NVR Logo
Home » Opinion » Letters To The Editor
Fires and man-made climate change
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Save and Share Share
Email
Print
Comment
Dear editor, Somebody call Al Gore! There are unacceptable levels of carbon emissions occurring in Napa Valley! Wait, they are from a naturally occurring source: wildfires. Maybe we should rethink this whole politically correct “man-made” theory of global warming, accepted as “fact” by so many. No amount of government restrictions will ever offset “natural” pollution in the form of wildfires, volcanic gasses and carbon dioxide expelled from living creatures.

Ever been to Kona, Hawaii? People there deal with “vog” (widespread emission of volcanic gases, including sulfur dioxide) every day. Maybe Al Gore should file for an injunction to force the state of Hawaii to stop this volcano from polluting the air.
Seriously, should we do our best to stop air pollution and conserve energy? Yes, but never at the expense of our economic base and human needs. The “man-made” global warming movement is really a hidden socialist agenda for increased government control into every aspect of our lives.

The sad part is that liberals bully others who raise questions about the sources of global warming and refuse to allow any debate over the topic to take place, claiming it is already settled by modern science when really there are far more questions than answers.
Jonathan Hollister

Angwin
56 comment(s)

tiredofcomplainingnapkins wrote on Jul 1, 2008 12:52 AM:

" Your argument is flawed, the pollution caused by wildfires, natural animals and volcanic gases is minimal to none compared to the carbon dioxide cause by burning fossil fuels at the rate the human race does. Also the rise in wildfires can be contributed to global warming. Less rainfall, and longer dryer summers are a major contributer to the rash of recent wildfires. The effects of less rainfall and dryer conditions are a directly connected to global warming. Did you also hear that they expect the entire north pole ice shelf to melt this summer, this is a first in the recorded history of mankind. Think about it. Thousands of scientists have studied global warming and 99% have come to the same conclusion, its real and its happening. I think im going to take these smart educated peoples word for it, instead of republicans who are only interested in protecting there financial interests "

funnyme wrote on Jul 1, 2008 6:08 AM:

" tocn,
Don't only take "these smart educated peoples word for it", do something! Gather all of the "Global Warming" cult and start making some ice, or blow cool air, and dump your cars and start walking (not too fast though, your bodies will create more heat and warm up the world while you're trying to save it)...Oh no...so much to do, so little time and way too many "republicans" not falling for it... "

JustMy$.02 wrote on Jul 1, 2008 8:00 AM:

" When are humans going to realize mother nature will kick our arses whenever she pleases? Our effect on global warming is negligable at best.
Let me ask you this, what happens to the earths climate in the timeframe between ice ages? Thats right it WARMS up then cools off again.
Conservation of energy and resources is always a good idea, but to take it (and the paranoia) to the extremes that those like Al Gore want to do is rediculous.
And tocn your assesment that 99% of all scientist agree is sooooooo wrong it makes you look like a moron to even throw that number out there. There are plenty of scientist that understand the cyclical nature of the earth when viewed thru millions of years.
Sorry all you schicken littles but the sky is not falling. "

musikluvr wrote on Jul 1, 2008 8:13 AM:

" The main problem with fighting climate change is that it is always someone else who is required to pay the cost. Governments want builders to go green but forget that the builder and his clients must pay the huge cost then pass it on to the public. All the new Cal Air Resources Board requirements are targeted at oil refineries, oil companies, cement plants and other industries who will simply raise their prices (gas) to pay the stupid fines for carbon emissions. I say that anyone who wants global warming changes first start to pay the cost themselves then we will see if it works then maybe we'll follow along - maybe. "

cab e-girl wrote on Jul 1, 2008 8:58 AM:

" Tired: Where on earth did you get your statistic? I have listened to scientists on both sides of the aisle, and there are plenty on both. Problem I see with the "Global Warming" zealots is that their projections for the models they have used are already way off. Our media loves to hype these projections when they are released, however where are the follow-up story's when those projections way off? "

kevin wrote on Jul 1, 2008 9:04 AM:

" The good news is that people are waking up to the fact that man made global warming is a scam perpetrated by an unholy alliance of environmentalists and socialists. A recent poll in England showed that the majority feel they are being fleeced and it doesn't really have anything to do with the environment.

"tired...where did you get your information? Everything I have read indicates the amount of pollutants emitted by volcanos alone are many times that emitted by man? The particulates alone from kracatoa (?) caused crop failures around the world from global cooling! "

cab e-girl wrote on Jul 1, 2008 9:10 AM:

" I am a native, and I have never seen fires like this. Do you think it has something to do with the environmentalists ban on a thoughtful clean up of dead trees, shrubs, and brush? Managing our resources in a wise, deliberate manner could have prevented some of these fires from reaching the magnitude that they have reached. These same environmental organizations forced MTB into our fuel and contaminated our ground water. Do we really want to listen to these groups when their past performance includes something so blatantly detrimental to our earth? I think not. "

Kevin Eggers wrote on Jul 1, 2008 9:42 AM:

" Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, from a March 4, 2008 address:
"…I am the only speaker from a former communist country, and I have to use this as a comparative advantage--paradoxically.
Each one of us has his or her experiences, prejudices, and preferences. The ones that I have are quite inevitably connected with the fact that I have spent most of my life under the communist regime.
…I gave a speech at an official gathering at the Prague Castle commemorating the 60th anniversary of the 1948 communist putsch in the former Czechoslovakia. One of the arguments of my speech there, quoted in all the leading newspapers in the country the next morning, went as follows:
Future dangers will not come from the same source. The ideology will be different. Its essence will, nevertheless, be identical--the attractive, pathetic, at first sight noble idea that transcends the individual in the name of the common good, and the enormous self-confidence on the side of its proponents about their right to sacrifice the man and his freedom in order to make this idea reality.
What I had in mind was, of course, environmentalism and its currently strongest version, climate alarmism.
This fear of mine is the driving force behind my active involvement in the climate change debate and behind my being the only head of state who in September 2007 at the UN Climate Change Conference, only a few blocks away from here, openly and explicitly challenged the current global warming hysteria. My central argument was--in a condensed form--formulated in the subtitle of my recently published book devoted to this topic, which asks: "What is endangered: climate or freedom?" My answer is clear and resolute: "It is our freedom." I may also add "and our prosperity." "

matt@newspeak wrote on Jul 1, 2008 10:21 AM:

" Almost never does science claim an absolute knowledge of cause and effect- that is not science’s nature- in some corners; people argue that gravity is still a theory, because no one can measure every atom in the universe. But Science deals in best probable causes established through observable, recordable, predictable phenomenon. The best probable cause for these climate and atmospheric changes is human caused greenhouse gas emissions.

On the other hand, the largest concentration of people denying the phenomenon is here in the U.S.- who also happens to be the world’s current leading greenhouse gas emitter. We are most economically, culturally and- to a degree- ideologically dependent on burning fossil fuel and generating greenhouse gas.

So if we apply the principle of Ockham’s Razor- which is the most likely explanation: that there is a global conspiracy that would be unprecedented in its secrecy, efficacy and collusion- to use scientific consensus on the recorded build-up of greenhouse gas and noticeable climate change impacts concentrated to the last few years, to usher in a one-world government and raise taxes; or that a small but vocal minority in the most fossil-fuel dependent economy in history is in denial about a mounting global crisis that will call on them to make some profound changes in their comfortable lifestyle? "

matt@newspeak wrote on Jul 1, 2008 10:22 AM:

" The Keeling curve demonstrates that CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from 315 ppm to 380 ppm in the past half-century. This is a pronounced increase in the atmospheric concentration of a major greenhouse gas attributable to fossil fuel burning that is concurrent with an overall increase in uniquely high temperatures and other unusual weather patterns, and significant break-up of polar ice flows.

Similarly, scientists from the University of Bern in Switzerland and scientists studying Antarctic ice-coring have determined that current CO2 concentrations are at their highest levels at any time in the last 650,000 years, and median temperature record data since 1800 indicates that the ten hottest years globally on-record have occurred in the last decade-and-a-half.

A Canadian Armed Forces “Sovereignty Patrol” at the North Pole this year discovered massive ice fissures running for miles, breaking up ice sheets 100 feet thick that have been frozen solid for 3,000 years or more. According to a scientist from the University of Ottawa surveying the break-up, the Arctic has 23% less sea ice in the last year than at any time in history.

In other words, all at the same time: scientists have isolated tangible evidence of profound build-ups of human-caused greenhouse gases in the atmosphere; global record high temperatures are concentrated in very recent timelines ; we empirically know that there has been a massive proliferation of greenhouse gas emitting technologies across the globe- from cars, to jet planes to power plants, to infrastructures dependent upon fossil fuels, to a population explosion; and that massive ice structures and snow concentrations are melting almost before our eyes. "

a teacher wrote on Jul 1, 2008 10:37 AM:

" A laughable letter. I haven't heard that ANYONE is trying to curb natural emissions of greenhouse gasses. That's not possible.

I'll go with the guys who are trained to understand the data, the Earth Scientists. It's not a controversy with them, the Earth is warming at a rate that exceeds expectations, that is the alarming part. That acceleration coincides with man's increasing use of fossil fuels. For the scientific community, it's not a controversy. That's an invention of the political right (for reasons that evade me) and the media.

It reminds me of the guy whose doctor tells him to lose weight so he goes to another doctor until he finds one who tells him what he wants to hear. If 4 doctors tell you you're fat and the fifth tells you the others are quacks, I would suspect the opposite. "

kevin wrote on Jul 1, 2008 11:14 AM:

" Well Matt, given the LIES and MISINFORMATION that Algore used in his progaganda film, and given that he has yet to do a real DEBATE with anyone on the issue, and given the socialist and fascist way the UN historically runs their incompetent aid programs, YES I would say the odds fall on the side of a CONSPIRACY... "

tiredofcomplainingnapkins wrote on Jul 1, 2008 11:40 AM:

" To Just my .02, true the earth will find a way to erataicate the human race it, And true the earth does warm up between ice ages, The problem is it never has warmed up at the speed its warming up now. It takes the earth tens of thousands of years to warm up between ices ages, in the last 100 years humans have already raised the temperature significantly. I don't see how anyone can denies this is occuring. Even the REPUBLICANS great leader GEORGE W, said in his last state of the union address that global climate change must be dealt with. Your leaders telling you its real republicans and something needs to be done, you better get rid of your SUVs and follow his lead "

Straight Talk wrote on Jul 1, 2008 11:42 AM:

" I am supportive of resource conservation to lower our dependence on oil from countries hostile to the United States and democracy. I believe reduced oil consumption will also reduce prices at the pump.

Most people agree that our climate is changing and always has been changing. We may never have consensus about the cause of current changes, how fast those changes are occurring and specific impacts.

If we can agree that we are seeing significant climate oscillation around the world, then we should ask: What is our plan of action for a catastrophic weather event that impacts millions of people?

Consider the impact on the United States if our county or another is impacted by drought or flooding that destroys food crops that millions depend upon for survival. Will we see a massive influx of refugees? Will we be able to provide aid to others or take care of our own people? What is the plan to aid U.S. residents if we should suffer a major domestic food or water supply shortage? Are we prepared to respond in days, weeks or months? Has our government prepared for high probability scenarios and does our nation have the capability to implement plans that rely on large scale state and federal forces?

These are not partisan questions. While my "liberal" and "conservative" friends debate the cause of climate change and its potential impact, I rarely hear a discussion about working together to plan for catastrophic weather related events here at home or around the world.

Surely we all are in favor of working together to better prepare for and respond to the next Katrina. "

Native74 wrote on Jul 1, 2008 11:44 AM:

" cab e-girl's - "Do you think it has something to do with the environmentalists ban on clean-up?" Is exactly how I felt when the 2006 floods hit.

If we didn't have to wait 2 years to get a permit to clean-up dead brush within our creeks, streams or rivers and paid big money for environmental reports saying, 'it's okay' we may not have had such a problem.

Instead we have bound our own hands on so many levels that to do what's right (or common sense!) is virtually impossible anymore. It'd be best to start from scratch on some of the environmental legislation. "

bloodagar wrote on Jul 1, 2008 12:20 PM:

" Straighttalk...is there a specific Napa City Plan website that outlines a disaster plan? Is it updated for current threats? Evacuation plans, etc? I seem to remember looking that up once quite a while back...but it was outdated at that time.

I truly believe that in case of emergencies that the locals would come together...the wildfire comments prove that everyone banned together to provide updates and really showed their true colors. This of course is just local response...can we really trust the state/federal gvt to respond within reason?

Thank you in advance. "

kevin wrote on Jul 1, 2008 1:02 PM:

" Straightalk has a good point. Everyone should have an emergency plan.

Mine involves my Mormon neighbor who religiously keeps one years worth of food on hand as his religion dictates. As he smugly showed me his "stash" he wanted to know what my plan was. I responded that since I have guns and he doesn't, my plan was rather obvious.

We don't associate much anymore...:-) "

a teacher wrote on Jul 1, 2008 1:02 PM:

" StraightTalk: I agree with you. I myself fall on the side of human causes, but I doubt there is much we can do about it now. I'm all for damage control and planning, though.

Good luck with the other side though. They are so invested in denial that even your commonsense approach is unacceptable. "

Dwayne wrote on Jul 1, 2008 1:28 PM:

" Great stuff folks, but Kevin's Mormon neighbor scenario practically had me rolling on the floor laughing.... The truth is deeply embedded in the humor.... "

JustMy$.02 wrote on Jul 1, 2008 1:46 PM:

" ROFLOL Kevin,
Thanks for that man, I just shot coke straight out my nose all over my keyboard and screen!!

I needed that this afternoon!!
You Rock! "

Native74 wrote on Jul 1, 2008 1:50 PM:

" I'm not mormon, but perhaps some of my midwestern routes keep me prepared for disaster. At least one year worth of food in storage (home canned goods included) and a few years worth of wine/spirits... "

cab e-girl wrote on Jul 1, 2008 1:50 PM:

" a teach- just because we on the other side don't believe that man is the only cause of global warming doesn't mean that we don't want to manage our resources wisely, keep our air and water clean, use renewable energy, maximize energy efficiency and all of the common sense things that should be done. We are resentful that supposed "environmental agencies" push unrealistic policies on us. The Sierra Club was a huge proponent of MTBE. That was an absolute disaster, and it took a conservative talk show to show MTBE for what it really was. The fires that we have experienced in the last few years are because our lands are not managed properly. It's OK to clean up dead wood and brush, just shred it and return it to the soil. Your inaccurate emotional name calling is getting the best of you again. We are not invested in denial, we are invested in a logical, manageable solution to the problems facing us today. That's why we are calling for a comprehensive energy policy. We don't want to rely on "fairy tale" rhetoric from the left. "

a teacher wrote on Jul 1, 2008 2:40 PM:

" Did you guys think Kevin was joking? "

a teacher wrote on Jul 1, 2008 2:51 PM:

" Cab e-girl: Does "just because we on the other side don't believe that man is the only cause of global warming " mean that you agree that man is A SOURCE of global warming? That would put you in the camp of most Earth Scientist.

I think that the consensus of opinion is:

THe Earth is warming, partly due to natural processes and partly due to Human activity. The cumulative effect of both is stressing the environment and causing unpredictable and extreme climate variation.

AND they have lots of evidence to back it up.

It's not an extreme position, It's not hard to understand. I doubt we can do much to stop it. It would pay to prepare ourselves. "

a teacher wrote on Jul 1, 2008 2:51 PM:

" Native74: SHHHHH. Kevin is listening. "

Straight Talk wrote on Jul 1, 2008 2:57 PM:

" bloodagar - Regarding city disaster plans... excellent question. Should I know the answer? Yes. Sorry that I do not have specifics at the moment. I will look into that and find out. Perhaps worth a Register story.

A local response may be more realistic; however, my question addressed events so large in nature that a local response would be insignificant or impossible.

July 11th 2008 - Marin County supervisors declared an agricultural emergency in response to drought. Agricultural Commissioner Stacy Carlsen said cattle ranchers likely suffered 70 percent loss of plants for grazing during the driest spring in more than 100 years.

What if that report were for the state of California? How would we address that issue locally?

To your question, "Can we really trust the state/federal gvt to respond within reason?" That is a homeland security question everyone should be asking. I'd rather have my tax dollars rebuilding U.S. infrastructure and preparing for emergency needs. And these kinds of questions and dialogue seem far more productive, interesting and include more people in the discussion than the back-and-forth battle over climate change, rising tides, scientist reports, etc. We can debate those issues until the cows come home (or starve) and never talk about how we will work together to address a major mutual problem.

MvG

P.S. While not politically correct... Kevin's comment had me LOL too... though he's now tipped off his neighbor. "

antipc wrote on Jul 1, 2008 3:21 PM:

" So much for my conversion to Mormonism, I hate it when the big kids steal your lunch.

Here is all I need to know about global warming alarm-ism; nuclear power, water management, forestry practices, wildlife management, MTBE, ethanol, oil drilling, & infringement on property owners rights.
All failed policies that we the citizen & we the taxpayer have picked up the tab for. It's time for the the the preservationist movement to open their coffers & pay for the utopia they so deeply desire. I prefer to keep my money in my wallet & my eye on the ball of social restructuring AKA socialism. "

vocal-de-local wrote on Jul 1, 2008 3:56 PM:

" Teacher, you've made a really good point. Global temperature changes are due to BOTH natural and made made sources. We still need to react either way regardless of the cause.

And in response to Jonathan Hollister's comment "Yes, but never at the expense of our economic base and human needs":

What are human needs? Food, water, simple shelter? What about people who go so far beyond basic human needs, their surroundings begin to resemble a garbage dump filled with disposable gadgets promoted by those who want to push the necessity of "new"? And how do you define our "economic base"?

Are you suggesting that humans are so very important that they can abuse the environment at any cost? Do you think it's ok for our population to outgrow their level of available resources because growth supports an "economic base"?

That philosophy appears extraordinarily self centered. It's an attitude of "let's get ours now and forget about future generations". Where's the planning? Do you have an expectation that our future will just crumble away no matter what? That sounds very apocalyptic to me. Perhaps this type of thinking has delivered us to the place we are now at. It sounds like a self fulfilling prophecy. "

cab e-girl wrote on Jul 1, 2008 3:58 PM:

" Teach- I believe that we are not the major contributing factor to climate change. There are legitimate scientists that show up on both sides of the the debate. It is still an unknown. I can't say for sure what is causing climate change, and either can you. At this point, it is merely an opinion. Being prepared translates to using a sensible, logical approach not hysteria and hype. "

Native74 wrote on Jul 1, 2008 4:03 PM:

" a teacher -- The 'shh' part made me giggle as I like to hunt wabbits myself... ;) "

vocal-de-local wrote on Jul 1, 2008 4:05 PM:

" Kevin, I disagree with you so much of the time, but I still love your sense of humor!

btw, I'm your Mormon neighbor! I'll be hiding my food in the attic now. And I'll be investing in a few booby traps!

Just kidding! Or maybe not.... "

Gunga Ga Lunga wrote on Jul 1, 2008 5:02 PM:

" I was wondering what caused the melting of the original ice sheet that once covered virtually all of north america 20,000 years ago? Hmm..that means that the planet went through a period of global warming. I mean, the ice that covered over 60% of the planet melted...which means the earth's temperatures rose...now, who/what caused this? There was no man-made emissions then. What caused it? "

funnyme wrote on Jul 1, 2008 7:09 PM:

" kevin,
You really made me laugh hard. I have tears rolling down my cheeks and going back into my mouth...Thanks for the laugh...and thanks for the tip on how to survive a disaster :) "

vocal-de-local wrote on Jul 1, 2008 7:21 PM:

" Gunga Ga Lunga, if we see a pattern of history repeating itself, isn't it still worth the effort of preparation? Let's assume we are headed toward global warming whether we like it or not. Isn't it wise to make changes in the environment right now rather than waiting until it's too late? If you had a crystal ball which could accurately predict the future, and it portrayed a rise of sea levels by let's say, 10 feet and an increase in temps by 3 degrees in twenty years, regardless of the cause wouldn't you still want to prepare for the possibility?

Think for a moment just how much better prepared we would be if we reduced our population by a certain amount. Also think about how much better off we would be if we learned to live with less and conserve our resources for the future, just in case... "

Dwayne wrote on Jul 1, 2008 8:51 PM:

" Yes, vocal-de-local, we could just switch off global warming...Right...Gimme a break... Nobody's that arrogant.

You could be right about the population though. How about cutting it in half...??? It would be pretty stinky for awhile, but maybe the good ol' Earth would recognize our effort and cool down.

We all complain about our lousy schools, and perhaps they didn't teach enough common sense and science to see that all this arrogance is just self indulgent. Where was the industry and pollution during the last global warming, 10,000 years ago...Eh...??? "

Todd Adams wrote on Jul 1, 2008 8:52 PM:

" I'm not sure that this is quite on topic, but wanted to respond to the concern that envirionmentalists and environmental laws are responsible for the fires and floods.

It does not take 2 years to get a permit to remove dead and dry brush from a creek. The Dept of Fish and Game probably wouldn't require a permit if only hand tools are used. A bull dozer in the creek WOULD require permits from a number of agencies. If anyone is concerned about flooding or bank erosion I suggest contacting the Flood Control District or Resource Conservation District. Both agencies have programs to help landowners with stream-related issues.

Here's my 2 cents on the federal forests: it pretty much boils down to cost. Most of our fereral forests are overgrown from fire suppression and poor management practices. A great deal of brush and small trees need to be chipped or burned and the feds don't want to pay for the work. The preferred approach is to contract out the work to lumber companies and pay them with logging contracts to cut large trees.

Unlike, global warming, we can pretty much all agree that something needs to be done about our forests, but nothing gets done due to disagreements on how accomplish the goal. I would prefer gov subsidies to encourage private industry to make use of the brush and small trees for firewood or electricity generation. This would help to support local economies and reduce catastrophic wildfires. That's my 2 cents.

The fire issue on the local level would be a good topic for another blog.

Native 71 "

vocal-de-local wrote on Jul 1, 2008 9:30 PM:

" Dwayne, of course we cannot just switch global warming off. Reducing population will help us adapt better to a changing climate. There wouldn't be as many people competing for the same resources and since we do not know exactly what effect global warming will have on agriculture, it's wise to prepare for the possibility of a decrease in resources. Don't you agree?

I'm sure you do not want your children or grandchildren fighting for their next meal or arming themselves against those who want what they might have.

Additionally, if we can acclimate to getting by with less, our lives will be easier when we no longer have a choice.

Consider how the food you eat right now is packaged. You open up and unwrap plastic, remove it from a tray and throw away the package (which was a waste of resources to make, distribute and dispose of). A day will come when we must think of other ways of purchasing and packaging our food. This is just one example of course. But it's an idea of how we can all work together to reduce our impact. Do you want to be a part of the solution or remain on bandwagon unwilling to make any changes whatsoever just because you think environmentalism is a liberal idea. It's not. I don't care what walk of life anyone is from. They should be concerned about climatic change. arguing the point of "man made or not" should not be the primary focus. "

LivinginNapa wrote on Jul 1, 2008 10:09 PM:

" In ten minutes of research I learned:

1) Volcanoes cause as much cooling as heating due to particles being release into the stratosphere.

2) Volcanoes contribute less than 1% of the C02 on an annual basis of humans.

3) Forest fires, on an annual basis, release about 10% of the CO2 as humans.

I challenge everyone to read reputable sources and verify what I have found. We need people to educate themselves, think critically, and come to their own conclusions.

I strongly believe we can "leverage" the energy we use and reduce our residential energy use and carbon emissions by 80%. We can do this easily while improving our standard of living and eliminating dependency. Fear and laziness have frozen our ability to think and act. "

tiredofcomplainingnapkins wrote on Jul 1, 2008 11:18 PM:

" To Gunga Ga Lunga, true the ice did cover all of northamerica 20,000 years ago. And it took 20,000 years to melt to the point its at now. But now its only going to take 100 to 200 years to melt the other 35% that is still in the northern hemisphere. 20,000 years compared to a couple hundred years seems a little out of whack, doesn't it? Seems like something had a major infulence on the temperature of the earth and it wasn't volcanoes, or fires, or animals releasing methane, because that has been going on before the existence of humans. "

antipc wrote on Jul 2, 2008 7:50 AM:

" Vocal says" wouldn't it be wiser to change the environment right now rather than waiting until it's too late"?This implies the ends justifies the means.
Our economy can not survive the cost of waging war on the POSIBILITY that 1) global warming exists, 2) humans cause it , & 3) we have the power to do anything about it.
If our current recession progresses to a depression we will be spending every penny trying to survive. "

vocal-de-local wrote on Jul 2, 2008 11:28 AM:

" antipc, unfortunately, people typically do not react until they are uncomfortable. We have survived economic depressions before. And it was probably a lot easier because there weren't so many people to feed as there are today. Nevertheless, the suffering from an economic depression doesn't come close to what we might experience as a result of climatic change.

Anyone who's ever taken any environmental science courses knows just how fragile our eco system is. A pattern of climatic change is happening in a very short period of time. It's visible. I don't know what's going on with some of you who refuse to see it.

I would like to know where Jonathan Hollister obtained his education. If he attended college and he is under the age of 52, the critical thinking requirements should have at least had some effect on him. Either the institution he attended failed at teaching critical thinking or his level of education stopped at high school.

His statement of "The “man-made” global warming movement is really a hidden socialist agenda" is not backed up with any evidence whatsoever and sounds more like paranoid ideation to me. "

Native74 wrote on Jul 2, 2008 11:29 AM:

" Todd thanks for the additional information and to explain further to others what I was getting at.

The dead trees blocking the flow of water in 2006 in some areas weren't something you could do by hand. Having to apply for a streambed alteration permit with Fish and Game takes at least 6 months (or it did at the time). The 6 months didn't take into account the design or any environmental study (sediment sampling, fish surveys, etc.) you may have had to conduct to even apply. To your average citizen alone that is enough to make you want to go out in the middle of night with your rent-a-ho and clean out your creek bed. Even IF you did that it wouldn't have helped if the nature preserve or county owned land upstream hadn't been properly maintained...

I'm an environmental person by nature and some common sense (a lot) has gone out the window with some of the laws.

Fires on park lands should be the next topic. Maintenance through grazing or controlled burning should be implemented or else we lose everything on those beautiful sites. "

antipc wrote on Jul 2, 2008 12:22 PM:

" Todd & Native74, you guys are on the right track. Remember when the county had a contractor clean the river every year. They used to excavate & burn the ditches. Now our hands are tied by duplicitous bureaucracies. Control burns are no longer the jurisdiction of the Forestry, now it's the Bay Area Quality Control Board.

vocal, I have taken an environmental management course, back when they used a common sense approach, not that mush-headed rhetoric that passes for science today. "

kevin wrote on Jul 2, 2008 8:16 PM:

" In 5 minutes I found a website that said the largest volcanic eruptions result in CO2 discharges 10 to 100 times LARGER than mankinds. Go figure... "

a teacher wrote on Jul 2, 2008 9:31 PM:

" Kevin: According to the USGS, volcanoes produce "145-255 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year", humans about "30 billion tons". That is, humans put out 130 times more CO2 than volcanoes. Took me more time to type it than to find it.

Is it a race? "

skeptic wrote on Jul 2, 2008 10:09 PM:

" i've learned quite a bit by the comments and some are downright funny. i'm not sure what to think of how the fires are tied to our exhaling becuase i'm neither a climatologist or meteorologist but i noticed that the majority were wrong about last years' hurricane season and how bad it would be so i'm skeptical when anyone predicts how things will be in 20 years.after seeing the great global warming hoax i became aware that there are thousands of scientists ,still in a minority, who believe that carbon dioxide rises after warming, not causing it, using al gore's own graphs. look at the debate in england about the fact that the earth cooled the last 10 years. nobody denied it but they said it was unfair to start counting 10 years ago because that year was especially hot. maybe they are right. are the poles disappearing on mars because of solar sun spots? scientists agreed that when mt. pinatubo blew up, the earth got cooler for 7 years. maybe these fires will make us cooler too. i don't pretend to know. by the way, since the cooling trend was noticed, the hip new phrase is, " climate change", not global warming. "

a teacher wrote on Jul 2, 2008 11:40 PM:

" You are welcome to be a skeptic, as your name implies. It's a healthy thing. Just don't call the non-skeptics idiots.

If you don't buy it all, you should demand more evidence. "

kdbk wrote on Jul 4, 2008 12:37 AM:

" Yes, a teacher, and the others clinging to the tired theory of man-made global warming, we're well aware of all the "studies" and "findings" that support your dream of a dangerously warming planet. But in the end, you all just look rather silly.

The Earth has warmed and cooled for many thousands of years. In recent decades, despite all your "facts" on the subject, the Earth is experiencing a very normal process of natural warming, AND COOLING. This past winter showed it's share of record low temps. and also record snowfalls in places like South America and Europe. But that's all just a part of the "warming", right? "

Todd Adams wrote on Jul 6, 2008 6:17 AM:

" Native 74, I understand the confusion that ordinary landowner must have with environmental regulations. Unfortunately, the regulations are needed because some people do things that cause harm to people and/or fish and wildlife. A great example is a bank repair made out of tires on Browns Valley Creek. I counted over 50 tires in the creek after this bank failed in 2006. You are correct if you guessed that it wasn't the property owner who cleaned up the mess!

As I said, if you are worried about debris in a creek you should contact the Flood Control District. If there is a fallen tree or debris jam that is a threat to life or property they will probably do the work for you or at least advise you about how to get a permit in a timely fashion. In my experience, the main reasons that permits are held up is because 1) the application was not submitted (not joking), 2) the plans and scope of work are vague, and 3) the methods do not minimize impacts to fish and wildlife. "

Todd Adams wrote on Jul 6, 2008 6:33 AM:

" AntiPC, my point exactly. I haven't heard about the burning of ditches. That probably wouldn't go over well with the air board, but probably less so with the neighbors. I think that mowing and spot spraying of invasive weeds is a better approach. "

Sandra wrote on Jul 7, 2008 8:52 AM:

" Someone made this statement..."in the last 100 years humans have already raised the temperature significantly." They made it to support the argument that man IS responsible for global warming , as he has speeded up the process significantly..... This is an argument that can only be made by someone who has no idea how temperatures have been monitored and collected in the last 100 years. I would suggest to this person and those of like mind, that they look into how the temperature data was aquired, and the changing environments, such as city encroachment, on the areas were the data originated. Also we have only been monitoring the temps for the last 100 years or less. Before that you can only use ice cores, as far as I know...and since there were NO BIG CITIES they would have not skewed the data from increased heat caused by roads, cement and large buildings. We really have no accurate temperature data when you take into account that the base lines have too many other variables affecting them. But it sure is exciting to use temperature data to add to the hysteria, isn't it? "

coigue wrote on Jul 8, 2008 5:33 AM:

" How ignorant can people be? Why is it so impossible that what humans do on the earth can have an impact on climate? Come on people. It's not a reach at all. Somehow we managed to create a mass of plastic the size of Texas in the Pacific Ocean. How did that happen? We made a hole in the ozone, then those "pesky" scientists made a stink about CFCs and what happened? It got better.

Try to put away you Fox news spin and think logically about this. A great site where actual scientists debunk myths is realclimate dot org.

Really, it is getting tiresome. "

Vercingetorex wrote on Jul 8, 2008 6:19 AM:

" Here's something to go with your kool aid:
"99%" of scientists do not go along with the official IPCC party line about anthroprogenic global warming. Many scientists doubt the premise, can't definitely say we are the cause of global warming or to what degree we are, agree with some of the premise but not all of it, etc. Do yourself a favor and Google up the issue.
And even if they did, science is not about a consensus. Galileo was the victim of a scientific consensus but that didn't stop him from being scientifically correct!
Further news flash: the world has been cooling for over a decade now and that trend is expected to continue. This issue will be dead, for all intents and purposes in a few years, by and large. "

Sandra wrote on Jul 8, 2008 8:22 AM:

" Ignorance has nothing to do with those who question the global warming hysteria. In fact I think intelligence is a more applicable word. Do humans impact the environment? Of course, no one is making the claim that they do not. But I question many of the arguments used to support the hysteria. Not because I am ignorant, but because I am informed. "

Native74 wrote on Jul 8, 2008 9:25 AM:

" Todd - I'm hear you 100% and know the permit system very well. It's typically the rotten that ruin it for the ones with good intentions! I also know for a fact that your division of the Flood District office is very helpful. Thank you for sharing with others in this forum!

As for the top 3 reasons why the permits aren't issued? I think you perfectly described the experience I have had with the County (and I'm stopping there before slinging mud - non Flood District mind you!). However, some of the methods DFG allows for under No. 3 are a bit over the top in some cases (I also know that some of the over the top requirements are from above their heads).

The bottom line for this entire topic is that there has to be some compromise with egos set aside and a bit more common sense. "

JimClark wrote on Jul 13, 2008 4:38 AM:

" The world will live on with humankind or without. The human arrogance that the entire world can be controlled by "greenies" is the kind of insanity humankind has come to accept when it should be abjectly rejected. "

Comment guidelines
All comments will be screened and may take several hours to be posted.
• Keep comments clear, concise and focused on the topic in the story.
• Comments exceeding 300 words will not be posted.
• Refrain from personal attacks, degrading comments or remarks that do not add to a constructive dialogue.
• Comments implying suspects in crime-related stories are guilty before they have been proven so in a court of law will be deleted.
• Do not post e-mail addresses or links except for pages on Napavalleyregister.com or government Web sites.
• Comments will not be edited - they will be approved or declined.
• Comments may be used in the print edition of the newspaper.
• If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact dross@napanews.com or bkennedy@napanews.com
For further information on the comment guidelines, click here.
Search:
Advanced searchWeb Search Powered By Yahoo! Search
Back to top
Contact: News | Advertising | Subscriber Services | Work for us | Buy photos
More local news: American Canyon Eagle | St. Helena Star | Weekly Calistogan
Local tourism: Inside Napa Valley
Copyright © 2008 Napa Valley Publishing, a member of Lee Enterprises, Inc.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy