standing today, would be beneath thousands of feet of continental glacial ice. The only reason they were able to live where they do, is because massive global warming occurred, 13,000 years ago. Probably because the Sun started cranking up more energy. Think about it.

    As for a changing place to live, adapt, get used to it, it is all we have ever done as a species. Nobody said your place to live was forever.

  2. #2 by glenn on November 9, 2007 - 9:29 am

    The Inuits have more trouble with the bottle, than any climate change.

  3. #3 by Caveat on November 9, 2007 - 10:28 pm

    Glenn, you seem to be suggesting that “Mother Earth” might be only a ‘bit’ player in a much grander machination. Stimulating indeed.

    …and Cliff, you’re a bleeding-heart-liberal sissy. Feel better?

  4. #4 by glenn on November 10, 2007 - 2:58 am

    What are we to think Cav, with an entire gravitational universe surrounding us?

    Churning and burning CONSTANTLY!! Are not the craters of the moon, the asteroid belt, supernovas, and the myriad of phenomena not clues, that we have not an entire clue how this works?

    About geologic time, a measure, if 1000 years were one second, then Jesus walked the Earth 2 seconds ago. The ice age began to end 14 odd seconds ago, and the Wingate formation, and such things that you all see in Moab, were set down some 60 hours ago.

    The respective depositional environs seen, represent deserts, slow flowing rivers of warm carbonaceous Earth, like current day Florida, SEAS, and OCEANS…, that dried up ENTIRELY, leaving the salt mines and syn-clines, and anti-clines. The whole bit plain for the seeker to see.

    It is theorized that the uranium of the Chinle formation is the product of heavy metal replacement of the bodies of biota, animals and such. Go figure.Uranium is a very heavy metal, and what was not taken and processed by the US government is all the other heavy metals and solvents, found in that curious PILE, on the side of the road before town.

    If we are the cause of anything, does it matter to anyone but us? Does the Earth in this scale respect the “feelings” of the life it propagates? Ridiculous, in my view.

    We are entropy amplification devices in the form of biota, if you take away all all the hand wringing, and gnashing of teeth.

    The idea that in all that combined machination we are the primary cause of everything is basically blindly narcissistic , and entirely egocentric. It wouldn’t be the first time we have made such a hubristic mistake.

    It as though the fleas were arguing about who owns the dog.

  5. #5 by Cliff Lyon on November 10, 2007 - 11:40 am

    Only Glenn (not Glen Brown) would dare to take on the entire scientific establishment with his breathtakingly scintillating logic. Audacious might be a better word.

    Glenn, in everything you’ve written in support of our innocence in the cause of climate change, you do not address the fact of the consensus across the entire spectrum of the scientific community.

    In order to give your thesis some staying power, you’d have to give us a plausible explanation as to why the academic community, known for its predictable and historical practice of visceral self-examination in the form of thinly veiled malicious attacks on its own membership for the slightest transgression of data gathering practices, analytical process, methodology, conflict of interest and conclusion, has for more than 20 years spoken with near unanimity on this issue.

    Given the absence of any scientific credentials on your part Glenn, your challenge is to present and defend some sort of motivation which explains why and how the entire international scientific community has suddenly abandoned the historical behavior described above, on this particular issue and this issue alone, and come together with unprecedented unanimity on the consensus that global warming is man-made.

    Please Glenn, describe for us the worldwide conspiracy that would have us all change our destructive ways and live in a more harmonious, balanced way as it relates to our impact on the ecosystem.

    btw: your comment about the Inuit having a problem with the bottle probably does not inure to your credibility.

  6. #6 by glenn on November 10, 2007 - 1:09 pm

    So what Cliff?, in the 70’s the entire “scientific” community said we were to descend into a new ice age. Where are those credentialed knobs now?

    Have you read anything I wrote, or suggested reading, through links? It’s waste of time I figure, go ahead and worship at your new church. Warming will continue.

    Have any of your scientists yet explained how a volume of ice that lay upon the land to the extent that sea level was 300 feet lower than today… began to spontaneously melt 13,000 years ago? It is a simple question.

    In another thread I did the math for 13,000 years of sea level rise, based on 3600 inches of rise during that time period. AGAIN!! Sea level being a gross indicator of global warming…do you agree? If not, how does the ice stay ice if it is so damn warm?

    Geologic history that is irrefutable that has nothing to do with us, says it doesn’t.

    300 ft x 12 inches= 3600

    13,000 divided by 100= 130

    130 divided into 3600= 27.68

    So the average rise in sea level for the last 13,000 years, is 27.7 inches, per 100 years.

    The rise the last century is 2 inches, I believe, correct me if I am wrong. This is simple arithmetic based on geologic observations.

    Sometimes people just can’t see the forest for the trees, sometimes the concepts are over thought. Please explain the simple math.

    Have you ever seen the Inuit, and northern Indians in their villages in the presence of alcohol in their societies? I have. Are you simply deluded about that too?

    Sure it’s bad for us, but in the absence of economy and for a variety of genetic and conditioned reasons, it is just simply a killer to them. Head in the clouds today buddy?

  7. #7 by Cliff Lyon on November 10, 2007 - 1:23 pm


    What does this argument have to do with the scientific consenus that the recent and dramatic global warming is caused by man.

    Proving climate changes happens naturally does not weaken the unanimous scientific consensus that much of the current warming which is going to hurt us bad if it continues is human induced?

    Don’t give me evidence, give me the logic.

  8. #8 by Cliff Lyon on November 10, 2007 - 1:26 pm

    Btw: I went through you link to the John Coleman, Weather channel guy. It lead me to a blog that does not permit comments.

    Turns out John Colemen left the Weather Channel in 1983. He is a professional failure and a broken old man no one even remembered until her wrote that letter for Exxon.

    Grasping Glenn?

  9. #9 by glenn on November 10, 2007 - 1:46 pm

    About Coleman, so what? It came from a news story. You got something to say? There have been many a broken man discredited that has been completely correct. You know, Galilieo, and such.

    The warming is not dramatic, the last 100 years has seen a sea level rise of 2 inches, in the context of an event that we cannot describe the origins of, that averaged 27.7 inches of sea level rise every 100 years for the last 13,000 years. It’s simple Cliff, I don’t believe it, the primary evidence does not support it. No matter the eggheads.

    Surely the 300 foot rise in sea level DRASTICALLY altered the development and stresses on mankind, but here we, and I’m sure we’ll be here in the future, there will be challenges, we will overcome them, or not. The Anazasi didn’t, there are settlements under the water that existed, there is New Orleans.

    So here is the logic Cliff. It is going to warm. There is no more we can do about it than we could when MASSIVE continental glaciers melted. You wish to change our lifestyle to mitigate, I don’t.

    You build your sand castles below the tide line, I have better things to do.

    More logic, like all life on this planet, we’ll adapt, or not. Either way, you worry, I’m not going to. Thanks for the freedom.

  10. #10 by glenn on November 10, 2007 - 1:54 pm

    Actually I dare say I have a smaller footprint in many ways than many of you that are very concerned, but that however is the product of economics, not fear.

  11. #11 by Cliff Lyon on November 10, 2007 - 2:37 pm

    “And that is why we believe in Global Warming–not because we totally have our heads around the entire issue…but because we believe in the process that have led others to this conclusion.

    1. Greenhouse effect
    1. How We Know Humans Cause Global Warming, by Dr. Bill Chameides, July 2007
    1. The CO2 problem in 6 easy steps, 6 August 2007,
    1. Chaper 4 Greenhouse Gases (pdf file). Book chapter from David Archer’s book: Global Warming: Understanding the forecast. Book by David Archer
  12. #12 by glenn on November 10, 2007 - 2:53 pm

    Is it somehow unclear that I don’t believe that the world is warming? I know it is warming, studied it at school! The #’s don’t lie.

    The warming due to CO2 is a nice context, but there is simple evidence that just like snow melts faster as the ground is exposed, so does the Earth warm due to the loss of albedo. There are so many factors, that I like the idea, that increased carbon could so simply be the cause. It’s too convenient. It controls energy use, this will allow elites to further control us. Buy into it if you like. You cannot force it, anymore than you are going to restore continental glaciers.

    So since CO2 levels were at about 1% of atmosphere make up pre ice age, and today we are at a about 2%, what then caused a volume of ice that lay upon the land, to the extent that sea level was 300 feet lower than it is today, to spontaneously melt? It couldn’t have been carbon, and I have demonstrated that warming resulting in sea level rising is greater in the past as today. So why should anyone believe in human induced global warming based on carbon increase? It doesn’t wash. Just does not.

    Flora is a marker of climate agreed? So the last time potatoes could be grown in Greenland was about 1200, then it got too cold, and no more agriculture, was possible. Now you can grow spuds again. Warming works for some people, but it isn’t going to for Utah, and since not many people live there, too bad, Let’s all move north of 48. It the kind of thing man has ever and always done.

    Beneath the ice in Greenland, at the 1000 ft level of the pack, there is evidence of life, pine tree DNA, and such, under the ice at the bottom. The ice has surged and retreated multiple times in fairly recent geologic time. Tell us why Cliff.

    There is a good chance that all ice on Earth will melt, and rise sea level some 30 ft. This is 10% of the rise we have seen in the last 13,000 years.

    Will there be disasters? When pray tell, have there not been disasters on Earth? We have that motif etched into every cultural myth in any of a number of cultures.

    I am sure the worry is worse for Utahns, and those on the permafrost than anyone else. I’m sure they will all be moving soon, to a better place, or not.

  13. #13 by glenn on November 10, 2007 - 3:08 pm

    whoops! I got warm, and melted down.

  14. #14 by glenn on November 10, 2007 - 3:10 pm

    The greatest “Greenhouse Gas” and by far the largest factor in our atmosphere is water vapor. As the ice has all melted to rise sea level 300 ft. from when the ice age was at it’s peak, we have to agree that it has done so for reasons other than anthropogenic warming.

    More water in the form of evaporative surface is available to become rain, or part of a weather system. Without any other inputs, this alone will cause more violent storms and flooding.

    My point, get a raincoat, and sun hat, and don’t buy real estate at the beach. Do you think the chinese are not going to build 500, 500 megawatt reactors, in the next 5 years. Want to go to war with them, perhaps nuke ’em? Jesus already.

  15. #15 by glenn on November 10, 2007 - 3:16 pm

    Check this out, we are not going to be telling people what to do for very much longer.

  16. #16 by Cliff Lyon on November 10, 2007 - 3:42 pm

    Oh, of course Coleman is like Galileo.

    Have another bong hit dude.

  17. #17 by Cliff Lyon on November 10, 2007 - 4:04 pm

    Is there any correlation between your refusal to believe science (in this case) and your statement, “Either way, you worry, I’m not going to. Thanks for the freedom.”?

    ..or is it a mute point for you because even if you believed in AGW you still wouldn’t do anything about it?

  18. #18 by glenn on November 10, 2007 - 4:37 pm

    Don’t smoke. What science? Address the real facts, that you continually ignore. No one is going to change their life with so weak a plate of evidence. The trend of warming is simply HUGE, without any human involvement.

    Unless….look up the Ramayan Bridge, perhaps mans entire history as we believe it is utter bunk, and we had machines earlier that started this affair. Investigate. I am starting to believe that we have been at this height of technology before…and fell.

    Look, at the time, Galileo, was threatened with being put to death, and was publicly pilloried, only time and understanding has restored the man to his historical station. Of course it did help that he was right. Coleman in no way has been pilloried as Galileo was. Man was locked in his house for the rest of his life.

    Look Cliff, I know that I already do more than most of you, but you all talk a good game.

    If I believed in AGW, I would do my part and kill myself and stop breathing so as reduce CO2. Now you could quit smoking dope, and that might reduce the CO2 being spewed into the atmosphere, but I seriously doubt that you will do that.

    You still driving the V-6 SUV abomination?

  19. #19 by glenn on November 10, 2007 - 5:49 pm

    So let us assume we are the cause of warming, via increased Co2 emissions. The Earth is a closed system, if we were to increase CO2 in any plant bearing community, and increase CO2, the result is faster growing, bigger and more abundant vegetation and tree growth. Greater CO2 sequestration.

    So the system is somewhat self correcting, IF, you don’t pave the world. We have all stood in a parking lot and gotten cooked, only to move into a vegetated area to seek refuge. What if the primary cause of warming is paving and home construction, of the idiotic variety we have seen in America of late? Though that is over for now. Not only cannot vegetation grow, but rain is almost instantly vaporized upon contact with our hot cities, making for more vapor, as none sinks into the ground, increasing the “greenhouse effect” water vapor being the most significant “gas” that makes the phenomena occur. We make our own desert, our own wet zones, and carbon may not be the driver, is the point.

    The temperature surveys of cities have them hotter than the surrounding countryside, almost always. They are veritable furnaces, not chemically, but physically.

    Ever consider that is what we are meant to do? We enhance entropy, and shred things, there is no denial, and we are seemingly not capable of reigning it in. Not even people here, that are true believers. Our impact is somewhat non negotiable.

  20. #20 by Caveat on November 10, 2007 - 9:18 pm

    Glenn, I want to support that galactic perspective you shared. Any scientific consensus may just miss that grandiosity but it won’t invalidate what you sense.

    The time it took me to begin to digest your musing revolved around how that shifts our response-ability. Are we to simply let it ride or commit suicide or precipitate the end-times OR attempt to find ways to advance society and solving the problems that face us. There will be problems and so there will be solutions. Onward with that!

    Again, I was taken aback by the breadth of your perspective and left pondering that whole set as it related to us little guys who hope to have some impact. Thanks for that.

    Having writ that, I won’t give up, (not that you’ld suggested any such thing). Our challenge is at this level and though we won’t affect the tides we will be more human in the effort. Success or no success.

  21. #21 by glenn on November 11, 2007 - 6:47 am

    We’ll do both Cav, if we follow that old prayer, Log, give me the strength to change the things I can, acknowledge those that I cannot, and the wisdom, to know the difference.
    Global disasters lead to a “nomadic” perspective. Most modern humanity is so far gone from that, naturally it is going to terrible for the interim group of civilisation to make adjustment. I’m sure a few people in SoCal for example, are re-thinking life.

    Fighting wars that are optional that deplete us in the context of what we could be facing is to me tantamount to suicide.

    For my part, I’m buying a sailboat, complete with windmill, solar, and diesel, and sail. Living on it, means I won’t be living in Utah, but that decision was made long ago.

  22. #22 by glenn on November 11, 2007 - 7:30 am

    Hi everyone; this is what is in your future if the global warming government gremlins get their way. You see they have fucked up and tapped out any other sources of revenue growth, plus they have effectively destroyed our money, and we helped by inflating the value of homes to the extent that we traded only with ourselves, and consumed like a wasted stoner in Julia Childs’ kitchen.

    The run up in home prices has built us nothing of use for the future, soon the money will be gone. Ken has his array, maybe you all will be nice to him and he’ll let you charge a battery or two(laugh). Now what we have is a pile of over-sized, unsustainable, homes, that even if they drop in price and become dirt cheap, with what money and energy will you run them?(laugh)

    It’s funny everyone!! Some of what’s ahead.

  23. #23 by glenn on November 11, 2007 - 7:39 am

    It is a real heart-breaker that the girls’ people cannot get their 2 stroke snowmobile, and the sledge that it pulls, and all the other manufactured accoutrements out over the thin ice to kill animals. Let’s not forget the high powered rifle! Or the bottle of whishsky! Tools of my ancestors my eye. Ancient cultural way of life. Oh uh huh.

    This girl is 18 and blubbering like the child she is. 18, and telling us that her way of life is disappearing. Well DUH!!! It’s only been gone since before she was born. The old must be happy that the ice is melting and their ways are changing, they won’t have to take the mandatory walk out on the ice to end their lives when they are deemed useless to society.

  24. #24 by glenn on November 11, 2007 - 7:59 am

    Matter and energy is neither created nor destroyed. It is fixed. It’s a law.

    For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Newton

    The latest in the reality of our ever changing Big Blue Marble.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: