Climate change or global luke-warming?

  • Article by: ROLF WESTGARD
  • Updated: February 11, 2013 - 8:13 PM

Adaptation will be as effective as the costly mitigation programs that are currently in vogue.

  • 30
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
gandalf48Feb. 11, 13 8:58 PM

What a well thoughtful response to global warming, we can adapt to it rather than trying to prevent something that is inevitable.

theruntFeb. 11, 1310:43 PM

Yes, lets shelve the research, sit on our hands and let other nations lead on what may be some of the most transformative technological breakthroughs in history. The future is sun and wind, not coal.

rolflindyFeb. 11, 1311:34 PM

Actually, the future is more likely to be nuclear which does not emit GHGs.

mnbusdrFeb. 12, 13 6:47 AM

Mr. Westgard is correct that we will have to adapt; the cat is out of the bag at this point and the human race will do nothing to mitigate what is happening until it is much, much too late.

He is sadly incorrect about the magnitude of the changes that are coming down the pipe toward us. Although he understands the current state of alternative energy technology, he seems to think that the technology is going to simply stay in its current state.

He demonstrates no understanding at all of climate science, and no understanding of what it is the entire human race is going to have to "adapt" to.

twspt7Feb. 12, 13 6:53 AM

Now the strategy of denial shifts from trying to denigrate the science in the media to impeding the path of climate change mitigation. One has to hand it to Big Energy; they have learned the lessons taught by the tobacco industry well.

eddie55431Feb. 12, 13 9:10 AM

The worst of the current credible predictions of warming suggest the climate will be a few degrees warmer by century's end. In other words, the weather in Duluth will be similar to the weather in the Twin Cities, 150 miles south. I don't see the problem here....Summer will be a week longer on each end, and ice fishing will be shorter. That happens year to year now and it doesn't make any difference at all. Wake up people, even IF the worst happens......nothing happens!

rolflindyFeb. 12, 1310:03 AM

Our numbers increase and the aspirations of most also increase. This means more demand for energy and more burning of energy dense fossil fuels. The long term energy substitutes are probably nuclear and solar. The only other answer besides conservation is fewer people.

owatonnabillFeb. 12, 1310:04 AM

A well-written, logical piece. That fact alone should be sufficient to raise the blood pressure of the Tinfoil Hat Crowd about 20 points. But then again, idealistic dreamers are allowed the luxury of illogic. Let's look at some facts. Back about 1960 when concern first really arose about humanity's impact on the planet, the Earth had a total population of about 3 billion. Most at the time were merrily pumping out soot, CO2, and other really bad stuff. The population of Mother Earth today is about 7 billion people, give or take a hundred million or so--more than double that of 1960. America boasts 300 million of those people, or a hair under 5%. The total population of industrialized, prosperous (not necessarily the same thing) countries is--what? 1 billion? 1.5 billion? Let's be REALLY generous and put the number at 2 billion. That leaves about 5 billion of the population of the globe on this here day Feb. 12, 2013 living in some not-so-nice conditions. These are the people who cannot really afford the luxury of power-producing windmills or solar heating, and many of the automobiles they have (if they have any at all) are smoke-belching clunkers. They can barely afford fossil fuels, let alone nice clean energy. So, we have about 5 billion people producing noxious emissions today at about the same rate at THREE billion were in 1960. We have little or no control over what these people and nations do. So We Americans can preach, build windmills, drive motorized roller skates and plug-in cars, and install solar panels all we want. So could the rest of the industrialized, prosperous countries. Ain't gonna matter, folks. We're some pretty small fish in a VERY large pond. So--even if every word from the mouths of the Tinfoil Hat Crowd vis a vis "climate change" caused by greenhouse gas emission is true, there's virtually nothing we can do about it. No matter who is right, adaptation is the ONLY logical course to take.

swgrittFeb. 12, 1310:14 AM

OMG Eddie! You don't see the problem here?!? If climate change fears based on falsified data, short-term measurements, and drum-beat media attention are debunked, why, millions of people will have their government climate change research grants slashed! Al Gore will have to double back and reclaim invention of the internet! Will Steger may have to slow down his purchases of adorable dogs and he's ONE OF US! Come on!

kmhreadyFeb. 12, 1310:31 AM

Wind energy was made "the corner-stone" of MN's 2007 renewable energy mandate. The promoters promised our legislators at both the State and federal level all sorts of fantasy. On a despatchable (useable) per kilowatt basis, Wind is far more environmentally destructive than coal will ever be and can never produce any significant amount of dispatchable electricity. The authors of MN's 2007 wind mandate have confirmed in public meetings that there was no scientific or experiential data used to mandate wind. The wind industry buys "studies", which means, they hire consultants to shop around until they find a model that will show the outcome they want to show. Never mind that reality shows the opposite. Wind companies routinely provide incomplete or false data (they lie) to the MN Public Utilities Commission in order to obtain wind facility permits. Then they routinely fail to comply with the almost non-existent post construction requirements in those permits. Any industry that has to falsify this much info...well, it's pure sWINDle. Lots of public record at the MN PUC website. Look for yourself.


Comment on this story   |  


  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters