Sioux City Journal

Global warming is no fraud

Posted: Thursday, February 07, 2008

SANBORN, Iowa -- Recently I read a newspaper article in which a purportedly eminent meteorologist claimed that global warming is/was a fraud. I was at the Mendanhall Glacier in 1986 and watched the calving of the glaciers and listened to the rangers tell and explain how the ice was retreating over the past years. They backed up their statements by pointing out the various stages of regrowth on the shores.

In Manitoba, Canada, the officials there tell us that the winter ice is oft times so thin that the polar bears are afraid to walk on it. They formerly would go on the ice to catch seals which were a staple in their diet. But now their (polar bears' ) existence is in jeopardy.

Then to Poland where my parents and relatives grew up. They told of the canals being frozen over every winter and skaters would go from town to town on the canals. There were races from city to city which would generate much publicity and prizes. The information I received was only from the 1900s to the 1930s. Talk to any Dutchman now and he will tell you that the canals haven't been frozen over for the past 50 or more years. Tell that Dutchman that global warming is a fraud and he will laugh you to scorn. -- Henry Steensma

Story Comments

Par1ah wrote on Feb 17, 2008 2:24 PM:

" LOL Nice try manbearpig...did you really think he was going to fall for that? *shakes head* "

mrdwhsr wrote on Feb 13, 2008 9:58 AM:

" There is a fine distinction between believing that global warming is occuring (fact) and that global warming is caused by human activity (fiction). Of course the idea that global warming could possibly occur without man's intervention is completely lost on the faithful. "

Jose' wrote on Feb 13, 2008 7:29 AM:

" The problem with many of the GW advocates is their hype of many of the skewed facts out there. Essentially, anything carbon based, which is basically everything on earth, if burned, creates CO2. So, no matter what data you look at, when you get to the bottom of it, the GW alarmists are trying to get us to stop using fossil fuels, whether they be coal, natural gas, or oil. However, burning ethanol may emit as much, or more CO2 as burning regular gasoline, but is, for the most part carbon neutral, since the CO2 being returned to the atmosphere was just pulled from the atmosphere during the plants growth. "

FlimFlam wrote on Feb 12, 2008 3:50 PM:

" Jose', Yes I understand where you're going. There are 3 ways that get attention. Nuclear, Solar, and Wind, through electrolysis. Nuclear is a problem thanks to a few crazies but is probably the most viable option and extremely clean. Solar will work but there is an awful lot of infrastructure that needs to be built (Germany is currently building said infrastructure). Wind, from what I read isn't a very viable option it's just too difficult to get enough of it to produce the power needed. However I think the bottom line is, if it has to be done the market will bear it. "

FlimFlam wrote on Feb 12, 2008 3:12 PM:

" ManBearPig, This is a valid question however we need to know the difference between H2O and CO2. Water when released into the atmosphere has a lifetime of about a week before it precipitates out as rain. CO2 on the other hand has a lifetime anywhere from 5 to a hundred years. What this means is that it's not there long enough to cause sea ice feedbacks or ice sheet feedbacks. This is very similar to a volcanic eruption. Volcanoes when erupting release vast quantities of sulphates, these have a cooling affect but they only persist for a few years. They do lower average temperatures but only for a very short time. The excessive amount of CO2 we've put into the atmosphere will still be there when your Grandchildren are grown. "