Two more viewpoints on the climate change discussion

Don’t be led down the rabbit hole that “only government can save us”

By Cliff Worely

I was disappointed in the tact that the three-part Siuslaw News article “Is There A Middle Ground In The Climate Debate?” (Oct. 19, 26 and 30) took in that it seemingly promoted the idea of a “Climate Crisis” and only glossed over any opposing opinions.

Statement after statement was made without footnoting or attributing the source. Statements like; “...assessment given by 97 percent of the worlds climatologists...”

Where did that come from?

If you ask those who use this talking point, their standard answer is, “Well, it is a well-known fact,” to which my next question is: “If it is such a ‘well-known’ fact, why can’t anyone quote a source?”

In 2013, President Obama used the 97 percent in a tweet. Thereafter it became golden and above dispute.

So, where did the “statistic” originate?

“The casual statements in the corporate media and in online arguments would lead the average person to believe that 97 percent of scientists who have published on climate change think that humans are the main drivers of global warming. And yet, at least if we review the original Cook et al. (2013) paper that kicked off the talking point, what they actually found was that, of the sampled papers on climate change, only one-third of them expressed a view about its causes — and then of that subset, 97 percent agreed that humans were at least one cause of climate change.” (“The Bogus ‘Consensus’ Argument On Climate Change,” by Robert P. Murphy, Oct. 23, 2019)

Needless to say, 97 percent of a third is considerably different than 97 percent of the world’s climatologists. This is typical of the misleading information being quoted and accepted by the uninformed. This is a very enlightening article and well worth the read.   

The speech by young Miss Thunberg was very dramatic and moving but it was clearly well rehearsed — and she was reading from a script. A few days later at another panel meeting with the press, she was asked a simple question to which she stammered and stumbled and was at a told loss as to how to answer; she had no script. Of course, that is not shown or discussed because it does not fit the “climate crisis” narrative. (

I hope Mr. Allen misspoke in his Guest Viewpoint (“Hood River Acts On Climate Change. How About Florence?” Nov. 27) when he spoke of “demanding” local officials to act on climate change.

We certainly do not need shouting matches or Antifa-type tactics in our community. Obviously, Mr. Allen is passionate in his belief and we should all respect his right to voice his position.

Conversely, I would hope that he and the Florence Climate Alliance would also respect the rights of those with opposing views to be heard as well.

One of the two sources used in the article is from NASA.  So, let us take a broader look at NASA’s information:

• Rise in ocean levels from 1993 to 2019 is 3.3mm per year:  26 years 85.8mm (3.37 in.)  However, NASA doesn’t give you a margin of error. So, how they arrived at that estimate, or where and when the measurements were taken?

• Antarctic ice mass loss since 2002: 127.0 gigatonnes with margin of error at 39. That means they could be off as much as 30 percent (that is a huge amount) even if they enter the data correctly from the beginning.

• The global temperature has risen by 1.9º since 1880. So, it has risen on average by .0136 percent per year for the pass 139 years.

Wow. That is a crisis?

This and other information is readily available at NASA website.

Arctic ice is declining at the rate of 12.8 percent per decade. This does not account for the polar shift of 17cm towards the UK.

This could mean, without change, that at some future time the equator will have shifted so as to cross through the United States instead of Central America. I suspect climate change will, in time, be charged with causing the shift.

A follow-up article on the shift is “Earth’s Magnetic North Pole Has Shifted So Much We’ve Had to Update GPS.” Since 2015, the place to which a compass points has been sprinting toward Siberia (

The USGS, the other quoted source, photo ‘evidence’ is very interesting but also pointless. The earth has heated and cooled for millions of years, and gone through climatic optimum and ice ages repeatedly. I know that is inconvenient to the narrative of the “climate crises” folks — but it is the simple truth.

Is the climate changing on earth? Yes. Is it always changed to some degree or another? Yes. 

Is it a crisis? No.

The real answer in how to deal with the present and future climate change is to continue intelligent recycling, skillful use and management of resources, and increasing use of new technologies. Don’t be led down the rabbit hole that “only government can save us” with ever increasing restrictions and/or regulations on our daily lives.

To paraphrase Al Gore: “The inconvenient truth is that climate change is a story while the real story is all about power and control.”

This brings me back to my opening statement. Why was none of this available opposing information used in the article? Thus, promoting the appearance of favoring one position over the other.

(Editor’s Note: Regarding the 97 percent quoted in the Siuslaw News series:

A quotation from page 6 of the report “Consensus On Consensus: A Synthesis of Consensus Estimates On Human-Caused Global Warming,” Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, published April 13, 2016 (DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002): “The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”)

There’s a line between adapting and extinction

By Linda Abell

Predicting future environmental events is still a guess even though scientists, with their training and knowledge, are better guessers than the average person.

Scientists collect data that is objective but they are manipulated along with their data on many sides of the table. Funds are cut for research by interest groups that don’t want to hear outcomes that cut into profit. Bribes are made and good scientists are fired if they refuse to play the political game. That is why objective facts are not realized by many, including the scientific community. 

So let’s just put the terms “Global Warming,”  “Climate Change,” “Climate Cooling” out of our vocabulary, since none are free from political corruption. Instead, let’s just use common sense.

No matter how you look at it, pollution is bad. We have been polluting our air, water, ocean and land for so long that it’s now at a tipping point. While we lament how things use to be, nature keeps adjusting to maintain balance. The question we need to ask is: Do we want to exist in the grand scheme of things or do we want to continue to pollute, over harvest and over consume until we slowly become extinct? 

Nature doesn’t care about us, nor does it care if the planet is hospitable to us.

We are the ones who have to care.

Balance is the key and that’s where regulations come in to play. We still have a choice but it won’t last forever.  Without regulations, short-sighted gains of monetary wealth will be the only decision makers.

Did we forget what happened not long ago when bank regulations were removed? We didn’t like the solution but, without the bailout, our economy was headed for doom. We brag that we are one of the wealthiest nations but we squander our wealth by using a lobbying system that really amounts to just bribing officials. Look at all the hundreds of thousands of dollars used to run for office just to spread propaganda and bombard us with voting commercials.

If oil and gas companies took the money they use for bribing officials and retooled for a cleaner energy, we would have the resources for a strong economy, a healthy environment and new clean-energy jobs.

In the end we cannot drink oil, eat money or breath gaseous air. Clean water, air and food will be the new “gold standard” if we ignore our polluting ways.  Quibbling over titles like “Global Warming”, “Climate Change” or rationalizing that “The climate has always changed” is stalling the work that must be done to unsure the health of our ecosystem. 

This should never be a political issue.  We do not live in a vacuum; we’re in this together. God gave us a brain and told us to be good caretakers of our environment. We need to change our ways while we still have the ability to correct the damage we’ve done to our environment.  We are supposedly a higher life form; a higher intelligence doesn’t strive only for personal gains. A higher intelligence knows the importance of planning for the future of all concerned.

We need world wide consensus, Congress, state government and local communities that are not bribed by short-sighted gains for profit, and our personal actions such as recycling along with other good environmental practices.  The sooner we realize we are on the same team, the sooner we can promote a quality ecosystem for all life.

There’s a line between adapting and extinction.  If we continue to waste valuable time we may just cross the line into our own extinction.


More In Opinion