Bob Stannard: It’s only a matter of time

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.

Two days ago I looked to the east and I could see my neighbor’s house. Overnight the leaves arrived and the view that I had become accustomed to over these long winter months vanished. I look to the south and I can see the greenery racing up the side of Equinox and Mother Myrick mountains. Within the next 24 to 48 hours my ability to be able to see two 200 yards into the forest will be reduced to 50 feet. I will be corralled by foliage.

I am grateful for the month of May, because it is this month that we are reminded of how quickly the world around us changes. We know that everything changes every day, but we forget. Oh yes, there are other reminders that help us to remember. Things like grandkids. At this stage of his life my grandson, Ernest, a.k.a. Ernie, is changing at the same speed as the forest’s leaves. One day he could only crawl; the next day he stood up on his own. A few days later he took his first step. A month later I can’t catch the little guy.

The warp speed of change is breathtaking yet for the most part we never see it happening. There are those who don’t want to see change and there are those who deny change is happening. Sadness fills my heart when I think of these folks, for it is the dynamic of change that presents us with opportunities. One day that cell in your body that you know is there, but can’t ever hope to see, may have become cancerous. That would be unwelcome change. Denying it has occurred might very well prove fatal. An opportunity exists to try to fix the problem.

Denial is not partisan, racial or secular. We are confronted with it every day.

 

The news last week of the rapid melting of the glaciers in West Antarctica is another example of how fast things are changing around us. When my father came home from World War II there was no worry of Earth losing its polar icecaps. A generation later (or was it just a couple of days?) we are losing our polar ice caps. According to the article, which makes it clear that man burning more fossil fuels is substantially to blame for the problem, the process of the ice melting is no longer reversible. Sometime back, maybe a few hours ago, we had a chance to reverse the process, but we didn’t see it happening. Or did we? Some saw what was happening and let it be known, but the rest of us opted to deny that change was occurring. Some change is too unthinkable to think about. Choosing to deny the problem and thus not working on solutions to deal with the change may prove fatal in the long run.

The verdict from scientists was that destabilization of the Antarctic ice could lead to the seas rising 10 to 20 feet. Remember when we were worried about the seas rising an inch or two, or did we choose to ignore that warning, too?

The following is an excerpt from an article that appeared in the Daily Kos showing how those in a position of power are reacting to the news of melting glaciers:

“The North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission has found a solution to the political impasse posed by the conflict between science, which predicts the acceleration of sea level rise as the glaciers of western Antarctica collapse into the Southern Ocean, and money-driven politics tied to coastal development. The Coastal Commission voted to ignore long-term sea level rise. The Commission voted, with one lone dissent, to limit the period of consideration of sea level rise to 30 years. Keeping the period to 30 years allowed the Commission to avoid considering the consequences of the collapse of west Antarctic glaciers, the speed up of the melting of Greenland’s ice cap and the slowing of the Gulf Stream. This vote will end the conflict between the Republican dominated state legislature and the Commission that happened in 2010 when the Commission’s panel of experts predicted as much as 5 feet of sea level rise by 2100. The legislature rejected that report and prohibited state and local government offices from considering the possibility that sea level rise would accelerate.”

This is comparable to rejecting the word from your doctor that the tiny cell in your body that was fine yesterday is cancerous today. Sure, you can take the position that you are only going to look six months ahead and after that it’s someone else’s problem. The problem, of course, is that it’s still going to be your problem.

Denial is not partisan, racial or secular. We are confronted with it every day. Here in Vermont we have politicians in positions of influence who are not convinced that climate change is caused by man, but instead could be the result of some natural phenomenon.

And maybe I can deny that those green leaves that obstruct my long view through the forest behind my house don’t exist and I will have my view back, and that my once red beard is not really gray.

Leave a Reply

66 Comments on "Bob Stannard: It’s only a matter of time"

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
Paul Lorenzini
1 year 8 months ago

You have a great imagination Bob.

Bob Goldberg
1 year 8 months ago

No, he just has the ability to accept the science instead of denying it.

Paul Lorenzini
1 year 8 months ago

One sided Nostradamus science, Bob, because Al Gore showed him the light.

Bob Goldberg
1 year 8 months ago

To start off, replace “Al Gore” with every credible scientific institution on the planet and virtually every climatologist.

Paul Lorenzini
1 year 8 months ago

Tell me what makes you an expert in scientific credibility. please Bobb.

Glenn Thompson
1 year 8 months ago

Accepting the science taken from the peak of the last great Ice Age shows a warming trend with associated peaks and valleys with increasing warming temperatures followed by periods of colder temperatures. The use of fossil fuels had nothing to do with the trends associated with temperature changes over much of the period of time dating back 10-15K years. The only conclusion that can be established is climate change is the result of the natural evolution of the planet. Man can plan and adapt to climate change, but to believe man can control climate change and weather patterns is living… Read more »

1 year 8 months ago

Glen, Wood was the major source of energy until about 1830, when coal became the major source. Europe became nearly deforested, as did Vermont, etc. Bio-energy could not even support 1 billion people AT THAT TIME. Coal came to the rescue just in time. In 1800, there were only 1 billion people in the world, now 7.3 b, and 10 b by 2050. The low point of the Little Ice Age was in the 1780s, around the time of the US and French revolutions. People were under stress, because cold weather and a lack of crops; “let them eat cake”.… Read more »

Walter Carpenter
1 year 8 months ago

“Al Gore showed him the light.”

So did those melting glaciers in Antartica.

Paul Lorenzini
1 year 8 months ago

You mean the melting ice those icebreakers got stuck in, you know, the ones full of UN climate nostradamuses.

Kathy Nelson
1 year 8 months ago

Have some cheese with that baloney, Bob. Sea level rise is DOWN by 30%: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n5/full/nclimate2159.html Twenty years of temperature averages: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHXxJnqbJlI&list=UUTiL1q9YbrVam5nP2xzFTWQ&index=6 1994 0.1 increase 1995 0.05 increase 1996 0.05 increase 1997 0.03 decrease 1998 0.8 decrease 1999 0.05 increase 2000 0.01 decrease 2001 0.1 decrease 2002 0.1 decrease 2003 0.09 decrease 2004 0.02 decrease 2005 0.07 decrease 2006 0.005 increase 2007 0.02 increase 2008 0.09 increase 2009 0.11 decrease 2010 0.27 decrease 2011 0.14 increase 2012 0.07 increase The average global temperature is falling and sea level rise is decreasing. You didn’t provide a link to your Daily Kos story… Read more »

Bob Stannard
1 year 8 months ago

Yup, I guess you’re right Kathy. We have nothing to worry about. Let’s halt all this renewable nonsense and get tapped in to the tar sands right away. Let’s just keep right on pouring tons and tons of CO2 into the sky, because it doesn’t make any difference compared to some volcano or other natural phenomena. 7 billion people aren’t doing a thing in regards to degrading the atmosphere, so let’s a fall in line behind you, look the other way and act like there’s nothing to see here. God, I hope you’re right. However, something tells me you might… Read more »

Bob Stannard
1 year 8 months ago

NOAA seems to disagree, but that’s OK. Just stick with your conservative, right-wing material and you’ll be fine.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

1 year 8 months ago

Kathy,
You should not disconcert people with facts.

They rather stick with their know-it-all mantras and notions, thus requiring no further thinking.

Paul Lorenzini
1 year 8 months ago

All religions do Willem. But that being said, I do believe in higher powers, just don’t pretend to understand them or predict their intentions.

Vanessa Mills
1 year 8 months ago

My view, Mr. Stannard, is not one of denial. So stop postulating and over-generalizing. Such stuff helps nothing. My view differs from yours. And I might even call you a denier of sorts, if I cared to battle with you. And I actually don’t. But I will state my view as you seem pleased with yourself that you can group people together here on the comment board. The crux is that there are drastically differing views on how to respond to climate change issues. There is the build-em (the ” ’em” being industrial power plants on sensitve ecosystems)-as-fast-as-we-can-mitigate-later-environmental-social-economical-repercussiuons-be-damned school of… Read more »

Kathy Nelson
1 year 8 months ago

Well said, Vanessa.

Bob Stannard
1 year 8 months ago

I simply write an Op-Ed column twice a month. I don’t care to “battle” with anyone. I would note, however, that I do have my share of detractors who relish the thought of attacking my work.. It’s their prerogative to do so. Back before “comments” folks had to write a Letter to the Editor. The editor would filter most of the letters and keep the LTE section under control. Those days are gone. Fortunately, I’ve never shied away from a good argument. I do respect the fact that you, at least, are attempting to be self-sufficient. Not everyone can do… Read more »

Matt Fisken
1 year 8 months ago

More sleepless nights in the Stannard household wondering if all is lost because some folks question the concept that Man and Man alone can change or correct the climate. As has been pointed out numerous times in Bob’s columns and elsewhere, the debate over whether the climate is changing (it is) and what is the most significant driver of change (a single volcanic eruption tomorrow could dwarf all the Industrial Age’s flatulence) are distractions from more important discussions. ie: What can we actually do about it in the long term? It’s no mystery that many who lambast the “deniers” are… Read more »

Bob Stannard
1 year 8 months ago

….One more thing. For 41 years, probably longer than you’ve been alive, my primary heat source has been two heater woodstoves and a Glenwood cookstove. For many years I used Vt. Casting stoves. When it came time to replace them I switched to Jotel. For most of this time I cut, split and stacked my own wood. As of a few years ago I now have my wood guy drop it off cut and split. I have two heating seasons in reserve. For nearly all of my adult life I have used a renewable resource for heating and cooking. Thank… Read more »

Wendy wilton
1 year 8 months ago

Doesn’t burning wood add a lot of carbon to the air?

Mark Milazzo
1 year 8 months ago

Bob:
I stopped reading any of your writings because of your one-sided view of the world, but love reading the responses to your posts. Sometimes though you just throw a soft pitch that is too hard not to hit. Wood stoves are not the best thing to be using to heat your house if you feel the world is dying because of global warming…

http://planet.infowars.com/science/4-year-climate-study-claims-burning-wood-a-major-source-for-global-warming

http://www.healthguidance.org/entry/952/1/Beware-Your-Fireplace-Or-Wood-Burning-Stove-May-Be-Harming-Your-Health.html

There are so many of these links on the web…

ps.. Since I know you are now going to get rid of the wood because of this new information, can I take it away?

1 year 8 months ago

Bob, The air pollution of biomass, i.e., wood, wood chips, wood pellets, etc., is about as bad as coal. The wood ash contains so much radioactive material, that if it had come from Vermont Yankee, it would have to be classified as radioactive waste, per NRC rules. http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201202110053 Do not use wood ash on your kitchen vegetable garden!!! Regarding CO2, it would be a miracle, if the CO2 produced by harvesting wood, processing it, transporting it, combusting it, would be equal to sequestering it by growing NEW biomass, i.e., in the real world the A to Z process is not… Read more »

Bob Stannard
1 year 8 months ago

I have recently re-insulated my home using both open and closed cell foam. I have insulated basement and garage slabs. In the ’70’s I had the first home energy auditing business, which included the first blower door for testing air exchanges per hour. In addition, I had the first Hughes Prob-Eye infra-red scanner that was used to discover leaks in homes. Mine was the first house that we tested and slowed the per-hour air exchanges down to a safe level. I have just added 30 solar panels to my roof. I have upgraded my heat source to a state-of-the-art efficient… Read more »

1 year 8 months ago

Actually the planetary system isn’t some sentient life form that changes itself to survive. The planetary system is made up of processes of reaction to internal and external events and forces – there is nothing in our planet that indicates a preference for one state over another. The Earth will continue its’ path through the solar and greater system regardless whether the planet is a barren globe of sand and dust ala Mars, an overheated partially molten surfaced oven ala Venus, or the to us glorious Goldilocks planet capable of holding liquid water and life as we know it. It… Read more »

Carl Werth
1 year 8 months ago

Bob, I appreciate that you worry about man, but do you seriously think you can stop or delay man from facing extinction?

Keith Stern
1 year 8 months ago

That is commendable of you to conserve energy as well as saving you money. Peter Welch introduced an energy conservation bill in Vermont and in Washington, but as a wealthy lawyer with no real life experience he missed the point badly. To qualify for a government refund one must hire an energy star certified contractor which would greatly offset the refund. If he researched, something he seems to fail badly at, he could have found out that any competent contractor and many do it yourselfers could do energy saving upgrades and obtain the same energy effiency as the certified installers.… Read more »

Wendy wilton
1 year 8 months ago

300 million years ago the little place on earth we call VT was partly underwater and the other part formed the shore of an inland sea. What is now New England was sub-tropical climate as the fossil record indicates. Later, Ice Age glaciers reached the southern states and scoured our Green Mountains down to small mountains from their once lofty heights. No intervention by mankind or animals created this. The earth gradually swarmed and the glaciers receded. The earth is ever-changing. Mankind’s view is currently influenced by foggy memories of Currier & Ives prints, involving long New England winters, I… Read more »

Bob Stannard
1 year 8 months ago

Two things: yes burning wood does release CO2. Wood is considered by most to be a renewable resource. The CO2 in wood would be released as the wood decomposes.

Yes as you note Earth has undergone many changes. However never in its history has there been this much CO2. Man is releasing more CO2 than ever before and it is having a deleterious affect on the planet. Those who choose not to believe what the overwhelming majority of the world’s scientist are telling had better be right.

Keith Stern
1 year 8 months ago

There has been huge strides in reducing the carbon footprint over the decades. More efficient fuel burning devices, better emissions scrubbers, and energy conserving products. That will all continue to improve with time.
To take the Chicken Little approach is nonsensical. Planting more CO2 absorbing forests makes much more sense than covering the planet with inefficient solar and wind projects. Trees work 24/7 where solar and wind doesn’t come close at all.

Glenn Thompson
1 year 8 months ago

Bob Stannard states, “Yes as you note Earth has undergone many changes. However never in its history has there been this much CO2.”

That’s not true…not true at all. This article is a good example!

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm

Then there is this one! Filled with informative information and highly technical. Your choice to believe or not?

http://www.co2science.org/about/position/globalwarming.php

Bob Stannard
1 year 8 months ago

…in the meantime doesn’t make just a little bit of sense to hedge our bet and do whatever we possibly can to reduce our production of CO2?

I guess if you, Wendy, believe what is happening is nothing more than a natural occurance then there’s little point in trying to convince you, and other deniers, of the reality.

Lance Hagen
1 year 8 months ago

Bob, so you can rest easier at night, please read the article from Andrew Revkin. Seems that this so called ‘collapse’ is likely to begin in the next 200 to 1,000 years. This means sometime between 200 and 900 years from now the rate of ice loss from this glacier could reach a volume sufficient to raise sea levels about 4 INCHES (100 millimeters) a century.

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/12/keep-in-mind-scientific-and-societal-meanings-of-collapse-when-reading-antarctic-ice-news/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=1&

I don’t think your great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandchildren need to worry about having beach front property in Vermont!

Bob Stannard
1 year 8 months ago

I’m rooting for you Mr. Hagen and do, most sincerely, hope you are correct. But what if the thousands of scientists who disagree with you are right. Think it might then be too late? Then what? Folks like you will just get to slither on back into the shadows like you never said a word.

Bob Stannard
1 year 8 months ago
1 year 8 months ago

Bob, “Germany is showing that it is still leading the world in renewable energy use with news that renewable energy sources were responsible for 74% of the country’s ENTIRE DEMAND during the middle of a day”. The 74% was less than ONE hour on ONE day. It only happened because it was a windy day with a lot of sunshine during the day; a very rare occurence in Germany. As a result it was big news. See graph in the URL http://inhabitat.com/germany-sets-new-record-with-renewables-supplying-74-of-the-entire-countrys-energy-demand-last-weekend/ Germany’s main problem is its lack of North-South transmission, already 10 years behind schedule. That is one of… Read more »

John Greenberg
1 year 8 months ago

Willem’s comment is a repeat, so I’ll just repeat my response from a comment on Ben Luce’s op-ed a few days ago. Willem’s comments about the German minister provoked my curiosity, so first, I followed his link. Willem’s source is not a newspaper; it’s a blog written by Pierre Gosselin, who characterizes himself as a climate skeptic: “I’ve always been a skeptic of the AGW hypothesis, and view myself as a mere spectator in the climate change debate and arena.” http://notrickszone.com/about-pierre-gosselin/ That made me even more curious, so I Googled for more information on the speech itself and found this… Read more »

1 year 8 months ago

John,

Germany has restructured the ENERGIEWENDE to be less costly by reducing feed-in tariffs.

This has resulted in much less MW/yr of PV solar installations, and much howling by the PV solar businesses.

The 2010, 2011, 2012 MW totals will not re-occur anytime soon.

The PV business stakeholders in Germany were stunned by the recent speech of the Gabriel, Germany’s Vice chancellor, AND minister of Energy and Economics.

After Chancellor Merkel, the second most important government person in Germany. Merkel likely approved of the speech.

…………………MW

2009………….3801
2010………….7378
2011………….7485
2012………….7604
2013………….3303
Jan-14…………193
Feb-14………..110
Mar-14………..156
2014, est…….2000

Bob Stannard
1 year 8 months ago

Mr. Post, I have to admire your hutzpah. You site your own blog posts as “reality checks”. I’ve followed you for some time now and if I’ve learned nothing I’ve learned that your conclusions are based on distorting facts and/or using misleading data. You’ve been called out many times yet I don’t seem to recall one time where you’ve defended your claims with accuracy. Although you spew out quite a bit of stuff every time you respond, which is altogether way too frequently, your credibility is questionable at best. Siting your own blog posts to shore up your own argument… Read more »

1 year 8 months ago

Bob, Here are some data directly from the VT-DPS website. This data also appears in this article: http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/332911/high-renewable-energy-costs-damage-vermonts-economy In all my articles are many URLs from which I get my information. These URLs are referenced. If you read my articles, you can verify the numbers. I know that would require some work. Engaging in unprofessional smearing and slurring is so much easier. Excerpt: Here are the production results for the SPEED Program, 2.2 megawatt or less: 2010……..5,980,779 kWh……..0.1387 $/kWh; July – December 2011……20,172,973 kWh……..0.1644 $/kWh 2012……29,666,592 kWh……..0.1716 $/kWh 2013……44,822,813 kWh……..0.1919 $/kWh Note the RISING trend, whereas RE promoters were claiming… Read more »

Bob Stannard
1 year 8 months ago

As much as I might like to, Mr. Post, I don’t feel compelled to read the work of one who has been proven on numerous occasions to either be wrong or misleading. I’m too busy doing things I enjoy doing.

1 year 8 months ago

Bob, I have made some additions to my earlier comment regarding the production and cost of the SPEED Program; 2.2 MW or less. The information is from the referenced VT-DPS websites. Speed Program; 2.2 MW projects or less. The program started generating energy in July 2010. Year……….Production………Cost…………..$/kWh…..% VT Use Units…………kWh………………$ 2010…….5,980,779………829,832.88……0.1387……..0.11 2011……20,172,973……3,329,269.05…..0.1644……..0.36 2012…..29,666,592…….5,093,237.71……0.1716……..0.53 2013…..44,822,813…….8,692,749.09…..0.1919……..0.81 http://vermontspeed.com/speed-monthly-production/ http://vermontspeed.squarespace.com/project-status/ The above “Cost” column shows the amount paid mostly to the risk-free tax shelters of in-state and out-of-state multi-millionaires, who own the larger PV solar systems. Based on a NE annual average grid price of $0.054/kWh at which GMP, et al, could have bought… Read more »

Glenn Thompson
1 year 8 months ago

And on the other side of the coin!

http://theenergycollective.com/lindsay-wilson/279126/average-electricity-prices-around-world-kwh

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/09/business/international/germany-moves-forward-on-renewable-energy-plan.html

The thinkprogress article is misleading since the overall % of power produced by ‘solar and wind’ over time is much less than what the article would have one believe!

“In 2012, all renewable energy accounted for 21.9% of electricity, with wind turbines and photovoltaic providing 11.9% of the total.”

1 year 8 months ago

Glenn, Germany has restructured the ENERGIEWENDE to be less costly by reducing feed-in tariffs. This has resulted in much less MW/yr of PV solar installations, and much howling by the PV solar businesses. MW 2009…………3801 2010………….7378 2011…………..7485 2012………….7604 2013………….3303 Jan-14…………193 Feb-14…………110 Mar-14………..156 2014, est…….2000 EEG-1 total cost was 387.4 billion euro, EEG-1 is estimated to be about 213.2 billion euro. All is explained in this article. http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/338781/high-renewable-energy-costs-damage-germanys-economy EEG Capital and Surcharge Cost Summary: This section has an estimate of the capital and surcharge costs of the EEG-1 phase; start 2000 – end 2014 (15 years), and EEG-2 phase; start 2015… Read more »

Bob Stannard
1 year 8 months ago

Some might see 22% and 12% as a positive contribution. Perhaps if we transferred the subsidies from oil, gas, coal and nuclear over to renewables than these percentages would increase. That should be seen as good thing….well unless you’re a support of oil, gas, coal and nuclear.

John Greenberg
1 year 8 months ago

“In 2012, all renewable energy accounted for 21.9% of electricity, with wind turbines and photovoltaic providing 11.9% of the total.”

In 2007, the figure corresponding to your 21.9% was 14%, so the increase in 5 years was more than 50%, which isn’t too shabby. Progress happens.

Bob Stannard
1 year 8 months ago

Me. Post. No one has enough time to read all of the links you post. I believe this might be a strategy.

1 year 8 months ago

Bob,
More slurring?

1 year 8 months ago

Willem:

Slurring…. the province of bankrupt thinking and the last gasp before going under a sea of name calling and bashing.

When you’ve been slurred by Bob, you know that you have won the argument.

1 year 8 months ago

Hi Bob, what’s your position on the Addison natural gas pipeline?

Vermont Gas Pipeline Protester Arrested After Chaining Herself to HQ | Off Message | Seven Days | Vermont’s Independent Voice
http://www.sevendaysvt.com/OffMessage/archives/2014/05/27/vermont-gas-pipeline-protester-arrested-after-chaining-herself-to-hq?utm_source=Seven+Days+Email+Newsletters&utm_campaign=c464ca8cd7-Daily_7_Tuesday_0527145_26_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_24eb556688-c464ca8cd7-296201401

“Does today’s action represent an escalation in the fight against the Vermont Gas pipeline, slated to carry natural gas from Chittenden County south to Middlebury and potentially beyond?

“Definitely,” said Brunner. “I don’t think it’s going to stop here. We’re saying, we’re not going to stop until you stop. People are pretty serious. The stakes are way too high with climate change and fossil fuels.”

Paul Richards
1 year 8 months ago

“According to the article, which makes it clear that man burning more fossil fuels is substantially to blame for the problem, the process of the ice melting is no longer reversible.”
“man burning fossil fuels is substantially to blame…” Prove it!
Besides obama said in his acceptance speech; “this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal”. He is one powerful dude so I take that to heart and believe everything is all set. No need to worry.

Bob Stannard
1 year 8 months ago

There is nothing I, or anyone, could say that would convince you of the reality. Whatever I say will simply result in you saying it’s not true. The climate’s not changing. There is no more CO2 now then there ever has been. The polar caps are not melting. The weather’s not changing. That’s your paradigm. Fine. It’s not mine. Let’s wait a few decades and see who’s right. If you’re right I’ll buy you dinner. If I’m right, then neither of us will be here and you’ll save the expensed of buying me dinner. I’m rooting for you.

Paul Richards
1 year 8 months ago

Those are your words not mine. I think you missed the point. I agree that the climate is changing however; I do not agree that it’s settled science that “man burning fossil fuels is substantially to blame”.

1 year 8 months ago

Bob: did you read this piece by Rebecca Foster? It’s your bailiwick and there’s no comment from you! For the second time, what is your position on the Addison pipeline?

Rebecca Foster: Speaking their minds, and their hearts – VTDigger
http://vtdigger.wpengine.com/2014/05/20/rebecca-foster-speaking-minds-hearts/

Bob Stannard
1 year 8 months ago

you can feel free to ask me four or five more times if you like. I’m a columnist. I write columns expressing my opinion(s) on a variety of topics. You either like my writing or you don’t. I don’t particularly care either way. I’ve not taken a position on the pipeline and most likely won’t. I might, but I might not. Either way I don’t see as to where I’m under any obligation to respond to your requests. Why don’t you become a columnist and then you can write about it and have people complain about your work. You’ll be… Read more »

Paul Lorenzini
1 year 8 months ago

How much lobbying have you done on behalf of your belief in AGW Bob, and who were the senators and reps that drank your koolaid? The voters need to know.

1 year 8 months ago

Bob, thanks for responding. For a person who is a self-proclaimed true believer, a staunch advocate of renewable energy and equally opposed to fossil fuels, your tacit support of the Addison pipeline is surprising. Perhaps you are bound by loyalty to former clients, or have political/financial affiliations that would be compromised. It’s a pretty straightforward issue. If we want to reduce our oil/gas consumption yesterday, why build the infrastructure to facilitate continued dependence, especially given a percentage of the proposed gas is fracked, a practice banned in VT? I just can’t square all of your writings with your position, or… Read more »

Bob Stannard
1 year 8 months ago

Martine, let’s not put words in my mouth. I have plenty on my own. Not taking a position should not be construed as “tacit support”.

To Mr. Lorenzini, I don’t believe I’ve ever lobbied on behalf of an AGW client.

The all of the deniers here I would encourage you all to take four minutes and watch John Oliver’s take on you and your position:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg

Glenn Thompson
1 year 8 months ago

Bob Stannard, “The all of the deniers here I would encourage you all to take four minutes and watch John Oliver’s take on you and your position:” I watched it. It’s a comedy skit. Should I be impressed? How do you define “deniers”? I’m no denier since I believe Climate Change is real but man can do nothing to control it. There lies the issue from my perspective….plus I’m learning from comments from others (one in particular here)…..Geological History from the past before man started using fossil fuels must be discounted from the argument the Earth has been evolving from… Read more »

Bob Stannard
1 year 8 months ago

Let’s hope you’re right, Mr. Thompson.

RE: the “comedy skit”. I think that John Oliver was using comedy to drive home a very serious point, which is that the overwhelming number of credible scientists disagree with you.

But hey, what do they know?

Glenn Thompson
1 year 8 months ago

Except the 97% is a myth! This is a more accurate figure.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the-97-consensus-myth-busted-by-a-real-survey/

Bottom line here is…..if the human race continues to multiply like rabbits….the time will come when Climate Change will be the least of our worries!

Matt Fisken
1 year 8 months ago

Just to clarify, Bob, the 97% of scientists believe the climate is changing and that man-made emissions of greenhouse gasses are CONTRIBUTING to said change. Glenn just said he believes the climate is changing, which would appear to square him with the 97 (or whatever) % crowd which has NOT said man can CONTROL the climate. I’m not sure if you are intentionally antagonizing people for kicks or just misunderstanding that believing we have contributed to climate change is NOT THE SAME as believing we have the ability to control the climate. The irony of the video you posted is… Read more »

Paul Lorenzini
1 year 8 months ago

Actually I already saw that guy on MSNBC, Yup, I watch both sides, born and raised on ETV, graduated to FOX on 9/11, and now I watch both. You?

Bob Stannard
1 year 8 months ago

I don’t watch a lot of Fox News, because they spend a lot of time apologizing for the “errors” they make on an all too regular basis.

Paul Lutz
1 year 8 months ago

Not sure about that Bob, but you may open your mind a little by watching something other than the propaganda from the other networks. Next time a story (tries) to break about something the Obama administration messed up, flip through all the news channels. When the latest VA scandal was really cooking, MSNBC and CNN where taking about…….. Bush. Ohh yes, the story was about events in 2007 or so. Hmmn, go figure.

Paul Lorenzini
1 year 8 months ago

I LOVE information, the freedom of which allows me to decide.

Force fed schooling makes me quiver with rage.

Paul Lorenzini
1 year 8 months ago

CNN was talking about MH370, and MessNBc was talking about themselves.

wpDiscuz
Thanks for reporting an error with the story, "Bob Stannard: It’s only a matter of time"