[SeMissourian.com] Fair ~ 42°F  
River stage: 23.83 ft. Falling
Wednesday, Oct. 22, 2014

Cape Girardeau City Council approves green board proposal after modification

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

After deleting what Mayor Jay Knudtson called "caustic, nasty, political language," the Cape Girardeau City Council voted 6-to-1 to approve an ordinance to create the "Girardeau Goes Green Advisory Board."

City councilwoman Debra Tracy cast the dissenting vote after unsuccessfully appealing to other council members to retain a single line indicating the advisory board's duties would include suggesting how to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

The unusual split vote was just one of a series of disagreements, and among the least contentious. One issue brought an extra police officer to the meeting, though no arrests were made.

Knudtson asked biologist Alan Journet, who worked for more than a year on the ordinance, if dropping the line would cause him to withdraw from being considered for the board.

Journet, founder of the Southeast Missouri Climate Protection Initiative and a Southeast Missouri State University professor, said he wasn't sure.

Two council members, John Voss and Marcia Ritter, had voted against the ordinance during its first reading. Voss said he'd heard from residents and business owners worried that the advisory board would increase regulations.

Tracy, who admitted she wasn't entirely comfortable with the language, said it was important to retain it as a matter of transparency.

Voss questioned some of the language, which he called "politically charged" and "troubling" in part because "it became clear they are laser-focused on carbon dioxide-emission reduction."

Because of that, he said, he could not vote for the measure.

Councilwoman Loretta Schneider agreed with Voss.

"As far as the greenhouse gases, this certainly isn't the time for our city to get as involved in something that we're going to really regret," she said.

Emissions issue

Councilman Charlie Herbst said some small business owners had expressed concern about being regulated by the advisory board.

Councilwoman Debra Tracy said, "whether or not I would agree with them on every point is not what I was looking for," she said.

But Voss also said he thought if carbon dioxide emissions were struck then some potential board members would not want to participate.

"As we have explained, the reason we got into this whole issue is we are very concerned about climate change. Some people think this is a political issue. We do not," Alan Journet said.

Schneider suggested tabling the issue, but Knudtson said that was the wrong approach. Though the vote would not be unanimous, he said, it was "as close to a consensus as we can get. I think what this amendment is saying is that, under these conditions, we'll support an advisory board."

Kathleen Conway, another Southeast Missouri State University professor who worked on the ordinance and a cofounder of the climate protection initiative, shook her head slightly.

After the vote, Voss thanked Journet, adding that the new ordinance "may not represent exactly what you'd hoped for."

Councilman Mark Lanzotti reminded those in the audience and those watching the meeting on television that applications to serve on city boards were available on the city's website, www.cityofcapegirardeau.org.

Historic preservation

Mike Sheehan, a one-time member of the city's Historic Preservation Commission and an activist in trying to form the city's first residential historic district, asked the council for help in preserving his neighborhood even as a second round of petitions were being circulated on his and nearby streets.

He said parking spillover from the university continued to plague West End Boulevard and nearby streets and, worse, at least one home that had been converted from apartments back to a single-family home was reverting to apartments "and another one is on the way."

He asked if the city could offer any protection between now and when the historic district is finalized. Knudtson suggested he ask the city's parking advisory board for some help. Interim city manager Ken Eftink said the historic district rules would govern exterior design issues, not necessarily prevent property owners from renting homes as apartments. Sheehan said he has scheduled a 2:15 p.m. Friday meeting with city planning officials to discuss the matter further.

Residents complain

While still in the council's public hearing section, city officials heard from at least four residents of Ranney Avenue, who complained about their neighbor, Don Howard.

Nikki and Eric Russell said they and others felt harassed by Howard's constant video and audio recording of activities on the street, including in backyards.

"He can hear you when you're just talking normally," Nikki Russell said. "I have a right to privacy."

Corrine White said she was getting frequent and sometimes daily police visits because of Howard.

"The only ticket I've got in when my dog ran out the house and didn't have a leash on it. His camera is pointed at my house," she said. "I've been videotaping him, too."

She said he home has been burglarized twice but Howard didn't call police, but "if I have a barbecue, he calls the police."

Knudtson asked if the neighbors had talked to Howard, and White said when she confronted him, he called the police to report her for disturbing the peace.

Cape Girardeau Police Capt. Roger Fields confirmed that Howard has frequently called the police on his neighbors "for a lot of mundane things" and does make recordings but "there's nothing he's doing that's illegal."

Knudtson said the police had to act as referees and suggested the best the residents could do is call police when they felt it was appropriate.

Knudtson cautioned those at the meeting to try to view their neighbor in a different light.

"Mr. Howard has his good points. You have seen his bad points." Knudtson said. "I'll promise you he's watching on TV right now. Maybe he's gotten to know you a little better."

Then Howard entered the room, along with one of his children. Knudtson cautioned Howard to remain calm. Howard complained that some children had used slingshots to break his windows and some adult neighbors had beaten up another man over a parking incident.

"This really pissed me off," he said. "These are people who assaulted that man should have been put in jail. ... For y'all's information, I own my house. They rent. This goes back to what I said before: We're going to have to make these landlords more responsible for who they rent out to."

He said not everyone on his street was causing trouble.

As Knudtson tried to mediate, Howard and Nikki Russell began arguing directly. Knudtson called them to order, and threatened to have Howard removed from the meeting.

After they calmed down, Fields accompanied the neighbors out of the room.


Fact Check
See inaccurate information in this story?


Comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on semissourian.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

Wow...sounds like some fireworks!

-- Posted by Megalomania on Tue, Apr 21, 2009, at 12:26 AM

Guess they have not heard that the earth is cooling. Doesn't the city have something more important to work on?

-- Posted by DaleS on Tue, Apr 21, 2009, at 9:09 AM

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect! Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and miscellaneous other gases, are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).

Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.

I can understand an advisory board doing their best to help the City conserve and get greener! However, the carbon dioxide issue is lame at best.

-- Posted by GREYWOLF on Tue, Apr 21, 2009, at 9:57 AM

GreyWolf's comments about water-vapor are directly plagiarized one of many climate change denying websites. Can't tell which one, because a google search turns up about 7 pages of 100% matches to the words.

-- Posted by Insider72 on Tue, Apr 21, 2009, at 10:18 AM

Insider,

I don't and won't deny that for a minute, anymore

than I will deny simple science! Go ahead an argue that water vapor does not account for OVER 95 percent of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere.

-- Posted by GREYWOLF on Tue, Apr 21, 2009, at 11:35 AM

What does it matter if it's plagiarized? It's not like he's submitting it to Science magazine. He's simply pointing out the facts. The Earth goes through normal changes, heating and cooling. The ice age didn't just happen once, it happens repeatedly. What they don't tell you is that we could still be coming out of the last ice age. Actually, if you follow sun spots, we haven't had any for quite a while and that could have an effect on climate as well. Right now I'd say the temps and climate has been fairly mild. Global Warming is a farce, deliberately made to scare people and make money off of, perfect example is Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio.

-- Posted by truetiger98 on Tue, Apr 21, 2009, at 11:51 AM

???

Is Mr. Howard the one who is always at the meetings arguing with the mayor? short, balding, well he's got a donald trump, comb over thing going on..his teenage son often accompanies him?? just curious

I agree we may not be able to do alot to affect Mother Earth but we could all do our part to make things nicer. :)

-- Posted by Turnip on Tue, Apr 21, 2009, at 11:59 AM

Greywolf, I'll take the argument. H20 does not account for 95% of CO2. That's a slam dunk physical science lesson from grammar school. Your earlier post that water vapor accounts for 95% of greenhouse gases is mis-guided. Yes, evaporation is a cooling process...and therefore condensation is a warming process. Yes, the presence of water vapor inhibits cooling - we see this on hot, humid days. But the point is, the earth is getting warmer and one of the contributors of warming is the emission of CO2 into the atmosphere. It is proven that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is proven that we are emitting CO2 into the atmosphere. The temperature trends are widely accepted by the scientific community. The same people that deny that global warming is occuring and that it is at least partially attributable to man made causes are possibly the same people that throw their soda cans out the car window.

-- Posted by Beaker on Tue, Apr 21, 2009, at 12:18 PM

Not sure what relevance owning versus renting is to the topic. I'm not convinced that recording neighbor's activities is not illegal either. I personally don't have a problem with being recorded though.

-- Posted by Beaker on Tue, Apr 21, 2009, at 12:23 PM

This advisory board is the last thing that Cape Girardeau needs. There are government sources for "green" advice. A lot of businesses looking at cities to re-locate to would see the advisory boards as someone else to tell them what they can and cannot do. We need to make ourselves more attractive rather than more regularitory to business and residents.

-- Posted by mynameismud on Tue, Apr 21, 2009, at 1:48 PM

Every community has the town trouble maker, Don has been Cape's trouble-maker for years. I say put Don Howard and Jay Purcell on one of those island-based reality shows.

-- Posted by imthenra on Tue, Apr 21, 2009, at 1:53 PM

I own a house near Ranney. He's a smart guy to have cameras out. Vandalism and burglary are common events, a lot of the kids have no concept of private property, and landlords really don't check out who they rent to. If I lived near his house, I'd ask him to keep an extra eye on mine for me.

I think if he's getting the police to come out for mundane offenses, then maybe the offenders should be lobbying to have the relevant city ordinances changed to be more discriminating instead of trying to get this guy to take down a couple of cameras from his own property.

-- Posted by bearded_sage on Tue, Apr 21, 2009, at 3:15 PM

Sorry Beaker I can't see anywhere in your arguement that convinces me that I am wrong!

I said,"Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect and that

Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin.

I am well aware of what water vapor does and how it contributes to warming of the atmosphere!! try again...cause I don't think we went to the same Grammar School. Sorry if I don't respond any further as I have some things I need to do.

-- Posted by GREYWOLF on Tue, Apr 21, 2009, at 3:30 PM

Don (its gotta stop) Howard is up to it again?

-- Posted by mogearjammer on Tue, Apr 21, 2009, at 5:51 PM

Hey hey look at Jay and his merry band of igits.

Good for the dissenters!

It's time for Knudston to go. He shammed us enough with putting a business owner in jail for advertising and then using a flash flooding event to get the Jay Knudtson memorial water park.

Good ridance Mr. Top Step

-- Posted by Mosely on Tue, Apr 21, 2009, at 6:27 PM

Throw soda cans out the car window? Dude, that's just throwing money away - guess some people have more dollars than cents, er, sense. Even at $0.35 per pound being paid, that's still a penny apiece! If the cashback incentive isn't enough, as it is for me - consider:

Recycling 40 aluminum beverage cans has the energy-saving equivalent of one gallon of gasoline. http://www.aluminum.org/AM/Template.cfm?...

One recycled aluminum can saves enough electricity to run a computer for three hours. http://greenyes.grrn.org/2001/04/msg0020...

For each pound of aluminum recovered, Americans save the energy resources to generate about 7.5 kilowatt-hours of electricity. http://www.cancentral.com/recycle/facts....

I have no problem with the statement that CO2 is a 'greenhouse' gas. Not sure how this conclusion was arrived at, but suppose there was some kind of science behind it, and if nothing else - when greenhouses use it to enhance the growth of their plants - then it must be a greenhouse gas. :-)~

I have no problem agreeing that humans are at least partially responsible - heck, just simple breathing emits almost two pounds of CO2 per day per person (http://www.gcrio.org/doctorgc/index.php/drweblog/C53/), which is about the same as a coal-based power plant emits per kilowatt-hour - hmm, haven't heard much about population control as a mitigation approach.

I somewhat agree that the earth is getting warmer - depending on which all-important timeframe is looked at. Just for grins - looking in recent history - since January 1, 2001, the straight-line average annual temperature in Cape calculated on a daily basis has risen an average of 0.0003 degreesF per day, however, since January 1, 2008, the same calculated average annual temperature has fallen a total of 2.67 degreesF. To really go off the deep end - the annual standard deviation has contracted during this time - meaning that the temperature difference between the hot days and the cold days is shrinking - on average, of course. BUT - is this a natural phenomenon, or something that humans are primarily driving; is this something humans can control, or are we such a small piece of the pie that our efforts will be DeMinimus - this is where I have yet to buy-in - the causes of, and the remedies for the trends.

Suggest it's all in how one looks at it, and whether that view is an appropriate representation of what is really going on - in short, garbage in yields garbage out, and represents the difference between misinterpreted data and validated information.

The burden of proof is on those who are pushing for change - thus far, they haven't sufficiently impressed me.

-- Posted by fxpwt on Tue, Apr 21, 2009, at 7:25 PM

Greywolf, I was being sarcastic when I was responding to your statement "Go ahead an argue that water vapor does not account for OVER 95 percent of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere". I knew darn well what you meant. My only point is why should we continue to emit when we know we are emitting it faster than it can be absorbed and broken down by plant life? FX, your point is well taken as well. What you are illustrating is the classic argument - how do we know we aren't coming out of a cool period. Over the past 100 years the earth has warmed. However, the argument you used for the temperature trends in Cape Girardeau don't apply primarily because there will be some locales that actually cool because of the associated change in weather patterns; and because the warming is not a straight linear warming. But nonetheless your points are clear.

-- Posted by Beaker on Tue, Apr 21, 2009, at 8:51 PM

Nevermind, y'all, I watched the re-run, I don't live in Cape but that is my hometown. Don Howard is a nut, no doubt, but he has valid concerns. I feel bad for him and the others that feel the 'southside' is their home & are just trying to keep it decent. there are many trouble makers, law-breakers down there, many slum-lord houses...although I do at times disagree with his tactics, he should continue to fight for what is right. many of u livin' in Cape would not tolerate the behavior that goes on down their either. just my thought.

fxpwt: as always, impressive...:)

-- Posted by Turnip on Tue, Apr 21, 2009, at 8:54 PM

Beaker, thanks for the clarification. You said, "My only point is why should we continue to emit when we know we are emitting it faster than it can be absorbed and broken down by plant life"?

This statement is well taken and in fact a very good point.

Maybe the Earth is one large living organism (I believe this is true) and right now it just running a bit of a fever!

-- Posted by GREYWOLF on Wed, Apr 22, 2009, at 10:12 AM

yep! well put greywolf! I watched a show on NGC this morning discussing the carbon footprint as we go through life. It is a tough issue to fight. If we regulate CO2 emissions from factories, they'll say stop changing disposable diapers on your baby! I do get my car emissions inspected every year, and I track my gasoline mileage, because when I see my mileage go down or my emissions go up, that is the first indicator of something going on with my engine. It's a $24 fee for inspection so it's well worth the cost but I'm also doing it for selfish reasons to keep my car running besides the environmental benefits. But I am definitely guilty of having a larger carbon footprint than I should be.

-- Posted by Beaker on Wed, Apr 22, 2009, at 12:02 PM

And now as I think about Alan's request,perhaps having the advisory committee tied to the city council or endorsed by the city council is sending the wrong message. Having a government body back this advisory committee up sends the message of potential laws and regulations. We should probably have an independent council to carefully examine the literature that is out there regarding global warming and environmental issues and take a position to inform the public. I would be more than happy to be a part of such a group.

-- Posted by Beaker on Wed, Apr 22, 2009, at 12:10 PM

There are many ways to respond to the serious problems that confront us - whether they are individual or collective. One approach is to enter denial and simply seek and accept whatever arguments are made that support that denial. Another is to seek information and make a judgment based on sound evidence coming from expert sources; this approach involves seeking the evidence and evaluating reality rather than seeking illusions and clinging to them.

Reports from expert sources regarding climate change have elicited a response similar to that of the tobacco industry when the 1964 Surgeon General's report warned of the link between smoking and cancer. The tobacco corporations developed a campaign designed to undermine public confidence in the scientific evidence and conclusions reported by the Surgeon General. Fortunately, that campaign was not successful enough to derail legislation that added health warnings to tobacco products, but it was sufficiently successful that tobacco is still marketed as though it were not an addictive and deadly drug. If someone tried to market this product now, assuredly health concerns would preclude it.

Climate chnge reports from the IPCC have elicited a similar campaign -- this time on the part of the energy industry, essentially oil and coal corporations. Once again, corporate forces have used their wealth to fund a campaign designed to promote doubt in the minds of the public where none exists in the scientific arena. They have been aided and abetted in this campaign by politicians and political commentators who have a political philosophy and agenda that demands climate change cannot be real. Rather than seek and evaluate the evidence, these forces simply look for and promote any distorted or discredited argument that challenges the conclusions of the experts. The goal is to deceive a public that (quite reasonably) does not fully understand the nature of the evidence and the seriousness of the conclusions to which it points.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is undoubtedly the expert group when it comes to evaluating the research and relevant literature on climate change, its causes and consequences. That body concluded in 2007 that the existence of global warming is unequivocal. Quite simply, the data are available and very clear on this point. The IPCC further concluded that the likelihood of human activity contributing is greater than 90%. Notice, they did not conclude certainty since science does not offer certainty in evaluating explanations of patterns and processes. Ninety percent certainty, however, is for most folks, a level of confidence they are prepared to accept. Imagine your Physician diagnosed you with a serious medical condition -- and offered a 90% level of confidence. Ask yourself if you would subject yourself to the recommended treatment. Most of us would rather be safe than sorry -- and submit to the treatment.

In the case of climate change, we are all in the same boat as the patient above -- and we are in it together. Our boat floats or sinks, and we will all flourish or drown together. We have to decide which it is to be -- would we rather be safe than sorry, or would we rather deny the condition and continue business as usual even as our planetary health declines?

When it comes to evaluating reports about climate change, it is critical to assess from where they come. Do they come from atmospheric or climate scientists with training and expertise in the field, or from entities and individuals who either possess a political commitment to denying the science, or are funded by the energy industry campaign of distortion and deception?

Reports on the one hand that the planet is cooling and on the other that global warming is fueled by water vapor over which we have no control (notice any discrepancy here?) come from the latter source. It is interesting to note that while the scientific community is in agreement and has a consensus, the skeptics cannot decide whether they think climate change in not happening, or that it is happening but is not caused by human activity. In relation to the cooling claim, it should be noted that nothing in the climate change models indicates that each year must be hotter than the one before - merely that the trend is and will continue to be upwards. Anyone looking at the data over the last 15 -- 20 years cannot fail to see the trend of increasing global average temperature...even if the last couple of years have been a little cooler than the one before. But it is odd, isn't it, that the same folks who denied that a 15 year trend represented anything significant, now cling to a 2 -- 3 year trend as though it were meaningful.

In terms of the role of water vapor, the General Circulation Models upon which temperature predictions are based indeed incorporate water vapor as a warming agent. What seems to be lost in the skeptic campaign of deception and distortion is the well-known phenomenon that increased atmospheric water vapor is a consequence of warming. This then promotes a positive feedback loop: increased carbon dioxide leads to higher temperature which leads to increased water vapor, in turn leading to higher temperature...leading to more vapor -- and more warming ...and so on. Additionally, carbon dioxide molecules have a lifespan in the atmosphere that may extend to thousands of years -- which is why even stopping the release of carbon dioxide now would not have a very rapid effect. Atmospheric water vapor, on the other hand, is extremely dynamic with water molecules having a lifespan measured in days -- not even weeks much less years.

In summary, folks who simply reject the scientific consensus (about anything) will always be able to find some source that corroborates their view and makes them feel better. In the case of climate change, however, contrary to what the mass media report, among climate and atmospheric scientists publishing in the relevant peer-reviewed scientific literature, there is no debate. Furthermore, there are no professional scientific societies that dispute the IPCC consensus. Once again, it is not that there is just a little debate in these journals; there is none.

There are, however, a few disaffected cranks who express doubt of the consensus through newspaper or magazine columns, web blogs, listserves, and publications funded by skeptic organizations. However, a quick review reveals this group comprises individuals receiving salary or grants from the energy industry, some individuals who publish research articles consistent with the consensus even as they express personal doubts, and individuals who have a political agenda that, for them, trumps the scientific evidence. This is exactly what happened during the 1960s and 1970s as scientists employed by the tobacco industry appeared before congress and wrote articles challenging the consensus of a link between smoking and a wide array of cardiovascular and pulmonary diseases. The tobacco scientific consensus has assuredly been vindicated by subsequent research and the dissenters have been totally discredited.

Just because someone writes on their web blog that the sun rises in the west does not make this a credible opinion. Anyone can believe and circulate it if they wish, but it is still wrong. Repeating the lie does not make it any less a lie. Climate change is a complex issue and is difficult to understand fully even for scientists who follow it closely. It is not surprising, therefore, that non-scientists should be confused by the skeptic campaign. If it were a case of an individual disagreeing with his or her Physician about a diagnosis and recommended treatment and rejecting the expert advice the consequences would be unfortunate, but these would be of minimal public importance. Rejecting the consensus on such a critical issue as climate change has more severe and general implications. As a biologist, I can testify somewhat knowledgably that the consequence of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature to the extent that the models predict (and recall that actual events have consistently exceeded the predictions in their severity) would devastate the natural systems that provide our agriculture, forest, and fish products. The consequences for our children and grandchildren would be profound. The skeptic campaign is not placing those of us alive and aging today at anywhere near the risk future generations would suffer. On the altar of short-term profits or a political agenda, the skeptics seem quite prepared to sacrifice future generations.

It is evidence of the success of the campaign of climate change skepticism that so many Americans think there is a debate among climate scientists about climate change. If you think there is doubt about the IPCC conclusions amongh climate scientists, you have been duped by this campaign and are testimony to its success.

Anyone who is interested in exploring the water vapor story, for example, is invited to visit the following web sites for information.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/feature...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...

http://www.edf.org/documents/5596_Global...

I have followed the literature (both research and mainstream media) on the issue of climate change for several years. When I hear or read a new argument challenging the IPCC consensus, I investigate it by exploring how the climate scientists are responding. To date, I have investigated many skeptic claims and found not one that withstands a serious analysis. In general, the skeptic arguments, like the water vapor story above, represent half-truths (water vapor does promote warming and is a natural product) but then break down as they fail to tell the complete story (increased water vapor is a consequence of higher temperatures that initiates a positive feedback loop of ever increased temperature). Thus, the skeptics are providing distortions, deceptions, half truths, and sometimes outright lies (like the claim that climate scientists in the 1970s were warning everyone about climate cooling - a claim that a review of the research literature of the time falsifies) or the claim that hundreds of scientists have signed a petition denying the causal connection of human activity and global warming (many of the signatories are fake names and others are not even scientists let alone climate or atmospheric scientists). What is worse than their making these false arguments is the intellectual dishonesty of circulating them time and again even after they have been debunked. What we see is a campaign that pays no attention to the evidence but is driven by the pre-conceived beliefs or unscrupulous opportunism of those orchestrating it.

As you will see, I am not hiding behind a pseudonym. I am easy to find for anyone who would like a discussion of the skeptic claims. If anyone has what they think comprises a sound, solid, and research-based counter argument to the IPCC consensus, I'd be delighted to have the opportunity to consider and investigate it. Please note: I am a scientist not a political commentator; thua, rather than seeking only evidence that supports my view, I am testing my view by seeking evidence that would falsify it. I am not interested in a debate since debates are won on the basis of the quality of the sound-bites and the glib crowd-pleasing lines -- not by the quality of the evidence and arguments. Neither am I interested in engaging with anyone who wants merely to insult me -- that would obviously be a waste of our time. If you think insulting me strengthens your position, go ahead (as a scientist expressing my opinions on scientific matters, I've probably heard it before); but don't expect me to respond.

I cannot promise a rapid response to submissions since I do have a day job that requires time and attention, but I will try to address submissions in as timely a manner as I can. If I cannot respond for some reason, I will let you know.

But note, I will not be returning to this blog to review what you have submitted here in response to this post -- so don't expect a response to anything you submit here (positive or negative). Of course, if you think all the climate and atmospheric scientists on the planet are conspiring to deceive you about this, you might as well not respond, since you will not accept anything I write. One step that you could undertake -- to save us all a lot of time, is to go to http://realclimate.org/ to find out what the atmospheric scientists have to write about your idea. This is a web site, indeed, but it is written and compiled by a group of active publishing climate scientists who have dedicated themselves to explaining the science and debunking the skeptic myths. Also useful, but slightly less informed and persuasive, is http://www.desmogblog.com/.

When it comes to solving climate change we are, each of us, either part of the problem or part of the solution. If we would rather be safe than sorry, we should evaluate our behavior and wherever possible -- reduce our direct and indirect production of greenhouse gases. If the city of Cape Girardeau is to become part of the solution, it should evaluate and reduce these emissions. Since carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels is the predominant culprit in this problem it only makes sense to assess it and address it. Our collective and individual failure to act has the potential to cause devastating repercussions that future generations will suffer. You can reach me at alanjournet@gmail.com.

-- Posted by Alan Journet on Thu, Apr 23, 2009, at 10:28 PM

Well, I guess Alan told us huh!

Cyclist, Alan is correct in that you cannot debate without name calling! Again I say you are a little man with a little mind and your comments do nothing but substantiate your complete ignorance!

Frankly I intend to do a bit more research and even plan on reviewing the sites he recommended.

-- Posted by GREYWOLF on Mon, Apr 27, 2009, at 10:19 AM


Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account on seMissourian.com or semoball.com, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.