Login

ADVERTISEMENT

A climate scientist fights ignorance

I've been a mountaineer for most of my life. Mountains are in my blood. In my early 20s, while climbing in France, I fell in a crevasse on the Milieu Glacier at the start of the normal route on the Aiguille d'Argentiere. Remarkably, I was unhurt. From the grip of the banded ice, I saw a thin slit of blue sky 120 feet above me. The math was simple: Climb 120 feet. If I reached that slit of blue sky, I would live. If I didn't, I'd freeze to death in the cold and dark.

This story is only available from the Arkansas Online archives. Stories can be purchased individually for $2.95. Click here to search for this story in the archives.

Comments

djigoo says...

Climate deniers have the blood of future generations on their hands.

Posted 16 July 2017, 9:41 a.m. Suggest removal

REV2018 says...

Since climate deniers believe ignorance is a virtue and science is a myth, I believe forming a club might be in order:
"THE FLAT EARTH SOCIETY".

Posted 16 July 2017, 10:39 a.m. Suggest removal

DontDrinkDatKoolAid says...

"I've been a mountaineer for most of my life." The you have been in thin air to long.

Posted 16 July 2017, 9:07 p.m. Suggest removal

djigoo says...

There's some of that ignorance he wrote about.

"To long."

Sad.

Posted 16 July 2017, 9:20 p.m. Suggest removal

carpenterretired says...

Well the flat earth people rejected the theory that the earth was round (Bible says earth has four corners and edges and any conservative can look at the sky and tell that the sun revolves around the earth ) and declared that science of round earth was false (last public school teacher fired for teaching round earth as fact was in Kentucky in 1926).

Posted 16 July 2017, 10:07 p.m. Suggest removal

RBear says...

Ha ha @ DDDKA. You made a funny. But seriously, some interesting points in this column. It is frustrating for those who have done the research only to be stifled by business interests who haven't done any research and are more focused on chasing the almighty dollar at the expense of environmental concerns. We are at a point where increased knowledge of this subject is critical. It will take time to turn back decades of abuse and destruction, but things are slowly changing.

Posted 17 July 2017, 7:33 a.m. Suggest removal

3WorldState1 says...

Always wondered why the right, which despises their gov so much, would believe paid-for bureaucrats before they would believe the scientific community. Really just shows what "state run" (Fox News) media can do to a population. The reason why Putin has 90% approval rating yet his economy has been tanking for years.

Posted 17 July 2017, 8:35 a.m. Suggest removal

Whippersnapper says...

The Climate Scientists only have jobs if there is a problem, and hence have a vested interest in claiming there is a problem. The IPCC (the UN top level climate science folks) admitted in their most recent science report that they overestimated the effects of human activity, underestimated the effects of natural variability, and that as a result their models were unable to match observations for the entire period of time they had been predicting warming.
.
Their solution? They have now gone through and modified HISTORICAL data sets to make it look like the warming is worse.

Posted 17 July 2017, 9:37 a.m. Suggest removal

ARMNAR says...

Citation for your assertion from a reliable source, Whipper?

Posted 17 July 2017, 10:31 a.m. Suggest removal

3WorldState1 says...

Whipper is absolutely incorrect. Especially about "they only have jobs if there is a problem". That's a completely ridiculous statement. Can't believe he even proposed it.
Whipper was already proven incorrect during his last attempt to discredit climate scientists. I remember because it was I that pulled that information. From the very papers he said proved otherwise.

Posted 17 July 2017, 1:04 p.m. Suggest removal

djigoo says...

Still waiting for that source, Whipper.

Posted 17 July 2017, 3:08 p.m. Suggest removal

Packman says...

With 12 first person references in the first paragraph alone the author exposes himself as a pure narcissist, meaning everything else he has to say is self-serving tripe.

Posted 17 July 2017, 3:24 p.m. Suggest removal

DontDrinkDatKoolAid says...

And Al Gore has purchased beach front property in California. No worry here.

Posted 17 July 2017, 8:18 p.m. Suggest removal

djigoo says...

Aaaaaaaaaaaand STILL waiting.

It's almost as if Whipper can't provide evidence for his claim.

Almost.

Posted 17 July 2017, 9:40 p.m. Suggest removal

DoubleBlind says...

All those in favor of sending Whipper, Pack and their ilk to Mars to pave the way, say aye...AYE!!

Posted 17 July 2017, 11:05 p.m. Suggest removal

TimberTopper says...

Packy, maybe you need to pat attention to what is going on around you more. The weather has changed a great deal in my lifetime, as I'm sure it has in yours.

Posted 18 July 2017, 4:18 a.m. Suggest removal

GCW says...

Stop asking questions and tell your politicians to double our budget or else you are ignorant. It doesn't have to make sense.

Posted 18 July 2017, 6 a.m. Suggest removal

WhododueDiligence says...

Packman, the author used first person references because he was the only person down in that crevasse looking to climb 120 feet of ice with nobody there to help him. If the author had used second person references, that would be you in there with your head looking up your crevasse.

Posted 18 July 2017, 7:17 a.m. Suggest removal

Whippersnapper says...

1) "The long-term climate model simulations show a trend in global-mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2012 that agrees with the observed trend (very high confidence). There are, however, differences between simulated and observed trends over periods as short as 10 to 15 years (e.g., 1998 to 2012)."
2) "There is medium confidence that natural internal decadal variability causes to a substantial degree the difference between observations and the simulations"
3) "There may also be a contribution from forcing inadequacies and, in some models, an overestimate of the response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing (dominated by the effects of aerosols)."
.
All of those quotes are from the most recent Scientific analysis by the IPCC science group.
.
Number 1 says their models are wrong for the entire time they attempted to predict. Number 2 says they underestimated the impact of nature. Number 3 says they overestimated the impact of human activity.
.
And because I believe in science, I cite my sources.
ww w.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL . pdf

Posted 18 July 2017, 9:07 a.m. Suggest removal

Whippersnapper says...

...and more to remember:
Some scientists who think global warming might be happening (real scientists tend to avoid definitive terms like "is" or "must be") actually think that it could be beneficial for mankind, as it could turn large portions of currently uninhabitable land into productive farmland. You don't hear about that from Al Gore's crowd, but the actual scientific community is broken into several groups on this issue:
1) Those who think that warming is likely occurring and will likely be a bad thing
2) Those who think that warming is likely occurring and could be a good or bad thing
3) Those who think that warming is likely occurring and would likely be a good thing
4) Those who think that warming may or may not be occurring and that it would likely be a bad thing
5) Those who think that warming may or may not be occurring and that it would likely be a good thing
6) Those who think that warming is not likely to be occurring
.
Al Gore's people (and most liberals) fall into group 1 up above and insist (incorrectly) that groups 2-6 do not exist. I know, all of you global warming alarmists think that I must be making this up, so here's a peer reviewed article in the journal Nature where they conclude that 25-50% of the global vegetated area would likely have a better growing season due to global warming while less than 4% of the vegetated areas will experience a shorter growing season. The reason? CO2 is the best fertilizer in the world (according to this peer reviewed article in the scientific journal Nature)
.
ww w.nature. com/articles/nclimate3004.epdf

Posted 18 July 2017, 9:21 a.m. Suggest removal

Log in to comment