Town Square

Post a New Topic

Global Warming / Climate Change -- other views

Original post made by another view on Feb 4, 2008

Menlo Park under the leadership of Mayor Fergusson spent practically her whole term in office trying to make MP becoming a model green city. Other views were shunted aside by the green extremists, and now the City is going to be spending considerable money and staff time on an issue which is well beyond the scope of what a small city council should be attending to.

Indeed their are plenty of other views about the reality of the global warming and CO2 emissions -- look at

Web Link as an example.

Rather than having our city waste precious resources doing CO2 footprint studies and the like, other much more needed local issue remain untouched.

another view

Comments (37)

Posted by Bob, a resident of another community
on Feb 4, 2008 at 10:15 pm

Thank you for posting this. It is too bad that we have largely only heard from one side of this story. Now, we might start getting more of the truth.

Posted by StopTheLies, a resident of Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on Feb 5, 2008 at 7:58 am

Excuse me, "another view," but your link led to a conference sponsored by the Heartland Institute. Surely you must be joking. Here's a link for anyone who wants quick source of info on the Heartland Institute (don't forget to check out funding sources).

Web Link

When will this corporate-sponsored lying stop? Another View and Bob: Don't you guys have kids? Grandkids? What kind of planet do you propose we leave for them?

Posted by moving on, a resident of Menlo Park: Belle Haven
on Feb 5, 2008 at 10:07 am

The issue is not whether global warming is a concern but how many resources the city should be devoting to it. I'm all in favor of the city being as green as possible, providing incentives for green development, and encouraging companies that promote sustainability to set up offices in Menlo Park, but even with our best "think globally, act locally" efforts, we are not going to change the world.

The majority of city resources should be devoted to issues where our efforts can have long-lasting and profound impact. If you care about our kids and grandkids, then let's figure out how to improve their experience growing up in this area, maybe by providing more recreational facilities and developing safer bikeways so that they don't have to rely on their parents to transport them everywhere.

For too many years, city council members have devoted inordinate amounts of effort to their own pet projects rather than tackling the tough problems. It's way past time for the council and staff to start focusing on how to make Menlo Park a better community for all parties. Green considerations should figure in to those plans, but can't be the only driver.

Posted by Truth = Freedom, a resident of another community
on Feb 5, 2008 at 10:21 am

Stop, I want to leave my children and grandchildren the kind of country I grew up in. I want to leave them a country where there is still freedom.
The man made global warming hoax is being used to justify more big government control of our lives. The state of California is currently considering mandating what kind of cars we drive, the kinds of light bulbs we must buy, and even government control over our home thermostats! The policies that are being devised to combat this hoax, promise to destroy our economy and severely curtail our rights, choices and freedoms.
Certain groups have made science into a whore for their brand of politics. Partisan politics is being played in universities in terms of who gets grant money for "studies". If an unscrupulous researcher can somehow link his research to global warming (no matter how tenuous or preposterous the link), he gets the grant money. His so called research is then added to the growing pile of "science" that purports to prove the junk theory of man made global warming. People who, for the most part, have little understanding of what constitutes good science, are all too frequently fooled into believing the dire predictions of the global warming alarmists.
I, for one, will not give over more bureaucratic control of my life or the lives of my fellow citizens, for the lie of man made global warming. I will not submit to the greed of power hungry politicians, the fears of the ignorant or the incompetent and destructive benevolence of a super nanny state.

Posted by wow, a resident of Menlo Park: Belle Haven
on Feb 5, 2008 at 1:09 pm

I almost feel obligated to respond to T=F. Greed of power hungry politicians? Are you kidding me right now that you are going to rant about this and not even mention the oil companies, the lobbyists, the obvious connection between fruadulent execs and the white house, bla bla bla it is just non stop greed and lies right now. And you are going to aim your anger at the greenies? What a joke.

Fears of the ignorant? You mean the war on terror? Or global warming? What is your point with this rhetoric? Are you kidding me? Do you even see what is going on in our world?

Your next line will probaby accuse scientist of being Godless, right?

Watch the news tonight boys. The country is about to revolt against your old guard, your friends and cronies, your thieving exec buddies, your oil tycoons and send you all packing.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out. My generation is taking charge now and you can go retire and they can drill your remains for oil.

Posted by Democracies last about 200 years, a resident of Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on Feb 5, 2008 at 1:39 pm

Wow, no one can stop a fool from his folly. Have fun wrecking the country. Your generation will pay dearly for it. Keep on hating the "evil corporations" and believing all the other drivel you've been sold. You can stand up and cheer when the new Stalinist era is ushered in. Afterwards, you will sink into 3rd world oblivian or worse. America was nice while it lasted.

Posted by wow, a resident of Menlo Park: Belle Haven
on Feb 5, 2008 at 2:12 pm

Hate is such a strong word. A corporation deserves no emotion and no attachment. In theory it creates products, sells products and creates jobs in the process. It has no heart and no agenda. Consumers have been marginalized for years as a result of corporate and political marriages. That is the real cancer of our country. And the most obvious example of that today is Enron and Worldcom and the party who propped them up.

To accuse Menlo Park and the rest of my generation of pushing a false agenda with the global warming is just ridiculous. By investing in alternative means for energy we create a more competitive industry and we empower consumers with choices. A lot of our parents drove small cars, conserved water and used solar before it was chic. It wasn't out of hate it was an economic choice. The oil companies have a monopoly. And they won't change unless we force them to do so.

The fact that a group of citizens in Menlo Park put in their own time last year to put a plan together to find alternative fuel sources and reduce consumption is a good thing. Planning for our water usage is a good thing to do. Regardless of your opinion of global warming and science, our citizens did this work free of charge.

The reason you will see a revolution today and into the next election is the mere fact that the old guard attacks and insults anyone who dares to think differently. And there are too many examples of mismanagement and mistruths to list -- not the least of which is trying to denegrate people working to solve our energy and environmental crisis.

Stalin was a dictator and Stalinism is a cult around the personality of that dictator. That does not fit here at all. Socialism, probably a closer criticism. But the pendulum of democracy swings and it is reacting to massive force from poor leadership.

In this country you are what you do. The problem is, Democracies, the old guard let its politics muddle up this pure free market rule. By doing so, it has brought down corporate America to party politics.

So it is not my generation that is reponsible, it is your politics.

But we will clean up your mess. And the garbage trucks are rolling into the election booths right now.

Posted by Democracies last about 200 years, a resident of Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on Feb 5, 2008 at 2:27 pm

Wow, sooner or later reality will hit you in the face. By then it will be too late to stop the misery and suffering you and others like you, have caused. The road to hell is paved with "good" intentions, as they say. You are too naive.

Posted by Disgusted, a resident of Menlo Park: Felton Gables
on Feb 5, 2008 at 2:51 pm

Democracies...200 years: The misery and suffering in this country have been worsening for the last 25 years as the people have lost more and more control to corporate power. And the problem has accelerated tremendously in the last seven years. We're slipping from a democracy to a corporate oligarchy -- and that's an optimistic view. Many think we're already there.

You want to talk about 3rd-World existence? Take a look at the growing millions of people without health insurance. The growing gap between rich and poor and the shrinking and clobbering of the middle class. The increasingly unaffordable cost of higher education. The gutting of our government regulatory agencies so that corporate criminals can further degrade the environment and screw the public. These are not problems caused by "Wow"'s generation, but I hope with all my heart that it's not too late for his or her generation to clean up the disgraceful mess we're leaving them.

Posted by Donald, a resident of another community
on Feb 5, 2008 at 4:12 pm

It is interesting to watch the global warming skeptics change their tune. 10 years ago they denied that global warming existed at all. As that position became untenable they began to assert that is is just part of a natural cycle and is not man-made. Now I am starting to see them claim that it exists and may be man-made, but it won't be that bad. They claim that the worst has already happened and that the consequences won't be bad enough that we need to do anything.

For amusement, look at the web sites that claimed that the Arctic ice cap is growing instead of shrinking. In recent years the shrinking has been so severe that there is no way to deny it. There are still web sites online that claim the cap is shrinking, but they all have dates of 1999-2001, and are good for a laugh now.

Posted by InconvenientTruths, a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on Feb 5, 2008 at 11:10 pm


You forget one - the GW deniers are also now saying that we can't do anything to prevent it, so don't worry about your Hummer - just go out and buy more AC units and everything will be A-OK.

And as for "Moving On", to say that GW is just a "pet project" of some local politicians is to stick your head in the sand so far that you can see China!

Posted by Bill, a resident of another community
on Feb 6, 2008 at 12:33 am

Looks like the Convenient Lie believers are out in force. With all the usual "useful idiot" agendas of big government run health care, hatred for free enterprise, hatred for Bush, class envy, etc. No doubt, they are products of big goverment run schools where, instead of an education, they received a nice dose of brainwashing.

Posted by conservationist, a resident of Menlo Park: Felton Gables
on Feb 6, 2008 at 8:35 am

Whether you believe in GW or not, the population growth of humans and the related consumption of resources is having a big - and adverse - effect on our planet and its finite resources. We should encourage far greater conservation of these finite resources. And yes, I believe we ought to encourage family planning and take a hard look at our own country's "lifestyle" from the perspective of how sustainable it is if every other country did the same thing.

Posted by Bob, a resident of another community
on Feb 6, 2008 at 11:11 am

I am also a conservationist. I believe that true pollutants need to be reduced or eliminated. And there are plenty of them to be concerned about.
However, CO2 and other greenhouse gasses are not toxic, nor are they pollutants. They are produced naturally in response to temperature increases. Those who promote the false notion that human activities cause global warming, use it as a tool to gain political power and to consolidate government control over every aspect of our lives.
Reducing greenhouse gasses like CO2 will have NO beneficial effect on the environment and will not stop the natural (and minute) warming that is occurring. Some scientists are even saying that the warming trend has flattened out and stopped.
We must not rush to adopt short sighted and destructive "soultions" out of fear. The regulation of CO2 emmissions will have terrible economic consequences for our country. (This was the main reason that Bill Clinton did NOT sign the Kyoto Treaty.)
We have been hearing, for too long, only one side of this debate. It is time to stop the insanity of taking drastic measures to avert supposed disasters, based on half baked theories and fraudulent science. It is time for some common sense.

Posted by Donald, a resident of another community
on Feb 6, 2008 at 12:41 pm

Bob refers to "fraudulent science". This is a rather strong charge to level at someone. Exactly who is perpetrating this fraud? Are you claiming that thousands of scientists are intentionally commiting fraud? This would be an astonishing breach of professional ethics, unknown in the history of science. I know scientists who have been wrong, and some who have made mistakes, but I have never known any who would stoop to fraud. There may be some, but they are few and far between. The kind of large-scale fraud to which you are referring is unthinkable.
Here is some irony: you say that we should not adopt solutions out of fear, then claim that regulating CO2 would be disastrous for the economy. In other words, you are also using fear as a motivating tactic, but fear of economic consequences instead of fear of environmental consequences!

Posted by Ben, a resident of another community
on Feb 6, 2008 at 2:58 pm

Donald, your question has already been answered above by the Truth = Freedom post. Ethics and liberal politics apparently can't coexist. When it comes to the liberal agenda, ethics must always take a back seat - unless an ethical issue is useful to the cause.

Posted by Greg, a resident of Menlo Park: South of Seminary/Vintage Oaks
on Feb 6, 2008 at 3:14 pm

Ben, So where do you go for eye care? I'd love to get a pair of glasses like yours so that I can see everything in black and white too.

Posted by Ben, a resident of another community
on Feb 6, 2008 at 3:31 pm

Those who live perpetually in grey zones are never going to see anything clearly.

Posted by Donald, a resident of another community
on Feb 6, 2008 at 3:40 pm

Is there a discount on paranoid conspiracy theories that goes with those glasses? I have noticed they seem to go together.

Posted by The Pot Calling The Kettle...., a resident of another community
on Feb 6, 2008 at 4:28 pm

The most incredible conspiracy theories I've ever seen can be found on democrat blog sites.
Some examples include; Bush really blew up the World Trade Center to make himself a hero president, Bush is really the dumbest president we ever had, but he is still smart enough to start a war for oil to make his buddies rich, Bush flooded New Orleans by blowing up the dikes because he hates black people, republicans actually orchestrated Monica's affair with Bill Clinton to bring him down, etc.
Tell me, what colored glasses are these people wearing? What is the color of hate?

Posted by wow, a resident of Menlo Park: Belle Haven
on Feb 6, 2008 at 5:45 pm

Okay. Here you all go again, the classic red state strategy to insult and try to minimize anyone who offers a different opinion. Again, the first people to use the word hate in this forum are the very people who thrive off the hate business. Do you all meet and come up with your prejudice together? Is there a NOC list or a special Rush L. newsletter?

I can see it now.

"My fellow Reaganites, we are under attack from those academics, those elitists, those scientists...we must defend our country from subversion. Today we will begin a dismissal campaign of all climate -related concerns. The names you use must be selected delicately. Call them conspiracy theorists, not idiots. Call them haters, not liberal mongrels. And tell people they are out to get poor George...and steal what is left of America from good honest Americans."

"And take it to the local communities. Attack any liberal city council person who dares to use the phrase global warming. Shun any local representative who speaks out against big business or development. Use the free market lingo to rile up the local businesses. Accuse them of ethical violations and threaten recalls. The faster you make them all look like tree hugging, tongue-pierced freaks, the faster we restore the dictatorship."


Rush/Karl/Dick and the gang in Houston

Posted by Just Noticing, a resident of another community
on Feb 6, 2008 at 7:01 pm

Wow, you sound like a conspiracy theory believer yourself. It seems that you can't tolerate even the idea that there is another side to the global warming story.

Posted by Anonymous, a resident of another community
on Feb 6, 2008 at 8:04 pm

Donald, there are thousands of scientists who have studied the global warming phenomenon, who have concluded that man's activities are not the cause.
Yet we don't hear anything about them or their findings in the media. All we hear is the constant drumbeat that we need to stop or greatly reduce human created CO2, before we all die in some global warming catastrophe. Day after day we get reports of this or that "study" that supposedly proves the case.
When one looks into the details of those "studies", one finds that assumptions were made that have not been established or the data was not properly measured or there were other problems inherent in the study methodology. Yet these "studies" are eagerly taken at face value and presented to the public as sound.
I have done research myself, and I understand the protocol. I shake my head at what some are calling scientific fact. I can only assume that such "science" is being promoted because it fits someone's template. It is useful as a means to an end.

Posted by Donald, a resident of another community
on Feb 7, 2008 at 12:42 pm

Anonymous, your talk about poor assumptions or badly taken data refers to bad science or incompetent scientists. That is very different from fraudulent science. If people are trying to do science and are just doing it badly, or if they make honest mistakes, that is part of life. If they are intentionally trying to deceive or produce false results, publishing things that they know not to be true, that is a different story entirely. The posts above seem to be claiming that scientists are engaging in the latter, and I simply cannot believe that.

Posted by Anonymous, a resident of another community
on Feb 7, 2008 at 1:49 pm

Poor quality science is being conducted, published and promoted here for a reason. Normally, it would not be so.
A great deal of grant money is being awarded for any research even remotely connected to global warming. There is political game palying going on in terms of who's studies get funded and what studies get widespread media coverage after they are published. It should not be this way, but sadly this is the reality.

Posted by another view, a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Feb 7, 2008 at 6:32 pm

Wow -- Anonymous, whoever you are. When I started this thread, I never realized there was someone who really knew what was going on here. You seem to understand the whole scenario.

For those who don't think that eminent scientists have questioned the whole CO2 mania, I urge them to go a Google search on Reid Bryson -- maybe they will learn something.

another view

Posted by get a grip, a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on Feb 8, 2008 at 7:58 am

Whoa - you mean that the thousands of scientists who were part of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and just awarded the Nobel prize were just frauds or out for money? I really doubt that.

I'm not willing to bet that global warming is going away, whether it's aggravated by human activity or not. Maybe you are.

How about we conserve energy and other resources (like water!)and look for alternatives to current energy sources. That just might make us less dependent upon the middle east, improve our individual and collective health, and preserve our species.

Posted by Ben, a resident of another community
on Feb 8, 2008 at 9:49 am

No one diputes that it would be a good thing to stop (actual) pollution or to conserve resources. Even so, we still have to develop more of our own resources to meet increasing demands.
The IPCC and the UN are also playing politics with global warming. Claiming that CO2 is a pollutant and that countries like the US are producing more than their fair share, they want a tax imposed.
Finally, the Nobel Prize has clearly been awarded many times for political reasons.(for instance, Carter, Arafat & Al Gore.)

Posted by Bob, a resident of another community
on Feb 11, 2008 at 2:02 pm

This report documents what is not being heard in the media: "U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007" - Senate Report Debunks "Consensus".
Many of these scientists are current or former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).
In the report these scientists consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their dissenting views, but will not speak out publicly due to threats and intimidation.
The scientific and public media refuse to publish their views even though they represent the majority opinion in the scientific community on global warming.
The report also noted that the scientists who participated in the 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers had to adhere to the wishes of the UN political leaders and delegates in a process described as more closely resembling a political party's convention platform battle, not a scientific process.

Posted by No ostrich, I, a resident of Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on Feb 11, 2008 at 4:42 pm

Bob, It seems to me you really believe what you're asserting, and I have no hope of convincing you of another view, the view I believe is correct. But would you please, at least, offer evidence to support your claim that the scientists you choose to believe "represent the majority opinion in the scientific community on global warming"?

Posted by Bob, a resident of another community
on Feb 11, 2008 at 4:55 pm

Google the report I quoted above. It contains the evidence you are asking for and a great deal more as well. It has links to several other supporting documents.

Posted by No ostrich, I, a resident of Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on Feb 11, 2008 at 5:39 pm

OK, I googled it and found Senator Inhofe's blog on his minority site on the Environmental and Public Works Committee website. Inhofe is certainly a known quantity. Along with the "report," I found the typical hysterical anti-Gore propaganda and other right-wing claptrap. And doing my own search from there, I found lots of opinion but no substance that this report was any sort of evidential breakthrough in the debate. From what I could glean, many of the 400 scientists cited expressed skepticism, not disbelief. How many of the actual nonbelievers were experts in the sciences relevant to the climate change question? And, if Inhofe's study cites the number of scientists who support his side or who are skeptical of the other side, does it mention the number of scientists who support the theory of man-made climate change?

Posted by Bob, a resident of another community
on Feb 11, 2008 at 7:03 pm

All of the dissenting scientists were experts in fields relevant to climate change. The report names the scientists, their country of residence, their field of expertise and their academic/institutional affiliation. If you pull up the actual report by name, not just Inhofe's site, you will find the information you are looking for.
The scientists in this report hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Center; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Stockholm University; University of Melbourne; Columbia University; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London.
There were 400 scientists who dissented to the 52 pro man-made global warming scientists who participated in the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers. The original report also links to other related and more detailed reports on the same subject.

Posted by another view, a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Feb 14, 2008 at 8:24 am

The more one reads, the more you realize the doomsday predictions are based on very shaky foundations. Even some of the most fervent supporters of man made global warming are now having after thoughts, and certainly many of them have scaled back the consequences dramatically.

In spite of a comment above, many skeptics have not changed their position. The earth is indeed warming; its been warming for well over 500 years now. What's is causing the warming is the big question. The dogma that CO2 emissions are the cause really doesn't seem to hold much weight, yet it keeps getting repeated time and time again.

Many skeptics like myself do not necessarily want to fight what is an underlying very positive outcome from the "go green" movement. That outcome will be use of less fossil fuels and make more use of renewable energy sources and conservation so that we use less. Those are very desirable goals, and the "go green" movement promotes those goals.

There should be underlying truths to the movement, however, those seem to be missing, the the creation of hysteria among promoters should not be advanced.

another view

Posted by Bob, a resident of another community
on Feb 14, 2008 at 10:53 am

I am an environmentalist. True polluants do need to be reduced and our precious resources must be used responsibly. However, CO2 is Not a pollutant or a toxin. It does NOT cause global warming.
When temperatures rise, more CO2 is released from natural sources such as plants, animals, evaporation from bodies of water, etc. Increased CO2 levels are a response to warming NOT the cause. New research shows that changes in the sun's activity are causing the slight warming trend that we are experiencing.
Unfortunately, the green movement has been co-opted by those who promote man-made global warming fears. The regulation of CO2 emissions will have NO beneficial effect on global warming, but it will be very costly to our economy.
Please, let's focus our efforts to protect the environment on actual contaminants, pollutants and harmful activities, and not on the unfounded claims of the scaremongers who push man-made global warming.
We desperately need to develop environmentally safe energy sources. Let's not be distracted from this important task by global warming hysteria.

Posted by Donald, a resident of another community
on Feb 14, 2008 at 12:10 pm

Rises in CO2 levels are both the result of and the cause of warming due to a feedback effect. Historical records from ice cores show a slight warming caused by some external effect (changes in the sun's output or in the earth's orbit) which causes a rise in CO2 levels, which leads to more warming, more CO2, more warming ... until something stops the process from running away. Just because CO2 didn't initiate the rise doesn't mean that it isn't involved in amplifying the effect. The historical record shows levels of CO2 from 180 parts per milion to 280 parts per milion, but we are now at 390 parts per milion. This is way outside the bounds of any natural cycle on record. It may be so far removed from anything that has happened before that no climate model will be accurate, since historical data is used to validate them. We are plowing rapidly into the unknown here, and severe caution is justified.

Posted by Bob, a resident of another community
on Feb 14, 2008 at 1:39 pm

Donald, the ice core data that you mention is in error according to very prominent climate change scientists. It is wrong to base the whole of CO2 warming theory on such questionable data. Other data simply doesn't support the idea that we are outside of the bounds for normal ranges of CO2 in our atmosphere. Again, some of this can be verified in the U.S. Senate report that I cited above.

If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Touring the Southern California “Ivies:” Pomona and Cal Tech
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 5 comments | 2,731 views

Chai Brisket
By Laura Stec | 4 comments | 1,947 views

Couples: Parallel Play or Interactive Play?
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,106 views

Sometimes "I'm Sorry" Doesn't Cut It
By Cheryl Bac | 6 comments | 1,100 views

Getting High in Menlo Park
By Paul Bendix | 3 comments | 716 views