Maine still in denial about climate change

Tom Boatner would never be mistaken for a left-leaning, big-city liberal.

He spent 30 years fighting fires in the American West before becoming chief of fire operations for the Bureau of Land Management.

After the tragic deaths of 19 young firefighters Sunday afternoon in Arizona, CBS aired a segment of a previous interview with him.

"You know there are a lot of people who do not believe in climate change," Scott Pelley said, standing with Boatner on the edge of a large fire.

"You won't find them on the fire line in the American West," Boatner said flatly.

"We've had climate change beat into us over the last 10 or 15 years. We're dealing with a period of temperature, humidity and drought that is different than people have seen in our lifetimes."

Politicians from the South and the West have been among the most consistent opponents of measures to curb carbon dioxide output as they continue to doubt the consensus of scientific opinion that the world is getting hotter.

U.S. production of CO2, the gas thought most responsible for climate change, has declined slightly over the past several years as the recession slowed industrial output, vehicles became more efficient and more of our electricity was produced by burning cleaner natural gas.

Much of the opposition to climate-change science seems based upon simple self-interest rather than informed science.

The Southern and Western states produce the coal and petroleum products that account for most of the carbon dioxide output in the U.S. 

What's more, they enjoy much lower electric energy rates because they rely on coal-burning power plants. The electricity is cheap because they send the biproducts, toxic chemicals and carbon dioxide, up tall smokestacks and into the upper atmosphere, much of which finds its way into New England.

This results in labored breathing for people with lung disease and asthma, and thousands of premature deaths.

Last week, members of Maine's lobstering, tourism, conservation and educational organizations launched a public-awareness campaign about the climate threat to our state's signature catch: lobsters.

Warmer water could shift lobster habitat north, said Dr. Rick Wahle, research professor at the University of Maine. Warmer waters may also threaten Maine's lobster population by introducing predators or competitors from the south.

More acidic waters resulting from air pollution may harm lobsters' ability to form shells, although more research on that is required.

The week before, a National Wildlife Federation report on global warming and wild birds reported that our state bird, the black-capped chickadee, is already beginning a slow retreat to Canada.

Temperatures here are becoming uncomfortably warm for some other inland and shoreland birds, like puffins, while mid-Atlantic species such as the red-bellied woodpecker and the black vulture are now appearing in southern New England.

So far, Maine has not suffered the sort of disastrous weather being recorded in other parts of the world, namely rising sea levels, longer, more intense droughts and the scalding hot temperatures like those seen in the West.

But we're also not using our time to explore and plan for possible consequences.

Last week, Gov. Paul LePage vetoed a bill passed by the Legislature that would have restarted statewide preparation for climate change.

In 2010, 75 state, federal, local and business organizations produced a preliminary report, a road map for helping Maine prepare for climate change.

When LePage came into office, he not only eliminated Maine's Planning Office, but also ordered the state Department of Environmental Protection to stop working on climate change planning.

So, while other New England states are taking the threat seriously and planning for climate change, Maine has its official head stuck in a hole in the sand.

As temperatures continue to rise, we may one day find this a costly and dangerous mistake.

The opinions expressed in this column reflect the views of the ownership and the editorial board.

What do you think of this story?

Login to post comments

In order to make comments, you must create a subscription.

In order to comment on, you must hold a valid subscription allowing access to this website. You must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your profile. To subscribe or link your existing subscription click here.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned from posting comments.



Steve  Dosh's picture

Maine still in denial about climate change

ed. 20:10 hst ? weds
w o w . did warn us about the ozone hole over the South Pole and then we ( the world ) reversed that calamity , right ?
Ayuh ? 
What else are they saying ?
. . For some of us , we merely wish we could take more of the 60% of the US federal budget that we currently spend on impliments of destruciton and defense and put it into the NSF and NASA , two non partisan government organizations that work for simple , direct , and beneficial purposes
It's the old guns vs. plowshares , guns vs. butter argument
/s , dr. dosh :D

The Saddest Consequence of Global Warming

I'm not a believer in AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming). And that's not just because the science that is being used to justify its existence is so thoroughly bogus. And it's not just because the projections and the models used to make those projections are so consistently wrong - as you see from the nightly weather reports on TV. It's just not credible to me that a model which is so wrong in predicting the weather for the next seven days, is somehow more credible on predictions that go out 20 - 50 - 100 years. I'm sorry, but I was a "STEM" student, and I do understand scientific/mathematical modeling very well.

But the really BIG reason I refuse to accept AGW is the amount of money it is redirecting from social needs and putting into the hands of wealthy "investors". No matter how you judge it, using global warming as a justification to divert $500 million from homelessness, healthcare and equal justice to fund an ill-fated project like the Solyndra debacle, is just unconscionable in a social justice context.

For most of us, we can't go out and buy a new toy to play with while making grandma go without food, heat or healthcare. What are we doing to ourselves America?

Maybe at some time in the future when the economy has recovered enough to address social issues with reasonably full-funding, maybe then we can help pay for the rich peoples' toy wind towers and underwater turbine ventures. But right now - social issues - survival for many - is just so much more important.

Maybe the wealthy should pay for their own experiments for the time being.

Betty Davies's picture

Mistaken comparison

You're comparing the difficulty the weatherman has predicting small variations in your local weather, with the statistical analysis of global climate trends over decades. A predicted thunderstorm might hit Augusta instead of Waterville; that does not invalidate the analyses of over 95% of the world's climate scientists on man-made climate change.

You're also making an arbitrary either-or comparison, as though we in order to turn back devastating worldwide climate change we'd have to take money from programs that help the elderly. I agree that "grandma" (I'm a grandmother myself) should get to keep her Social Security and Medicare. So let's skip sending our servicemen and women into another war or two, and set aside those savings for combating climate change, instead.

The money at stake for those

The money at stake for those who who support moves to reduce our effects on climate change is NOTHING compared to the money at stake for those with an interest on perpetuating the lie that it's not happening. The largest and most vocal group speaking out against the belief in global warming is funded by petroleum industry (in spite of their lip service to "finding renewable resoources").

The largest and most vocal group speaking out

Who is that exactly? I understand that Exxon-Mobil puts a lot of money into the Sierra Club and similar environmentally concerned organizations, but who are they funding on the global non-warming argument?

I know most of the players but none so far have gotten funds from big oil. The stupidity of your assertion lies in the large amount of funding oil is putting into wind, water and solar.

The Heartland Institute,

The Heartland Institute, which attempts to flood schools with denier lierature, has regularly received funding from ExxonMobil and the Kochs, the Petroleum Institute and two of the Big Three car companies, among others. And I found that is just one brief Google search, so I guess you need to pay more attention (or stop buying whatever they choose to tell you). Not to mentioned the infamous billboard comparing advocates to Ted Kacsynski.

I also found the Atlas Network, though I know less about them.

Yes, I know they are also giving funding to alternative resources, and this is a great thing. But it is still in their interest to slow down the adoption of their cash cow.

Well just lie outright - no need to be subtle.

I know for a fact that Heartland hasn't gotten funding from any oil company nor the Koch Brothers for this issue or others for almost a decade.

That was one of the first things I researched when I started to question global warming.

If you have proof otherwise - I will personally confront Joe Bass and get an explanation.

Your data is stale and misleading. And you're opinions are out of sync with even the latest comments coming from the IPCC. Climategate kind of proved that AGW was a farce.

On the other hand, Union College here in Maine got a Ten Million Dollar Endowment just for promoting Global Warming, and a professor there got $1.2 million just for that purpose also. Guess who the donors are ... ooops - they won't disclose the donors!!!

Here's some quotes from the so-called AGW experts:

?The data doesn'?t matter. We?re not basing our recommendations on the data. We?re basing them on the climate models.? Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

?The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.? Dr David Frame, Climate modeler, Oxford University

?It doesn?t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.? - Paul Watson, Co-founder of Greenpeace?

?Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.? - Sir John Houghton, First chairman of the IPCC

Betty Davies's picture

Erroneous/misleading quotes

"Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen," Sir John was supposed to have said in 1994. The quotation has since become the iconic smoking gun of the climate sceptic community. The words are the very first to appear in the "manual" of climate denialism written by the journalist and arch-sceptic Christopher Booker...The trouble is, Sir John Houghton has never said what he is quoted as saying. The words do not appear in his own book on global warming, first published in 1994, despite statements to the contrary. In fact, he denies emphatically that he ever said it at any time, either verbally or in writing." []

Paul Watson: "In Earthforce! An Earth Warrior’s Guide to Strategy, Watson expressed disdain for the truthfulness of mainstream media: 'The nature of the mass media today is such that the truth is irrelevant. What is true and what is right to the general public is what is defined as true and right by the mass media." [] On other occasions he explained that this warping of truth by the media means that a deluded general public is going to behave for all the world as if global warming facts are not true.

Chris Follan--His "work is focused on the predictability of winter seasonal climate over Europe, understanding links between European summer climate and its predictability and the West African Monsoon, and the predictability and operational prediction of average global temperature a year ahead. Chris uses results from the HadGEM family of models to guide research on winter predictability, and a range of observed data sets. Research on summer climate is currently focused on sources of predictability including links to the West African monsoon using models and observations. The global temperature research uses several observed global temperature data sets, a variety of other types of observed data, and El Niño forecasts from the GloSea4 seasonal forecast systems." [] Looks like he's incorporating multiple individual data sets into models, which he analyzes statistically. Mini-samples of individual data would thus be less persuasive or useful than the models.

So why have I been reading

So why have I been reading new reports that Koch and ExxonMobil have, indeed, been donating to Heatland at least as recently as 2011?

Sure, you can quote out of context from the discredited "Climategate" scandal=that-wasn't. Since you are still clinging to that for your "truth", I can see we will just have to end the discussion in disagreement.

 's picture

not the same

Weather and climate are not the same thing. And you deny AGW because somebody might be making a little money? Pretty weak.

Robert McQueeney's picture

I don't think anyone is

I don't think anyone is saying that because of some profiteers, it is all a farce. Those charlatans who burn more oil in a month than most do in a year to keep their estates warm and say give me your money so I can make things better, however are not helping the cause. When they show they actually believe what they are spouting by living by example and leading the way.... It'll lend credence to what they are saying.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Does not climate drive

Does not climate drive weather? They are inseparable.

It does, but not in the way

It does, but not in the way you are thinking. The effects of GW are not simply warmer summers and warmer winters. It affects the extremes of weather. More hurricanes, more big snowstorms (because warmth puts more moisture in the air, hence greater precipitation any time of the year), more droughts. It's not a matter of "gee we got a ton of snow this year, so much for Global Warming" as it is a look at the averages over time. Polar caps ARE melting further and further every summer, sea levels ARE rising.

Global Warming is a fact. The argument should not be over whether it is or not. It should be over whether our activities are accelerating it or not, and whether we can slow it down.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Your last paragraph sums it

Your last paragraph sums it up quite succinctly and pretty accurately, I might add. Savvy Mainers know the climate's changing. The rub comes from being told we're responsible for far more of it than we are, just so others can line their pockets off of our fears and panic.
25% real problem; 75% BS and fear rhetoric.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Wayne, Are you going to back


Are you going to back you claims with real data? The readers are waiting.

Still waiting for Ken to

Still waiting for Ken to present his evidence, too.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

I hear what you are saying,

I hear what you are saying, but I just cannot ignore that global averages are flat or declined over the last decade (see graph I posted below).

Show be the beef? Show me that we are having more hurricanes or bigger snowstorms? Show me the data.

Have irrefutable proof that

Have irrefutable proof that it's "bogus"? Because 99% of climate scientists would disagree with that statement.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Isn't that what they're

Isn't that what they're getting paid to do? Follow the money.

Steve  Dosh's picture

Wayne ? Perhaps 10,000 NASA

Wayne ? Perhaps 10,000 NASA scientists , Europeans ( CERN ) and the NSF are wrong and maybe NASA really does stand for ' Not Absolutely Sure of Anything ? '
Doubtful ;) Happy ƒourth . /s, Steve :D
' Need Another Seven Astronauts ? '

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Science is not impartial. It

Science is not impartial. It is subject to egos and funding amount two influences.

JERRY ARIPEZ's picture

Learn about Earth's climate system...or die- due to planet abuse

Dynamic Earth explores the inner workings of Earth's climate system. Follow the trail of energy that flows from the Sun into the interlocking systems that shape our climate: the atmosphere, oceans, and the biosphere.

Einstein Planetarium
National Air and Space Museum
6th Street and Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC
Smithsonian Institute
It connects the dots as to how climate change affects the Earth atmosphere, oceans, and the biosphere that are all connected with each other. It will make you cringe when you see what the change of centigrades will do to the world as a whole. The seas and plankton are affected and the cycle of life is attacked. Then you can relate to what the mystic laws of cause and effect on a grand scale really mean, instead of shallowing thinking about what you only see with your eyes or hear.

Life exist thru the shared effects of man, plants and animals and weather affecting mankind and every single species alike that need to be all within the universe of balance... ..The mystic laws of cause of effect is true to the survival of mankind, all species intertwined with Earth and the universe as a whole.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

I don't know who is worse.

I don't know who is worse. Jerry or chicken little.

Perhaps Maine can benefit from a little global warming, when climate change was called global warming.

Since the average global temperature has not changed over the pasted decade, there was a pressing need to find a new name for global warming. Winner!

Betty Davies's picture

Temperature changes

Global climate change has to with an increase in variability, so the "average" global temperature isn't at the center of debate. Nonetheless, In the US, "Since 1901, the average surface temperature across the contiguous 48 states has risen at an average rate of 0.13°F per decade (1.3°F per century) (see Figure 1). Average temperatures have risen more quickly since the late 1970s (0.31 to 0.45°F per decade). Seven of the top 10 warmest years on record for the contiguous 48 states have occurred since 1990." []

In global terms, "Averaged over all land and ocean surfaces, temperatures have warmed roughly 1.33°F (0.74ºC) over the last century, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (see page 2 of the IPCC's Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers (PDF)). More than half of this warming—about 0.72°F (0.4°C)—has occurred since 1979. Because oceans tend to warm and cool more slowly than land areas, continents have warmed the most (about 1.26° F or 0.7º C since 1979), especially over the Northern Hemisphere." []

National Geographic--"Earth is already showing many signs of worldwide climate change. • Average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius) around the world since 1880, much of this in recent decades, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. • The rate of warming is increasing. The 20th century's last two decades were the hottest in 400 years and possibly the warmest for several millennia, according to a number of climate studies. And the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that 11 of the past 12 years are among the dozen warmest since 1850."

MARK GRAVEL's picture

P.S. that takeaways is that

P.S. that takeaways is that average global temperature has been flat over the last 12 years.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

How much as the average

How much as the average global temperature increased over the last decade?

Source: IPPC

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Okay, how do you explain the

Okay, how do you explain the past decade when very little, if any, changes have occurred in the climate? I'm still waiting...

Even the IPCC has acknowledged NO CHANGE for past 15-20 years

A rational discussion here by amateurs and wannabees is useless. I've asked Rex Rhodes why not have the Sun Journal host a day of presentations of FACTS from both sides. But I won't hold my breath. There isn't a media outlet in America that will open the doors to an honest discussion of this topic.

I'd rather be a skeptic and stand up for my beliefs, than to be a media rep who is chicken and hides behind the Sun Journal wall of shame. All opinion - no factual basis of any substance.

Betty Davies's picture


Well, there's the National Geographic article, "2000-2010: A Decade of (Climate) Change" []

There's "Temperatures Worldwide (a graph) at

And there's also

JERRY ARIPEZ's picture

Open mouth insert foot....

There are slight differences in global records between groups at NCDC, NASA, and the University of East Anglia. Each group calculates global temperature year by year, using slightly different techniques. However, analyses from all three groups point to the decade between 2000 and 2009 as the hottest since modern records began more than a century ago. Temperatures in the 2010s have been running slightly warmer still.

You must think you have and know all the answers HUH?

I forgot you are a know it all!

What you don't know ... makes you look dumb

"all three groups point to the decade between 2000 and 2009 as the hottest since modern records began"

That's a lie. I think you missed the more recent statements from IPCC, the Met Office, BBC, NASA and NOAA

"No significant change in global temps for 15 years"

Pretty bad when you can't even keep up with the Hoax. The results of ClimateGate 1, 2 and 3 were too much for the "science guy".

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Average looks kind of flat

Average looks kind of flat over the last decade there Jerry.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Do you folks disagree because

Do you folks disagree because you lament the fact that imperial data does not fit the global warming hypothesis?

It is this fact why good solders from the church of global warming stopped calling this issue global warming and started calling it climate change.

The evidence above counters the global warming hypothesis. Climate change gives the religion a bit more wiggle room when imperial data contradicts those religious beliefs.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Global warming (climate

Global warming (climate change) is a religion whose followers worship at the altar of cap and trade.

JERRY ARIPEZ's picture

Lies from the Gravel once again

2005 and 1998 were the warmest two years in the instrumental global surface air temperature record since 1850. Surface temperatures in 1998 were enhanced by the major 1997–1998 El Niño but no such strong anomaly was present in 2005. Eleven of the last 12 years (1995 to 2006) – the exception being 1996 – rank among the 12 warmest years on record since 1850. {3.2}

The global average surface temperature has increased, especially since about 1950. The updated 100-year trend (1906–2005) of 0.74°C ± 0.18°C is larger than the 100-year warming trend at the time of the TAR (1901–2000) of 0.6°C ± 0.2°C due to additional warm years. The total temperature increase from 1850-1899 to 2001-2005 is 0.76°C ± 0.19°C. The rate of warming averaged over the last 50 years (0.13°C ± 0.03°C per decade) is nearly twice that for the last 100 years. Three different global estimates all show consistent warming trends. There is also consistency between the data sets in their separate land and ocean domains, and between sea surface temperature (SST) and nighttime marine air temperature (see Figure TS.6). {3.2}

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Again, what was the average

Again, what was the average change over the last decade?

MARK GRAVEL's picture


pasted - past...

Steve  Dosh's picture

Jer ? My fav. IMAX film is '

Jer ? My fav. IMAX film is ' Flyers' , the one where the wingwalker clown falls off a wing and then the same biplane ( a Stearman ) flys down and he grabs the wing again before he hits the ground . Great stunt . Filmed at /s Steve Happy ƒourth . . :D

 's picture

My youngest child was born on

My youngest child was born on Aug. 1, 1975 in Cambridge, MA. The high temperature that day was 108F, a record that hasn't been approached since.

That was long before the invention of global warming. In fact, it was in the era of global cooling. The grand consensus of scientists said we were all going to freeze to death in the coming ice age. Some of the older ones are now members of the new consensus, demonstrating amazingly convenient adaptability.

The planet's climate has undergone countless cycles, but this one - this special cycle - must be caused by the actions of humanity. This pseudo-scientific hogwash is what's constant and unchanging.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Mike, Mike, Mike, Why do you

Mike, Mike, Mike,

Why do you think "global warming" was re-branded to "climate change". The facts did not support the hypothesis.

Steve  Dosh's picture

Mike ? " In the long run we

Mike ? " In the long run we are all dead. " -- John Maynard Keynes L O L /s , Steve :D

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

If not for the invention of

If not for the invention of the venetian blind, it would've been curtains for all of us.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Don't be "blind", I "shutter"

Don't be "blind", I "shutter" at the concept of climate change.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Like the cow said, "We need

Like the cow said, "We need to find an utter way".

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Should that have been udder?

Should that have been udder? Maybe butter would've been better. Damn parrot.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Better than being butter from

Better than being butter from another udder.

ERNEST LABBE's picture

Some forty years

Some forty years my grandfather who was 93 or 4 (I was in my mid 20's at the time) to me that if I lived to be his age that I would not have to go to Florida every winter as he had done since he was 60. Just saying the old man knew something.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Can't wait for the palm trees

Can't wait for the palm trees to grow on Scribner Blvd. Hey!! watch out for those 'gators in Jepson Brook.
Can't wait.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

“Temperatures here are

“Temperatures here are becoming uncomfortably warm”

Does anyone have a link to historical temperatures in Maine? I want to verify what this subjective statement. This is, if temperatures are flat over the last decade, why should I believe this claim.

“As temperatures continue to rise”

How much is the temperature predicted to rise according to your climate scientist? One to two degrees Celsius at most, perhaps not a bad thing to soften the long cold Maine winter.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Yet no can provide data to

Yet no can provide data to back this assertion.

 's picture

Just keep pumpin' that crap...

...into the air. Don't worry about it. Keep using oil and coal. Leave the problem to your grand kids. You'll be long gone and they'll HAVE to do something about it.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

There is nothing on this

There is nothing on this planet save nuclear energy that will replace fossil fuel as a compact and efficient source of energy. The energy that fuels global industrialization; the same industrialization that produces wealth and elevates the standard of living on the planet.

Future generations will not regress their standard of living, so they will ride the same pony as long as possible.

The world will be a much poorer place and our standard of living will be significantly retarded when fossil fuels are exhausted.

Steve  Dosh's picture

Mark ? Just FYI/ NAN . Even

Mark ? Just FYI/ NAN . Even your UMF is looking into geothermal power right now . Iceland has so much extra electricity from geothermal they are making aluminum
This is quite literally in our backyard here in Hawai'i --> <-- and Ted Turner put US$26Million in to it just the other day . He also owns most of Montana
T. Boone Pickens had and is investing heavily ( US$Billons ) in to wind power in TX and elsewhere out west
Q: Do you think they know something we do not ?
A: Yes • 
That's why there are rich
hth ? Dr. Dosh

MARK GRAVEL's picture

“Do you think they know

“Do you think they know something we do not ?”

Yes, they are businessmen, and they know the American people will fork over billions in government subsidies regardless of the long-term viability of their product.

Take wind energy for example. It is unlikely to be the dominate means of electricity production – ever.

 's picture

You wrote...

"There is nothing on this planet save nuclear energy that will replace fossil fuel as a compact and efficient source of energy." I don't completely agree with you. I do believe nuclear energy has to be a very significant factor in the mix - but not the only one.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Maine Yankee was a great

Maine Yankee was a great success that the anti-nuclear wackos couldn't shut down fast enough when its license ran out. The sun and wind aren't going to do it for us, either. Drill, baby; drill.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

I'm listening, what are they?

I'm listening, what are they?

 's picture


...renewable energy sources.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

You do know that fossil fuel

You do know that fossil fuel is renewable. The same geological processes that created fossil fuel are still active.

Please do not be obtuse, be specific.

Name one renewable energy source that will replace fossil fuel and all of its present day uses?

Sure it's renewable

If you're willing to wait a few million years for it.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Yes, but scientist have shown

Yes, but scientist have shown then can accelerate the process using algae, heat, and high pressure. Perhaps some day we can synthesis the substance that makes the world a totally different place without.

 's picture

I've done my homework.

Now you want me to do yours. I don't think so.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

It is okay to say you don't

It is okay to say you don't know Wood....dy.

 's picture

Down to... calling, are we?

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Hey, that is the name to is

Hey, that is the name to is seen in the emails I get when you comment:

"Woody has commented on a story you've subscribed to"

Wood...dy is the name, is it not?

PAUL ST JEAN's picture



MARK GRAVEL's picture

That diversion behavior is

That diversion behavior is characteristic of him. I feel sorry for his family having to deal with that behavior day-in/day-out.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

That diversion behavior is

That diversion behavior is characteristic of him. I feel sorry for his family having to deal with that behavior day-in/day-out. Like.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

What happens if all

What happens if all industrial and automotive Co2 pollutants are removed and the Co2 levels continue to remain high enough to be unacceptable? Will humans be required to stop exhaling?

MARK GRAVEL's picture

And stop farting too -

And stop farting too - Methane bad.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Then we'd have to abolish all

Then we'd have to abolish all grazing of cattle, jacking up the price of beef and milk....AGAIN

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Not so fast. Keep this image

Not so fast. Keep this image from your wife, she might get some unpleasant ideas for you.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

(No subject)

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Okay, I cannot get the image

Okay, I cannot get the image to post, so here is the URL

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Hahaha....One good stampede

Hahaha....One good stampede and we are doomed.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Ya, my wife keeps trying to

Ya, my wife keeps trying to duct tape a plastic trash bag on my bottom ever since she saw that image.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Hahaha....You could blame it

Hahaha....You could blame it on the house pets.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

I tried blaming it on the dog

I tried blaming it on the dog until my wife pointed out we don't have a dog.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Hahaha....Most methane leaks

Hahaha....Most methane leaks at our place get blamed on the parrot, who just happens to wear it as a badge of honor.

 's picture


LePage has to bow down to his overlords, the Koch brothers and ALEC.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Here we go again with the

Here we go again with the need to blame the sinister Koch brothers.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

I've never been able to quite

I've never been able to quite get a grasp on the left's intense hatred of the Koch Brothers.

Steve  Dosh's picture

I've never been able to quite

I've never been able to quite get a grasp on the right's intense hatred of freedom of the press . :D Happy ƒourth, all Pauls and Marks /s , the rest of us . .

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Back at you, Steve. Be well;

Back at you, Steve. Be well; be safe.

 's picture

The common trait of all those who need to blame ...

... the Koch brothers is: If you could wade in the puddle of their brains, you wouldn't get the soles of your feet wet.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Really, I wonder if there is

Really, I wonder if there is even enough there to puddle in the first place.

Robert McQueeney's picture

I don't think it is that folks don't believe in it

I think it has to with the science behind it. Not too many years ago, I had several different global warming advocates tell me that the proof of global warming is obvious, look at how little snow we have had in the past years. Then that winter, we come within one inch of setting an annual snowfall record.

The science behind the "proof" of global warming is what is at issue here. How much man is impacting it is arguable, obviously. What man can do to positively impact is another issue. And then, suppose everyone in Maine were to get on the train and follow the advice of the experts and do all we could to positively impact global warming, what would happen? Would the hazy evening skies disappear, or would we still get them from the midwest pollution? And what about China, the largest polluter on the planet. If they don't get on board, all our efforts mean nothing.

What we need is good solid, verifiable to the masses, science behind any efforts. We need global adoption of methods of decreasing it, not someone who insists on everyone doing their part while burning more oil at their home in a month than many do in a year (Al Gore). We need people who believe in the efforts enough to lead by example.

And I hate to say it, but we need those who lead the charge, do eliminate the emotion from it, and actually lead from "here is the proof, here is how to solve it", and these methods won't bankrupt anyone from starting with these simple steps.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

I don’t think people are

I don’t think people are willing to give up driving or heating their homes during the long, cold Maine winter. We are not going to go back to the Stone Age. We’ll simply live with climate change if it does exist.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Global warming is just

Global warming is just another scam on the American people. 15 years ago (give or take) the same people warning us about it now were warning us about the impending ice age that would soon be upon us. It's all hogwash. Nature does what it will and has been doing for millions of years. In the grand scheme of things, we're as significant as a zit on a gnats ass and we're going alter the planet's climate? Oh, o.k.; sign me up for that.

Jim Durfee's picture

Big Mistake

Yawn: To breathe deeply, letting the mouth open wide, big mistake. Ever notice that Asians don facial mask more so than Americans and its not to hide their good looks. I'm not going to say that having been born to a southern state, lived in coal mining country and had the pleasure of a New England coal fired energy plant dangling over head has had any influence in my opinion having spent nearly thirty years in my beloved Maine....strongly believe that we are the exhaust pipe on this side.
Time to close it!

MARK GRAVEL's picture

CO2 is not harmful to humans

CO2 is not harmful to humans (to a degree). It helps plants grow.

People don masks because of heavy particulates, which actually block sunlight from hitting the surface and contributes to cooling.

Steve  Dosh's picture

the Marks & the Pauls , 21:10

the Marks & the Pauls , 21:10 hst ? Okay ?
Like we mentioned last night , we Batsies can take ether side and win against Harvard U.
It's carbon MON-oxide ( CO ) you are referring to , correct ?
A: Yes • 
/s , a homo - sapien named Steve , Happy ƒourth ,
also , a reformed former homo erectus ;)

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Greenhouse gases Atmospheric

Greenhouse gases

Atmospheric absorption and scattering at different wavelengths of electromagnetic waves. The largest absorption band of carbon
Greenhouse gases are those that can absorb and emit infrared radiation,but not radiation in or near the visible spectrum. In order, the most abundant greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere are:

Water vapor (H2O)
Carbon dioxide (CO2)
Methane (CH4)
Nitrous oxide (N2O)
Ozone (O3)

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

No, Steve, it's carbon

No, Steve, it's carbon DIOXIDE. You breath in oxygen; you exhale carbon dioxide. Say two more times, and it'll come to you.
Homo erectus, eh?




...for those who have not yet become aquainted with Mr Arsenault's debating style.
"YAWN" means "I disagree but I have no intellectual capacity or logical basis for it, I just choose not to believe it because it doesn't fit terribly neatly into my very narrow world view."

JERRY ARIPEZ's picture

What he lacks in

What he lacks in intelligence, he more than makes up for in stupidity.

Steve  Dosh's picture

HAhHHAh , omg .Some choice

HAhHHAh , omg .Some choice comments to - night , huh , Claire? ;)
. Let's hear it for SHOUT RADIO , too ! Pray for no rain . . <- ƒun site ( for the kids )
/s, Steve , Happy ƒourth , ƒiƒth , sixth



Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...