Bob Stannard: True believer

Editor’s note: This commentary is by Bob Stannard, a former lobbyist, who is still an author and musician. This piece first appeared in the Bennington Banner.

Well you’re fussin’ and you’re fightin’
‘cause you have a little doubt

Let’s get together and try to work it out, 100 years
100 years from now.

Ya know it won’t really matter much
100 years from now

– Mark Hummel

In 1914 there were 1.8 billion people enjoying life on planet earth. The skies were clearer. The polar ice caps were larger. The seas were lower.

The people of 1914 were blissfully reaping the benefits of the Industrial Revolution. Halfway through that year America entered World War I. Prior to this time the parts per million of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere had never exceeded 300.

Visit the NASA site climate.nasa.gov and you will see from 100 years to today the line indicating the increase in carbon is vertical. Carbon levels, and population, have been on the rise for the past 100 years.

The International Panel on Climate Change, the leading international organization for the assessment of climate change, has issued a report on its website: www.ipcc.ch. They’ve determined that human beings are responsible for the increase in CO2.

In an interview with Paul Heintz of Seven Days, Sen. Hartwell provided Vermonters with some disturbing insight as to his thinking on energy policy.

 

Is it a coincidence that 100 years ago CO2 levels were near the previous 400,000 years levels? It seems as though one does not have to be a scientist to see the direct correlation between population increase and CO2 increase over the past 100 years. However, if the obvious isn’t obvious enough then there is a wealth of credible information from approximately 97 percent of the world’s scientists confirming the obvious, which is that we now have 7.5 billion people on the planet and the highest CO2 levels of all time.

That global warming is the result of man’s need for more and more things should be a no-brainer. Yet there are those who insist that global warming is a hoax created by someone; environmentalists, I guess. For what purpose I’m not exactly sure.

There are those who refuse to believe that global warming of today is not man-made but is the result of some sort of natural occurrence yet undefined. Those most notable on the national level who insist that global warming is a hoax are folks like Rush Limbaugh, fossil fuel industry spokesperson Patrick Moore, Gov. Rick Perry, Glenn Beck, Sen. Jim Inhofe, who says the Bible says global warming is a hoax, and of course, the Koch brothers.

Here in Vermont we have a state senator, Bob Hartwell, who serves as chair of the Senate Natural Resources Committee and appears to be joining the ranks of the aforementioned in questioning whether climate change is the result of too many humans or some other, natural forces.

In an interview with Paul Heintz of Seven Days, Sen. Hartwell provided Vermonters with some disturbing insight as to his thinking on energy policy. I had posted the headlines on Facebook, which drew a response from Sen. Hartwell saying that he was misquoted. The reporter disagreed and published the entire interview, which can be read here.

There are a couple of things that I take away from this interview. First Hartwell does show concern for land use development as it pertains to utilities, which is good. However, he demonstrates a lack of knowledge of the process by pointing out that Act 250 disallows development over 2,500 feet, yet wind developers get their projects OK’d. He knows, or should know, that utility projects do not come under Act 250. They are regulated by Act 248. If he wants utility projects to come under Act 250 then he should change the law.

More disturbing is his answer to this question: “Is the science, or what you read in the papers, do you find that to be not true? Like the stuff that the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], which just released that big report on climate change, do you disagree with their conclusions?”

Hartwell relied: “It’s hard. It’s hard. And I’m not sure. You know, there’s so much of it out there now. Now there’s a lot of dispute to make it worse. There’s a lot of science that says it isn’t happening the way the climate change — the really aggressive commentators — say it is. There’s other very credible people who say it isn’t true. So now I’m beginning to — I don’t know what to think, to tell you the truth. But I don’t think that just because — it’s ideology for some people. That’s what’s happened. And if you’re not with them on their claims, you know, then you’re somehow old-fashioned or not with it. And that’s simply not true.”

It’s clear that he does not accept the work of 97 percent of the world’s scientists who unanimously believe the obvious: that global warming of today is manmade.

He takes issue with “extremists.” One could argue that Vermonters for Clean Environment, the organization of which he once held an executive position, could be viewed as extremists. If we follow Sen. Hartwell’s lead, then we can be assured that nothing of significance will ever happen to address the most significant issue facing the world today.

Ya know it won’t really matter much 100 years from now …

Leave a Reply

63 Comments on "Bob Stannard: True believer"

Comment Policy

VTDigger.org requires that all commenters identify themselves by their authentic first and last names. Initials, pseudonyms or screen names are not permissible.

No personal harassment, abuse, or hate speech is permitted. Be succinct and to the point. If your comment is over 500 words, consider sending a commentary instead.

We personally review and moderate every comment that is posted here. This takes a lot of time; please consider donating to keep the conversation productive and informative.

The purpose of this policy is to encourage a civil discourse among readers who are willing to stand behind their identities and their comments. VTDigger has created a safe zone for readers who wish to engage in a thoughtful discussion on a range of subjects. We hope you join the conversation.

Privacy policy
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Michael Matukonis
2 years 2 months ago

“It won’t matter much 100 years from now…” at least not for us. (One hopes) But it will matter to our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren and so on. But who cares, we won’t be around. It’s so important that some of the major networks devoted a whole two minutes to the recent UN Report on Global Warming. Not surprising when you discover that a large percentage of Americans believe that man was created a dozen thousand years ago and coexisted with dinosaurs. Mindblowing!

2 years 2 months ago

Bob:

You say: “ There are those who refuse to believe that global warming of today is not man-made but is the result of some sort of natural occurrence yet undefined.”

It appears that your use of a double negative makes the non-believers actual believers that global warming is man made.

Pretty sloppy start……..and we’re to buy your opinions on the issue of global warming?

John Greenberg
2 years 2 months ago

Right Peter.

People with the best opinions never make typos.

Amanda Higgenbotham
2 years 2 months ago

“People need to study the long history of the Earth. These true believers in climate change are only looking at the last 100 years. We’ve had billions of years of climate history in this world, and if you look at just the half billion of them, the most recent half billion, you will see that CO2 is lower now than it has been through most of the history of life on Earth, and so is the temperature.”

Patrick Moore (One of the original founders of Greenpeace)

Rob Roy Macgregor
2 years 2 months ago

Patrick Moore was not a co-founder of Greenpeace, although he was an early employee. He is most certainly not a climate scientist. Mostly he’s a shill for the nuclear industry.

One of many stories about Moore and his bogus claims is here: http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/02/27/who-is-patrick-moore-a-look-at-the-former-green/198266

There are lots more out there.

walter judge
2 years 2 months ago

The sentence: “There are those who refuse to believe that global warming of today is not man-made” is obviously not what you intended to say. It contains a double negative. It makes no sense. Take out the word ” not.”

Don Peterson
2 years 2 months ago

Its very hard to demonstrate that Vermont Wind Energy Projects do anything to mitigate global climate change, since they enable carbon emitters elsewhere to continue to do business.

But no doubt if we yell “green energy” long enough, it will become true. Meanwhile, lets all fly off to Central America in our “green jet”.

Annette Smith
2 years 2 months ago
Act 248 is a law related to mental health confinement. Utilities are regulated by Section 248. When the Dalai Lama was in Vermont he was asked about climate change. Here is the video, and my transcript of the question and his response (? appears when I am unsure of the word he meant. Everything below is the transcript, none of it is my words): Dalai Lama on Climate Change “What ethical principles should shape humanity’s response to climate change?” “I think climate change, to some extent, of course our behavior, our way of life… according to some scientists…so then we… Read more »
George Plumb
2 years 2 months ago
Thanks for drawing the connection between green house gas emissions and population growth Bob. The hockey sticks are exactly the same. In the precedent setting “What is an Optimum/Sustainable Population for Vermont?” report (www.vspop.org) there are sixteen indicators two of which are related to climate change, Green House Gas Emissions and Renewable Energy Production. The first says that a sustainable population is smaller than our current size and the second says we should stabilize at about 600,000. Unsustainable population growth is the cause of all of our environmental problems including water pollution, loss of forest cover, sprawl, the sixth great… Read more »
Annette Smith
2 years 2 months ago
“One could argue that Vermonters for Clean Environment, the organization of which he once held an executive position, could be viewed as extremists.” Bob Hartwell once served on VCE’s Board of Directors. By any definition I do not think that is accurately described as an “executive position”. He served as Secretary, without pay, and stepped down in mid-2011. Contrast that to Bob Stannard, who worked as a paid lobbyist for VCE on several issues, including a proposed natural gas power plant and pipeline project and Omya’s proposed open pit mine in Danby. It is rather amusing and a bit disturbing… Read more »
Mark Whitworth
2 years 2 months ago
Wow. Bob Stannard doesn’t like the fact that Senator Hartwell thinks that human activity may not be the only cause of climate change. I guess that Mr. Stannard holds the correct, orthodox belief that human activity is the ONLY possible cause of climate change. It seems that in Stannard’s world there are only two positions: his position and the position of Rush Limbaugh. Since Senator Hartwell doesn’t hold with Stannard, the senator must be in league with Limbaugh. Mr. Stannard credits Senator Hartwell with concern about land use development, but then criticizes him for not understanding the regulatory process because… Read more »
Bob Stannard
2 years 2 months ago

Thanks to all who picked up on my poor grammar/editing. Yes, I let a double negative slip by.

I stand by the points I’ve made.

Matt Fisken
2 years 2 months ago
I’ve tried very hard to see Bob Stannard’s perspective on the energy/climate issues, but this column is just plain awful. I read Sen. Hartwell’s full interview and it was clear to me that the Senator understands humans have had an impact on the environment/climate. Hartwell actually says, “the climate change thing is real. …man’s behavior just simply, probably, exacerbates it. That’s all I’m saying. To suggest that mankind [alone] is causing the whole climate to shift, that’s a big reach. …I don’t know what to think, to tell you the truth. ” Anyone with basic reading comprehension can see that… Read more »
Coleman Dunnar
2 years 2 months ago
Bob you state; …. 97 percent of the world’s scientists who unanimously believe the obvious: that global warming of today is manmade. Interesting neither I nor any of my colleagues who are currently working or have worked in the field have ever been asked to offer an opinion. Do you have a link you would be willing to provide to the actual survey which came up with the 97 number? Thanks for the link to the Hartwell interview. As suspected your piece here is a gross misrepresentation of his position. My read of it is he not anti-environment and has… Read more »
John Greenberg
2 years 2 months ago

Coleman,

I think Bob Stannard’s characterization of Senator Hartwell is on point, but readers can go to the full interview and judge for themselves: http://www.sevendaysvt.com/OffMessage/archives/2014/04/17/did-hartwell-really-say-that-about-climate-change.

As to the 97% studies, there are 2 different ones. One is a literature survey and can be found here: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

The other is a poll of earth scientists and can be found here: http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

Vanessa Mills
2 years 2 months ago
Mr Stannard continues to rabidly attack and marginalize other Vermonters. He tries constantly to drown out other Vermonters’ voices much in the same tone as VPIRG’s Paul Burns has, and as David Blittersdorf has done. What’s wrong with hearing them, sirs? In contrast, I’ll say thanks to the organizations and representatives who’ve worked to facilitate democracy and amplify voices (including mine!) of concerned Vermonters. Mr. Stannard would also appear here to be able to neatly box together a large number of people and then to neatly & narrowly describe how this Stannard-boxed group thinks and believes. He would try and… Read more »
Jamie Carter
2 years 2 months ago
Bob, you acknowledge that 3% of the world’s scientist oppose the hypothesis that global warming is soley attributable to green house gases. Well, isn’t that enough? The scientific method is such that you propose a hypothesis and attempt to disprove it. If any single piece of data goes against your hypothesis then your hypothesis is wrong and must be thrown out and/or adjusted. Herein lies the major arguments of the pro-climate change folk. It isn’t a majority rule. Science dictates that if CO2 levels rise behind temperature rises then they can’t be the driving force. The number of scientists that… Read more »
Paul Lorenzini
2 years 2 months ago

COLD KILLS MORE THE WARMTH! fact.
Sorry ’bout yer beach house.
move to the hill!

Paul Lorenzini
2 years 2 months ago

I forgot to mention CO2 is plant food.

Bob Goldberg
2 years 2 months ago
“Bob, you acknowledge that 3% of the world’s scientist oppose the hypothesis that global warming is soley attributable to green house gases. Well, isn’t that enough?” The answer would be no, when virtually everyone in a given field acknowledges the reality of a scientific theory, the onus is on the denier to make their case that virtually every credible expert is wrong. Your statement is like claiming that since a tiny number of oncologists believe smoking either does not increase the risk of certain cancers or that the accepted risk increase is overblown, this is enough to make us all… Read more »
John Greenberg
2 years 2 months ago
Jamie Carter, Just for the record, saying that 97% of climate scientists agree does NOT imply that 3% do not. Here are the actual figures from one study: “We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no… Read more »
Patrice Maloney
2 years 2 months ago

True believer, indeed…no facts, just demonizing as usual. There are countless articles and sites documenting the corruption within the IPCC, the scientific community participating with them, their peer review processes and funding sources, the missing, manipulated, and selective data used in the computer models (which are the only basis for the alarmists’ claims). If you’re getting your info from just Mediamatters and other democrat party mouthpieces, then you’re not getting the whole story. Here’s a start for you: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/category/climate/page/2

Bob Goldberg
2 years 2 months ago
So, getting our information from any remotely credible scientific institution on the planet is a bad idea, but getting conspiracy theories from bloggers who act as Republican mouthpieces is a good idea. Got it. Does this only apply to climate science, or should the same be true for other areas? Here are a few examples: The “skewed” polls of 2012 that claimed Obama would be re-elected. Right wing fantasists who claim data showing just how poorly US healthcare measures up to our peer nations is somehow being faked. Recent claims that the number of sign-ups on new healthcare exchanges is… Read more »
Patrice Maloney
2 years 2 months ago
What gets old is the idea that these people are “experts” when every prediction they’ve made has been wrong. And what gets old is the idea that if you disagree, you should just shutup and let these so called “experts” continue to lie, take your money and tell you how to live. What gets old are liberal social programs that have had money poured into them for 50 years with no improvement in outcomes (war on poverty, war on drugs, etc.). It’s called insanity…doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result. For every problem the left… Read more »
Bob Goldberg
2 years 2 months ago
Every prediction they have made has not been wrong, that statement is disingenuous at best. I would say insanity is trusting in liars and con artists on the right who are treated as credible experts based on no evidence other than their ability to tell right wingers what they want to hear. As for “Intentionally fostering divisions”, it is not the left who claim 47% of Americans are lazy moochers because they do not pay income taxes. It is not the left who denigrates the poor as lazy moochers who can never be made to suffer enough for the crime… Read more »
Pete Novick
2 years 2 months ago
In a course called Modern Economic Thought, the professor had on the reading list a book that profoundly altered my conventional (to say nothing of convenient) way of thinking about economics. This was 1974, and the book was, Small is Beautiful: A Study of Economics As If People Mattered, by E.F. Schumacher (1973). Schumacher was well known in his field, having studied under Leopold Kohr and worked with John Maynard Keynes, Robert Heilbroner, and John Kenneth Galbraith. In a nutshell, Schumacher debunks the whole of neo-classical economic reasoning – most importantly the idea of economic output as the most important… Read more »
Paul Lorenzini
2 years 2 months ago
Do you believe it will be a man who brought the beetle, or maybe a bird, or mother nature herself? I just wonder. who or what to blame? Doubtful the beetle will crawl there, kind of like Al Gore, he will go with whoever flies him there. and always blame someone else, in order to be a hero, or at the least to bloviate at heroic proportions! man, is not our friend, it is us, man, woman, black white, hot or cold, day or night. Mother nature made us, right? Maybe it was the Father. Maybe we are just a… Read more »
2 years 2 months ago
The fact that BS is a lobbyist, someone who pushes agendas and ideologies, gives me pause. Global warming or no Global Warming, BS is, once again, pushing an agenda. With all the info available to us today, if you look at just one side of the story, well, you’ve only looked at one side. There is another group of Scientist who are sick of the fear mongering around this subject. They are organizing and putting their data together for presentation. We should be hearing more and more from them (non-government council on climate change) and they intend to clearly show… Read more »
Jason wells
2 years 2 months ago

For those that will say geoengineering is a conspiracy our friends in the govt have been doing it successfully for close to 40 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Popeye

Annette Smith
2 years 2 months ago
Last Sunday (Easter) I was driving back from Poultney listening to Vermont Public Radio and “The Eye in the Sky” came on. The meteorologist talked about the clear blue sky and he said the only clouds were in southern Quebec. I had my camera with me so I took photographs of the sky all along the trip from Poultney to Tinmouth. You can see them here: https://plus.google.com/photos/114098560210816181304/albums/6004432903924547889?banner=pwa&authkey=CPrhl-Pnr_–hwE. (I took similar photos on Friday, April 25). When I got home I posted them on the Facebook page of “The Eye on the Sky” and asked “what is it?” No response. There… Read more »
Wendy Rae Woods-Hartwell
2 years 2 months ago
An Invitation to Mr. Bob Stannard In the interest of full disclosure I am expressing the following as the wife of Senator Bob Hartwell – D, Bennington County District. I’d like to respond to “Bob Stannard: True Believer”. First, I’d like to say I think I understand your interest in the issue of climate change and advocacy in the stewardship of our environment. I know you may have cared about specific issues and brazenly expressed your thoughts when you were a paid lobbyist. I do know you were once a state legislator under the guise of being a Republican and… Read more »
Linda Wysocki
2 years 2 months ago

Read this article this morning….different perspective…follow the money trail and make your own conclusion.

http://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2014/04/27/ignorance-and-cronyism-are-the-only-settled-sciences-n1829842/page/full

2 years 2 months ago
Bob: You have shown with this commentary, a preference to work as a pilot fish feeding off of the crumbs originating from Seven Days and Paul Heintz writings. With this in mind and your obsession with Koch brothers money, you may want to look into and opine on Paul Heintz comments made in this week’s Seven Days in which he relates to a recent Governor Shumlin episode and his foggy memory problems when it comes to tax policy on tobacco products and electronic cigarettes, lobbyists and political contributions. For those who may have missed the Heintz comments in the April… Read more »
Bob Stannard
2 years 2 months ago

Well, as usual Peter, you’re way off topic on my column. I was speaking to the similarity of the rise of the population and the rise of CO2 over the past 100 years. The Koch brothers are, indeed, working very hard to convince us that climate change is not man-made, but instead just the natural progression of things. This was the same position espoused by Sen. Hartwell.

You’re completely within your rights to go off on the tobacco issue, but I don’t see the link to my column.

2 years 2 months ago

Bob:

You just don’t get it.

The Paul Heintz article and my comments weren’t about tobacco. They were about a Governor that that has a difficult time being forthright with the people of Vermont. A Governor you insist of continually defending while attacking others undeserving of your venom, thus making my comments very appropriate at the time of your attack on Senator Hartwell.

Bob Stannard
2 years 2 months ago

I do get it, Peter. The governor had nothing to do with my column. My column was a reaction to the interview Sen. Hartwell did with Seven Days.

You’re the one making it about the governor; as you always do.

Lance Hagen
2 years 2 months ago
Interest read from Dr. Richard Tol on the workings of the IPCC. Dr. Tol was a lead writer for one of the sections of the IPCC report (AR5) but stepped down because he became frustrated with the drafting of the Summary for Policy Makers (SMP), which is the only part that politicians and the media read. http://richardtol.blogspot.nl/2014/04/ipcc-again.html The part I like best: “The SPM, drafted by the scholars of the IPCC, is rewritten by delegates of the governments of the world, in this case in a week-long session in Yokohama. Some of these delegates are scholars, others are not. The… Read more »
Avram Patt
2 years 2 months ago
Well it’s his style and Bob Stannard knows how to give people a poke and get a response! What is amazing to me though, watching these comments pile up, is how misinformed so many are, about the basic facts and about what Bob is saying specifically. About the scientific community’s near consensus on the causes of climate change: This consensus has existed well before the recent IPCC report. It is based on study debate and discussion among national and international associations of numerous scientific disciplines. Looking at any of these numerous papers, one sees that they are put together not… Read more »
Lance Hagen
2 years 2 months ago
Avram, I agree with your statement that “They [being climate scientist] also conclude however, that human activity is clearly contributing to and increasing the rate of change”. The science here is solid. But the real question isn’t whether human activity is contributing to global warming or climate change, but by how much is it contributing. Is it the primary cause, as assumed by the IPCC, or is it a second or third order driving force. With the fact that the existing climate models, on which IPCC relies, are NOT matching the actual global temperature, surly places the IPCC assumption, that… Read more »
2 years 2 months ago
Lance: You got it right on Senator Hartwell and all the rest. Beyond your words, we have to admire the Senator’s humbleness in admitting that he does not have all the answers to what is going on with climate change or man’s role in the issue. He thus wants to proceed cautiously, which is rational and fully appropriate. If more politicians and others in Montpelier were as honest, we would be much more efficient in solving the myriad of problems facing the state. Instead we waste millions because of people driven by ego and/or agenda versus sound knowledge and planning.… Read more »
Paul Richards
2 years 2 months ago
I agree. There is another, perhaps more important aspect to consider in all of this; the track record of our government. Is it any wonder people have doubts about what they say about the cause and effect of man on the environment? Especially given what is at stake which is nothing short of total worldwide redistribution of property and a loss of America’s sovereignty? Like a crack addict, they certainly have motive given their appetite for our tax dollars due to their total failure to manage what they already have. It’s like turning your child over to a drug addict… Read more »
John Greenberg
2 years 2 months ago
Lance Hagen writes: “… I have yet to see a technical paper that actually shows any correlation of empirical data on severe weather events to climate changes. ” Lance didn’t look very hard. Here are some papers, all in peer-reviewed scientific publications: –“Anthropogenic greenhouse gas contribution to flood risk in England and Wales in autumn 2000” http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7334/full/nature09762.html — “Human contribution to more-intense precipitation extremes” (” Here we show that human-induced increases in greenhouse gases have contributed to the observed intensification of heavy precipitation events found over approximately two-thirds of data-covered parts of Northern Hemisphere land areas. “) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7334/full/nature09763.html — “Anthropogenic… Read more »
Lance Hagen
2 years 2 months ago
Actually John, I have read 2 of your referenced papers. The information they show were derived from ‘model simulations’. I stated ‘empirical data’. There is a difference. There are many papers out there that rely on ‘model simulations’ to make their case, but fail the acid test when it comes to real data. Just as a side note, the paper that deals with the periodicity of maximum and minimum temperatures appears to be an effort to take existing data and establish set of model parameters, such that the model fits the existing data. But this is building a model and… Read more »
2 years 2 months ago
Thanks to the prudence and discernment shown by Senator Hartwell, VT is currently the only state with a “no-fee opt out” of wireless “smart” meters. He recognized the technology for the boondoggle it is, as evidenced by countless pilot studies and deployments across the country that show no energy savings, no customer savings, but huge incentives for industry. (Not to mention serious health, privacy, safety and economic issues.) Just because someone shrieks “green”, doesn’t mean that it is. And shrieking “green” should not be synonymous with a no holds barred, anything goes, senseless approach to dealing with climate change, whatever… Read more »
2 years 2 months ago
Before betting the farm on the objectivity of output from the global warming scientific community, everyone should read about some of the pickles the IPCC is in and what a prominent global warming scientist had to say. Below is what Dr. Steven Schneider, a prominent global warming scientist and Professor of Environmental Biology and Global Warming Change at Stanford University had to say: “We’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad based support,… Read more »
John Greenberg
2 years 2 months ago
Peter, You are misusing your own source. Schneider’s message (as you quote it) is the precise opposite of yours. His: “We’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change.” Yours: “…everyone should proceed with caution in dealing with global warming data ….” Scientists are, just like you and me, human beings, subjects to all the imperfections that implies. And the IPCC, likewise, is one of many organizations of scientists presenting the same message: climate change is real, anthropogenic, and requires immediate attention. But… Read more »
walter moses
2 years 2 months ago
“there’s something happening here, what it is ain’t exactly clear” but Peter Yankowski almost hit on it and Bob S denied it immediately. Let’s see: 1. Shumlin’s polls are taking a hit. 2. Shumlin is a great believer in renewable energy. 3. Shumlin loves big industrial wind to the extent that he calls them to say goodnight. 4. You don’t mess with Shumlin. Now, did Bob say that VCE could be considered an extremist organization? Are you sane, man? Now I got it. I can play the piano. I will play a waltz, And Stannard can dance with Shumlin! Did… Read more »
2 years 2 months ago
John: You got my point about caution right, but ignored the significance Schneider’s statement and the damage it does to the credibly of the global warming community’s scientific effort. Read the Schneider quote again, to see the most important part that affects whether or not we are to believe what we from the global warming scientists. Specifically Schneider stated: “So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has… Read more »
John Greenberg
2 years 2 months ago
First, Peter, you completely misrepresent the situation presented by Schneider’s statements: “Seems like cheating a few percentage points with the research was okay with Schneider as long as it advanced the agenda?” Cheating on data is NOT the same as offering “scary scenarios. It is not even close to Schneider’s making “simplified, dramatic statements,” nor is it in any way making “little mention of any doubts we might have.” What it is, not to put too fine a point on it, is scientific fraud. When Schneider talks about his bind, he is NOT saying that he’s a scientific crook or… Read more »
2 years 2 months ago

John:

Your avalanche of words cannot bury the simple fact that serious credibility issues exist with the scientific community working on global warming that touch on both method and basic honesty.

All I have been saying is that when questions linger, caution should be exercised before acting.

If you think that caution isn’t prudent in the face of serious uncertainties, then we’ll know what separates our thinking.

John Greenberg
2 years 2 months ago
Peter, Clever phrase “avalanche of words,” but it works both ways. So let’s make it simple enough for you to understand. Yankowski: “when questions linger, caution should be exercised before acting..” The conclusion reached by polling thousands of earth scientists: “ … the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists” http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf The public just mentioned clearly includes you, Peter.… Read more »
2 years 2 months ago

John:

We now know that I’m for caution and you’re not.

It’s probably safe to say that when your grade school teachers taught : “Measure twice, cut once”, you thought she was some kind of conservative ideologue to be leery of and reported to the NEA.

Being cautious doesn’t mean doing nothing….it means be careful of what you do and how you do it.

The Lowell Mountain wind project is a good example of the consequences of not taking proper precautions before acting.

John Greenberg
2 years 2 months ago
Peter, “We now know that I’m for caution and you’re not.” I’m sorry, but “caution” is not really what we’re discussing here. You’ve flagrantly misrepresented climate science (and the words of one scientist in particular) in order to urge “caution” about remedies for global warming. That’s not prudence; it’s intellectual fraud, which I’ve elaborated in some detail above. As to the old saw, the version I learned (in carpentry class, not elementary school) was “measure twice and cut once,” not “measure twice and then impose a multi-year moratorium.” Looking at the Lowell Mountain project, since you raise it as an… Read more »
Paul Richards
2 years 2 months ago
You say; “There is a great deal of publicly available data now on how the oil companies, the Kochs (oil money), the coal companies and others have invested millions of dollars in misrepresenting the causes, effects, and meaning of climate change to confuse the public and to defeat any politicians who might consider taking action about it.” This is no different than what george soros is doing for the other side except he has a LOT more money and therefore has a much wider influence. He stands to make Billions more from manipulating the energy markets. This man also wants… Read more »
John Greenberg
2 years 2 months ago
Paul Richards, You need to do some homework. You’re comparing a flea to an elephant. George Soros is worth $23 billion, according to Forbes, and he makes money in all sorts of ways: his financial fate is not dependent on the direction of the energy markets. Also according to Forbes, EACH of the Koch brothers is worth $40 billion. Exxon alone has assets of $375+ billion, according to Yahoo finance (which probably takes the figure from Exxon). Chevron’s come to a mere $250 Billion. But these are just the tip of a MUCH larger iceberg, which includes the remaining oil… Read more »
Paul Richards
2 years 2 months ago
John Greenberg, You could stand to do some homework. George soros has positioned himself in the twisted evil financial web funded by the American taxpayers to reap huge personal rewards from “green energy”. He has already done so. There is no doubt that a lot of money is being thrown around in our political arena. The fact that you say “there is no debate” suggests that the financially interested forces of people like george soros and the politically connected like the obama regime have successfully joined forces and seized the bully pulpit. I don’t expect you to lend credibility to… Read more »
John Greenberg
2 years 2 months ago

Paul Richards,

Most of this deserves no further response.

1) My original point stands. George Soros is a flea on an elephant. The collective interests of the fossil fuel industry are among the very largest on the planet and have not been shy with political contributions for the last century or so.

2) I have never considered “using soros [or anyone else] for (your) [my] moral compass.”

3) “We essentially have a one party system in this country.” That’s REALLY funny. You’re a very astute observer, Mr. Richards.

Bob Goldberg
2 years 2 months ago

There is a clear difference between trying to raise awareness about an issue virtually everyone in a scientific field agrees on and spending money to lie and discredit the researchers and their research.

It is sad you don’t understand this.

Paul Richards
2 years 2 months ago
It’s sad that you don’t understand that everyone questioning this “settled science” is not a liar and that this “settled science” was arrived at by a lot of money being spent to come to the “conclusions” they did. Al Gore said we would all be wearing life jackets by now. How can anyone take a very small slice of time to look at something as complex as the Earth and its surroundings and come up with undisputable conclusions? It’s sad that you won’t come in out of the field of sheep long enough to consider an opposing position on such… Read more »
Bob Goldberg
2 years 2 months ago
I don’t recall Al Gore saying we would all be wearing life jackets by now, but even if he did, I would not care. Yes, money goes into research, this is pretty much a given. A lot of money was spent to come to nearly every major scientific conclusion in the past few decades, by your “logic”, we should ignore all of those as well. “How can anyone take a very small slice of time to look at something as complex as the Earth and its surroundings and come up with undisputable conclusions?” It is sad you actually believe that… Read more »
Jon Mathewson
2 years 2 months ago

Not to sound petty or anything, but I do think it necessary to point out that while World War I did indeed begin in 1914, the U.S. Did not become officially involved until 1917.

Matt Fisken
2 years 2 months ago

I’m wondering if the Hartwell haters will ever admit that the Senator actually accepted climate change is exacerbated by human activity and our green house gas emissions in his interview.

Probably not, because then they might have to address his actual point: that Vermont’s wind and solar farms will not stabilize the Earth’s climate and are despoiling Vermont’s environment and communities.

Some will just keep shooting the messenger when they don’t like the message.

“But… but… how else are we going to replace our fossil fuel addiction?”

Round and round we go…

Wendy Rae Woods-Hartwell
2 years 2 months ago
Thank you, Matt Fisken for once again pointing out the truth about Senator Hartwell. Of course, he knows climate change is real and is the result of multiple factors. Like many, he doesn’t believe that wind power here in Vermont, at the expense of destroying a portion of a carbon sink, is worth the effort. There are other location sites much more appropriate than mountain tops. And there are other forms of renewable energy with greater efficacy than wind here in Vermont. I will say no more and trust that Mr. Stannard’s rude tactics have not tarnished the Senator’s reputation.
wpDiscuz
Thanks for reporting an error with the story, "Bob Stannard: True believer"