THE WAY I SEE IT   by Don Polson     Red Bluff Daily News   5/22/2012

Climate change baloney; tolerating detractors

Tea Party Patriots meeting agenda note: Tonight, you will see a presentation on DVD of Sheriff Joe Arapaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, who is an embattled fighter for the rule of law when it comes to illegal aliens. As stated at “Americans for Sheriff Joe” website, “Barack Obama, George Soros, ‘La Raza’ and the entire liberal political establishment has launched a multi-million dollar campaign to destroy ‘America’s Toughest Sheriff.’ The title of the video is “Can you handle the truth: a question of eligibility”.

My enviro-liberal antagonist routinely provides readers with his case for “renewable” solar energy as part of a larger agenda to reduce pollution and control the earth’s climate. I’ll not get into the tall weeds on the whole global warming/climate change debate, but I’ll refer readers to my blog, “Polecat News and Views” (at Daily News website, or enter “donpolson.blogspot.com” in a search window). There are, if you click on the “global warming” link on the right side, under “labels,” 220 separate articles with source links that will help you to become far more informed on the topic than the other writer on this page.

Posted last Saturday, an interview by Swiss magazine “factum,” with Klaus-Eckart Puls, “a German physicist and meteorologist who investigated the underpinnings of global warming hysteria and was horrified at how unscientific the global warming advocates are.” The title, “The Belief That CO2 Can Regulate Climate Is ‘Sheer Absurdity,’” succinctly summarizes his scientific view: “Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it.”

You will find brief but conclusive answers to many of the core issues in the climate debate, such as “So we don’t need to do anything against climate change?”

Puls: “There’s nothing we can do to stop it. Scientifically it is sheer absurdity to think we can get a nice climate by turning a CO2 adjustment knob. Many confuse environmental protection with climate protection. It’s impossible to protect the climate, but we can protect the environment and our drinking water. On the debate concerning alternative energies, which is sensible, it is often driven by the irrational climate debate. One has nothing to do with the other.”

On that issue of pollution, some hard facts that you might find surprising and counterintuitive considering the tsunami of so-called established conventional wisdom propagated by the media and our schools: Since 1970, the six so-called “criteria pollutants” have declined by 63 percent, even though the generation of electricity from coal-fired plants has increased by over 180 percent, gross domestic product has increased by 204 percent, energy consumption has increased by 40 percent, and vehicle miles traveled have increased by 168 percent. (Institute for Energy Research relying on the Environmental Protection Agency’s document “Air Quality Trends”)

Yes, everything that should, according to the environmentalists, lead to increased levels of pollution, have accompanied lower levels of pollution. Great news, right? Consider that “Energy use per person in the United States fell 12 percent between 1979 and 2010 … and that energy intensity – energy consumption per dollar of GDP – fell by 52 percent between 1973 and 2011.” (IER’s source: Energy Information Administration, www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data) America’s energy use has become much more efficient over recent decades.

Finally, Mr. Mazzucchi apparently insists on threatening his detractors with thinly-veiled legal action; I must directly address such threats. RM: “While everyone is entitled to their opinions they should be prefaced and considered as such, otherwise they are legally considered slander or libel respectively and can be adjudicated as such. I have a thick skin, but will not sit by idly as my character is assassinated or my intentions misconstrued,” which apparently consists of “declaring in print or orally that a particular individual is intentionally misleading or worse yet lying to others when in fact that is not the case.”

Readers, columnists have no legal recourse whatsoever against anyone saying anything about a particular columnist’s statements or opinions in his column; making false accusations about someone’s personal or business activities may qualify as slander or libel, not about what they write. Period! Mr. Mazzucchi, please note that there are simple rules for online comments: “DON’T: attack others, make unverified factual claims, excessively copy others, or use foul, derogatory, racist or violent language.” Your remedy, sir, is to “flag questionable posts and click on the ‘Report’ box by the comments.” The Daily News production staff will review your complaint, and if they agree, it will be deleted. If not, you will kindly live with it.

Of course, the editor will exercise his discretion when it comes to letters from the public and you will kindly live with that, also. If that all becomes onerous, you may wish to no longer write, but in seven years, I have found I can live with the slings, arrows and brickbats. I suggest the same for you.