ADVERTISEMENT

Ex-Republican meteorologist calls for end to partisan divide over climate science

cigaretteman

HB King
May 29, 2001
79,507
62,725
113
There is overwhelming agreement within the scientific community, backed by multiple lines of evidence, that human activities are causing the climate to warm. Yet only 27 percent of Republicans agree, according to a July survey from the Pew Research Center.

Republican presidential candidates are decidedly mixed on their acceptance of the link between warming and human activities.

Greg Fishel, chief meteorologist for the CBS affiliate in Raleigh in N.C., is sickened by this state of affairs.

Over the weekend he penned a stirring commentary railing against the partisan divisiveness in climate change discussions and disregard for the science.
Fishel said in an email message that due to overall state of party politics, after 30 years, he is no longer a Republican and considers himself unaffiliated.

“I hate agendas, and there are agendas on both sides of the climate change debate which I abhor and have no time for,” Fishel’s essay begins. “But once you cut through all of that, much of which is ideological and political, you are left with hard science.”

Fishel’s essay lays out the scientific case for manmade warming, starting by debunking one of the most oft-repeated myths that the sun is behind the recent warming trend:

If it were the sun, the entire atmosphere would be warming, but it’s not. The troposphere, where most of the weather occurs, is warming up, and the stratosphere is cooling. This is all part of the radiative adjustments that are taking place because of what man is doing to the composition of our atmosphere.

He pleads with readers to set aside their biases and swallow their pride in scientific discussions.

“We live in a country now where we embrace division for the sake of division,” he says. “It’s about winning and being right as opposed to doing what’s best for the country and the world.”

Fishel specifically appeals to conservatives and people of faith to open their minds:

I believe science is a gift from God. We benefit from science in our daily lives 1,000 times over through all the conveniences we enjoy. Why have we chosen to turn our back on science when it comes to basic chemistry and physics? It is time to stop listening to the disingenuous cherry-pickers and start taking responsibility for learning the truth about climate change.

Fishel was once skeptical of manmade contributions to warming himself. But after after spending many hours reading scientific papers and talking to climate scientists, changed positions.

“I have gone through the entire process,” Fishel writes. “But in my mind, I didn’t make a mistake, I simply grew as a human being. There aren’t too many experiences in life that can top that.”

Fishel’s entire essay can be read on the WRAL Web site. It was also posted to Facebook where it has been liked over 1,400 times and received glowing endorsements.

“Your unique perspective as a well-known, widely respected meteorologist, a Christian, and a curious skeptic, positions you well to convince a lot of fence-sitters of the need to make meaningful and substantive changes in government policy, as well as in our lifestyle choices,” writes reader David Brackins.

His words and themes echo those made by another Republican meteorologist, Paul Douglas of Minneapolis. In 2012, Douglas wrote:

I’m going to tell you something that my Republican friends are loath to admit out loud: climate change is real. I am a moderate Republican, fiscally conservative; a fan of small government, accountability, self-empowerment, and sound science. I am not a climate scientist. I’m a meteorologist, and the weather maps I’m staring at are making me uncomfortable.

[Republican meteorologist Paul Douglas: conservatives should embrace climate science]


https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...de-over-climate-science/?tid=trending_strip_2
 
The life of physicist Freeman Dyson spans advising bomber command in World War II, working at Princeton University in the States as a contemporary of Einstein, and providing advice to the US government on a wide range of scientific and technical issues.

An Obama supporter who describes himself as "100 per cent Democrat," Dyson says he is disappointed that the President "chose the wrong side." Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere does more good than harm, he argues, but it is not an insurmountable crisis. Climate change, he tells us, "is not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/11/freeman_dyson_interview/
 
I think there is a good chance this gets turned around. It wasn't so long ago Newt and Nancy sat on a couch and asked for solutions. Hillary will triangulate the Tea Party out of existence in her one term. In 2020 a moderate R will take the White House and lead a green revolution backed by agriculture and Insurance money. Because he has an R behind his name all the cons will fall into line and deny they were ever deniers. Ds being the party of good government will compromise and work with the RINO to save all your little grandkids.
 
The life of physicist Freeman Dyson spans advising bomber command in World War II, working at Princeton University in the States as a contemporary of Einstein, and providing advice to the US government on a wide range of scientific and technical issues.

LOl...so all we have to do to keep the oceans from rising - and he agrees that they are - is to make it snow more in Antarctica.

Ummmmmm...whaaaat?
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
I know it doesn't fit your agenda, but usually for one on one side there is an equal on the other. Of course I didn't expect any from the Left to see any of his points, you are too immersed in your bath to see any other POV.
 
Who knew there was Democratic and Republican meteorologist, I thought they only had their on polling people.
 
LOl...so all we have to do to keep the oceans from rising - and he agrees that they are - is to make it snow more in Antarctica.

Ummmmmm...whaaaat?
With the water levels rising you would think we would be building a bunch of water desalination plants along both coast. California should never be in a drought with all the extra water coming from the rise in the oceans.
 
With the water levels rising you would think we would be building a bunch of water desalination plants along both coast. California should never be in a drought with all the extra water coming from the rise in the oceans.

....except the water is needed hundreds of miles inland, and at elevations hundreds to a thousand or more feet above sea level.

Aside from the energy required and costs with desalination, it is hardly a trivial matter to pump that much water 'uphill' to where the reservoirs are.....that would be a project many times more costly than Hoover Dam.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
....except the water is needed hundreds of miles inland, and at elevations hundreds to a thousand or more feet above sea level.

Aside from the energy required and costs with desalination, it is hardly a trivial matter to pump that much water 'uphill' to where the reservoirs are.....that would be a project many times more costly than Hoover Dam.
We pipeline oil all over the country you really don't think we could do water? You are correct it is not a trivial matter but it also is not impossible.
 
With the water levels rising you would think we would be building a bunch of water desalination plants along both coast. California should never be in a drought with all the extra water coming from the rise in the oceans.
Fish stop this. Can you believe some people would rather save a few fish then have these? Libs have loud fools on their team too.
 
I think there is a good chance this gets turned around. It wasn't so long ago Newt and Nancy sat on a couch and asked for solutions. Hillary will triangulate the Tea Party out of existence in her one term. In 2020 a moderate R will take the White House and lead a green revolution backed by agriculture and Insurance money. Because he has an R behind his name all the cons will fall into line and deny they were ever deniers. Ds being the party of good government will compromise and work with the RINO to save all your little grandkids.
Too late.
 
Not a hard concept Huey, you take the water and then remove the salt and then you use it.

Like Saudi Arabia already does. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...duction-at-world-s-biggest-desalination-plant

We could build pipelines all over the country to send water where it is needed. I know it is that bad pipeline word but this would be for water so if they spill it would not be so bad unless it was right under your house.
Actually it is an insanely hard concept to put into practice. Hence the, "Um, what?"
 
....except the water is needed hundreds of miles inland, and at elevations hundreds to a thousand or more feet above sea level.

Aside from the energy required and costs with desalination, it is hardly a trivial matter to pump that much water 'uphill' to where the reservoirs are.....that would be a project many times more costly than Hoover Dam.
Hadn't thought about the uphill problem. Good point. But even if we just do it to low-land delivery, that would mean not having to draw so much from the Colorado river and other sources.

The expense part is troubling. Any good tech on the horizon?

The other thing that comes to mind, but I lack knowledge about, is whether the rising levels of water vapor in the atmosphere could be tapped. Will the levels be high enough to make that feasible?
 
We pipeline oil all over the country you really don't think we could do water? You are correct it is not a trivial matter but it also is not impossible.

We do pipeline oil, but in much lower quantities than our water needs.

Think about it: a family of four probably uses a few hundred gallons of water a day - that's at least 3000 gallons a week; that same family may on average use the equivalent of 1 to 2 tanks of gas worth of 'oil' per week (maybe 40-60 gallons/week). Thus, water needs are easily 10x, probably closer to 100x what piped oil needs are. Infrastructure capable of 100x ain't gonna be cheap.

Plus, pumping that water uphill requires even more energy. This probably doesn't become feasible until there are renewable energy sources that could power such a system continuously and without any external energy hookups (e.g. daytime solar, clean nuclear, etc)
 
We may have laughed at Jon Stewart's imitations of Lindsey Graham. We may cringe at his alarmism when he insists that ISIS is coming to kill all of us. But he may be the only candidate in the Republican field who talks like an adult about climate change.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/10/12/3711587/lindsey-graham-no-labels-climate-change/

Climate change is ultimately a FAR more serious issue than ISIS.

ISIS controls (probably) something like 0.001% of the Earth's land area (the entire country of Syria is about 0.001%).

Climate change will ultimately affect 100% of the land and oceans.

ISIS, like any other terrorist or nationalist threat, will be short-term on the scale of geo-climate (heck, even modern history is a teensy blip on a geo-climatic timescale). Dictators and terrorist threats have come and gone in a matter of a few decades to maybe a few hundred years (thinking of the Roman Empire, etc). The Japanese in WWII were just as brutal and far more serious a threat than ISIS will ever dream to be.

And, if we prioritize renewable energy sources in lieu of fossil fuels, the US will ultimately not care a wink about what goes on in the Middle East. That area of the world becomes completely worthless if fossil fuels become economically irrelevant. All they'd be able to export is sand....
 
Desal is a great idea for places like SA, but impractical when you're talking about using it for watering all of CA. San Diego is building one now, it will cost about $1 billion and produce 7% of the water needs of the city and requires about 40 mW of energy to operate. It also produces as an output supersalined water that goes back into the ocean. Now ignoring the pipeline issues imagine the number of plants and new power plants that would have to be built to make a sizable dent in CA's water balance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
We do pipeline oil, but in much lower quantities than our water needs.

Think about it: a family of four probably uses a few hundred gallons of water a day - that's at least 3000 gallons a week; that same family may on average use the equivalent of 1 to 2 tanks of gas worth of 'oil' per week (maybe 40-60 gallons/week). Thus, water needs are easily 10x, probably closer to 100x what piped oil needs are. Infrastructure capable of 100x ain't gonna be cheap.

Plus, pumping that water uphill requires even more energy. This probably doesn't become feasible until there are renewable energy sources that could power such a system continuously and without any external energy hookups (e.g. daytime solar, clean nuclear, etc)
Hadn't thought about the uphill problem. Good point. But even if we just do it to low-land delivery, that would mean not having to draw so much from the Colorado river and other sources.

The expense part is troubling. Any good tech on the horizon?

The other thing that comes to mind, but I lack knowledge about, is whether the rising levels of water vapor in the atmosphere could be tapped. Will the levels be high enough to make that feasible?
Actually it is an insanely hard concept to put into practice. Hence the, "Um, what?"
Fish stop this. Can you believe some people would rather save a few fish then have these? Libs have loud fools on their team too.
The Saudi's already have a plant on line that when fully functioning will produce 264 million gallons of drinking water per day and 2,600 megawatts of electricity. That is one plant and they are building another.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...duction-at-world-s-biggest-desalination-plant

Below is a another link related to California. The Sundrop Farms from Australia part of the article is a promising beginning.

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/solar-power-california-water
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT