Channel 3 has the story and Healy’s statement. I’ll see about getting a text version. He does say that he’s an alcoholic though. Apparently we’re getting an announcement about his future tomorrow.
Update 3
The Courant has a full article about this, including background details. Chief among them is that Healy does want to be re-elected as State party Chair but does not plan to campaign.
“I’ll leave it up to others to decide my fate,” Healy said. “I’m at peace. We’ll see where life takes us.”
Update 2
The CT GOP Blog has a statement from Healy posted.
On May 15, 2007, Christopher C. Healy was arrested by the University of South Carolina Police in Columbia, South Carolina, and charged with driving under the influence. He was released on the following day with a court return date of June 1. On June 1, he pled no contest. On that day, he informed the Governor’s office about his decision to enter the plea.
Last night, June 11, 2007, Healy informed the members of the Connecticut Republican State Central Committee and asked for their forgiveness. Mr. Healy has been overwhelmed by the support and prayers from friends, family, and others who have called or wished him well in person. He has taken steps to address these issues and will continue to do so with the help of others.
H/T to The Architect.
Update
Over at MLN Maura has more details.
The story is not up yet on the WFSB web site, but WFSB is reporting that Healy announced his arrest last night at a gathering and that he’d be making some kind of official announcement tomorrow morning.
According to the report, Healy was arrested in South Carolina when he was visiting to attend the Republican debate there. This is his second arrest for drunk driving.
The report quoted Healy saying, “I am an alcoholic and I have a problem.” He said he is on medication for depression as well.
Developing…
120 responses so far ↓
I imagine at least one frequent poster who will spew some venom….
Alcoholism is a tough disease. By all accounts, Healy has been handling it pretty well. I wish him all the best as he deals with this tough issue.
[quote post="630"]Alcoholism is a tough disease. By all accounts, Healy has been handling it pretty well. I wish him all the best as he deals with this tough issue.[/quote]
One thing I will say about Healy, he is damn good at his job.
I have to commend Maura at MLN for her dignified post there.
Can’t say I agree with much on that site, but she handled her post appropriately (whether GOP or Dem).
My respect for her, as a worthy opponent, has signifcantly increased.
Well done.
[quote comment="12791"]I have to commend Maura at MLN for her dignified post there.
Can’t say I agree with much on that site, but she handled her post appropriately (whether GOP or Dem).
My respect for her, as a worthy opponent, has signifcantly increased.
Well done.[/quote]
Maura is good people. No doubt about that.
Healy’s got a statement on the CTGOP blog:
http://ctgop.blogspot.com/2007/06/chairmans-statement.html
She has demonstrated that.
[quote comment="12794"]Healy’s got a statement on the CTGOP blog:
http://ctgop.blogspot.com/2007/06/chairmans-statement.html/quote
Got it. Thanks.
I had a post written wishing Healy luck in his rehab but then he released his statement that this arrest happened on MAY 15!! and he pled quilty and informed the Gov. on JUNE 1 !!
The GOVERNOR was in on a coverup for 12 days.
Un-F*#king-Believable.
The Publics right to know means absolutely nothing to the Republican Party and I want to know if any of Cts other Republican legislators or reporters new this but didn’t report it.
Don’t tell me Rell is a stich more ethical than Rowland was.
[quote comment="12798"]I had a post written wishing Healy luck in his rehab but then he released his statement that this arrest happened on MAY 15!! and he pled quilty and informed the Gov. on JUNE 1 !!
The GOVERNOR was in on a coverup for 12 days.
Un-F*#king-Believable.
The Publics right to know means absolutely nothing to the Republican Party and I want to know if any of Cts other Republican legislators or reporters new this but didn’t report it.
Don’t tell me Rell is a stich more ethical than Rowland was.[/quote]
It was only a matter of time.
Keith never disappoints, if you can call it that.
[quote comment="12798"]I had a post written wishing Healy luck in his rehab but then he released his statement that this arrest happened on MAY 15!! and he pled quilty and informed the Gov. on JUNE 1 !!
The GOVERNOR was in on a coverup for 12 days.
Un-F*#king-Believable.[/quote]
How could the Governor be in a coverup if you say yourself that she didn’t know until June 1st? Your overeagerness to slam Healy getting the best of what little rationality you have keithie?
Keith does have a point about it being a long period of time having passed.
[quote comment="12801"]Keith does have a point about it being a long period of time having passed.[/quote]
You’re overlooking the rest of his post/
Last I knew, Healy doesn’t hold an elected office and Keith isn’t a Republican. So what is his right to know?
[quote comment="12802"][quote comment="12801"]Keith does have a point about it being a long period of time having passed.[/quote]
You’re overlooking the rest of his post/
Last I knew, Healy doesn’t hold an elected office and Keith isn’t a Republican.
So what is his right to know?[/quote]
No, I’m admitting that Keith does have a point about the timing.
Healy is elected by his party which makes it a semi-internal affair. All I can say is how I would feel were it my on state party chair. I’d be annoyed that so much time had passed.
WAIT A MINUTE,
You mean all you Republicans are OK with having Information like this withheld from you?
I thought Amann was stupid when he said the Governor was ” too preoccupied with the scandals and it was affecting the budget talks” but this news CERTAINLY gives that story more creadence.
[quote comment="12804"]WAIT A MINUTE,
You mean all you Republicans are OK with having Information like this withheld from you?
I thought Amann was stupid when he said the Governor was ” too preoccupied with the scandals and it was affecting the budget talks” but this news CERTAINLY gives that story more creadence.[/quote]
LMFAO
Laugh all you want CT Dude,
But then go look at the dates and why did it take Hours to get answers every time Rells negotiators were asked a question.
Honestly, does anyone, Republican or Democrat, comment on a pending legal matter? To anyone?
Do those who are crying foul over the lack of instant notification believe that is sound legal advice?
The spinning in this situation is almost as bad as the DeLuca spinning.
I can’t believe Healy said he’s keeping his name in the running for Party Chair.
He’s admitting he’s an out of control alchoholic and yet wants to keep a job where he’ll be expected to spend time in a bar almost every day.
As a former Bartender I can tell you he’s got about a 90-95% chance of another relapse if they allow him to continue as chair.
Archie,
Healy Pled No Contest 12 days ago. The Governor helped him cover this up for at least 12 days when there was no “pending” legal matter.
[quote comment="12809"]Archie,
Healy Pled No Contest 12 days ago. The Governor helped him cover this up for at least 12 days when there was no “pending” legal matter.[/quote]
He isn’t an elected official, it’s not necessarily a public affair. Healy could have slipped by undetected into his potential re-election and not said a peep to anyone.
Instead, he’s deciding to come clean and face the responsibility that the GOP preaches.
[quote comment="12808"]The spinning in this situation is almost as bad as the DeLuca spinning.
I can’t believe Healy said he’s keeping his name in the running for Party Chair.
He’s admitting he’s an out of control alchoholic and yet wants to keep a job where he’ll be expected to spend time in a bar almost every day.
As a former Bartender I can tell you he’s got about a 90-95% chance of another relapse if they allow him to continue as chair.[/quote]
The all-knowing Keith has spoken.
Get a life.
Maybe make another paper mache sculpture?
He must need sunglasses…
Hey, let’s lay off each other until at least morning, huh? It’s too damn late for this.
Keith (and apparently only keith) don’t seem to care about Rep. Kevin Ryan’s three (3) DUI’s, after which he “served” his constituents from prison. OR Rep. Pat Dillon’s DUI earlier this session.
Keith, should a party official be held to a higher standard than elected legislators?
Wow, according to CT DUI Laws, Chris Healy should be obligated to a minimum of 120 days in jail, and a 3 year license suspension!
Second Offense
(within 10 years) Test results of .08 or higher!
Test results of .08 or higher
Fines: $1,000 to $4,000.
Jail: 2 years; 120 days minimum mandatory and 100 hours of community service.
Suspension: Three years (or until you are 21 years of age, whichever is longer).
I wouldn’t want to feel too badly for Chris Healy, but you have to imagine his goose is cooked. By State law he needs to spend four months in jail, (which I’m sure he’ll never serve), but that should prohibit him from the future spotlight….
Actually TBCT this is a misrepresented interpretation of CT DUI law under which Rep. Dillon would have been in jail for six months and Rep. Ryan for potentially six years… Meaning he would have been unable to vote for himself in three elections while still “serving”.
As your research tells you, the penalties described are only for “convictions”. ALL first-time offenders are permitted to participate in an accelerated rehabilitation education program lasting between 10 and 15 sessions.
Per CGS 54-56g first time offenders are able to have their records “sealed” by participating in the Pretrial Alcohol Education System (Ryan has a PHD).
CGS 54-56g: “Upon application by any such person for participation in such system and payment to the court of an application fee of fifty dollars and a nonrefundable evaluation fee of one hundred dollars, the court shall order the court file sealed”
Good to see keith has at least one friend Trueblue. Quite the coalition of moderates
ctkeith clearly gets to say anything and everything around here … no rules for ctkeith …
In a recent Hartford Business Journal article, Dean Pagani writes that, “Chris Healy may be on the verge of doing something no one else has done in almost twenty years: Make the job of state party chairman relevant”. The revelation comes as a great surprise to some who doubted Healy when he ascended to the post in January, but as each day passes it becomes increasingly undeniable. Other Chairmen have served ably – Chris Healy has been superb.
Long known as a bomb-throwing backbencher in the Republican State Central Committee, Healy’s path to leadership has been a long arc marked by challenges to the status quo and ardent loyalty to fellow party members, punctuated by the perpetual whispers about his alcohol consumption and his penchant for a fight. Chris quarterbacked the Dole Campaign in Connecticut in ’96 even though the conclusion seemed forgone. He was the lead on the McCain Campaign in 2000 and bucked the national trend by delivering the state to McCain despite George W. Bush’s familial roots in Connecticut . And he helped Sebastian Giuliano become a Republican Mayor in Middletown – a phrase that few had ever uttered before 2005.
2006 was a year in which all of the pundits lined up and said that Republicans in Congress were going to be buried beneath a Democratic “wave” of backlash against corruption, Iraq , and out-of-control spending. Despite this sentiment, Healy took on the race of Congressman Rob Simmons, a perennial Democrat target in a fickle district comprised almost entirely of “backwater” Connecticut . With an Irish diligence, Chris guided the Simmons campaign to even on Election Day – in a year in which almost no targeted Republican kept their seat, Simmons lost an election in which 242,000 ballots were cast by 83 votes. Some people will pass harsh judgment and call it a failure. I call it respectable.
With the burn of the narrow loss still painful, it became clear that the Party was going to need a new leader as George Gallo moved on to other things. The Governor lobbied hard to keep Gallo in place – and then as Healy showed some interest in the job, she lobbied to keep him out of it. As the overwhelming will of the committee became apparent, Rell joined him because she couldn’t beat him.
And now Chris Healy has gotten himself in trouble – the recovering alcoholic’s worst nightmare – a relapse and arrest for driving under the influence. To his credit, he didn’t protest, he didn’t attempt to wear his position as a shield; he didn’t shirk from the responsibility that he must bear – for himself. He stood before the members of the State Central Committee and in faith and honesty laid out the situation for people, and answered any questioner’s query. He has nothing to hide. In the world of politics, in which so much time and energy is wasted on the ignoble maintenance of fool’s pride, Healy came clean. He probably could have covered it up – Lord knows there are only two weeks until the Chairman’s election – and he could have gotten away with it. But he chose not to do so. The scrutiny of Chris should be severe – and all should reiterate that driving under the influence of alcohol is a danger to everyone in society. But we need also remember that preaching accountability and responsibility means that you have to be responsible and accountable. The Chairman of the Connecticut Republicans has done that. And Republicans across Connecticut should stick with him because of it.
>>I’d be annoyed that so much time had passed.
It didn’t.
Chris spoke to me days ago and I’m of the impression that he spoke to most if not all members personally prior to any public revelation.
Tracking everyone down while some are on a vacation probably wasn’t the easiest task and was certainly an unpleasant one for him.
I’ve become a convert (sort of a `born again’ Chris Healy fan) and am 100% behind him.
>>no rules for ctkeith …
Correct.
TrueBlueCT:
1. Do you REALLY think that “Chris Healy should be obligated to a minimum of 120 days in jail” in Connecticut for an offense that occurred in South Carolina? Really? C’mon.
2. Can you please explain why the planet cooled from 1940 to 1970? I know this is off topic, but you were ripping me for “not believing in global warming” (which isn’t really accurate, but whatever), and you’ve been ducking me for two days now. So… could you please tell me why the planet cooled from 1940 to 1970? This is a pretty straightforward question. Thanks
Chris Healy suffers from a terrible disease and has been handling it well. He slipped up in South Carolina and , luckily, no one was hurt. Drunken driving is a horrible, horrible crime whose result is usually the death of an innocent person or people.
Chris Healy is also very good at his job, in a hatchet job sort of way, IMHO, and that gets under the skin of Democrats.
But if — as noted above — Kevin Ryan and Patty Dillon can continue to serve in the state House, and anyone of us who works for a living and has ever been convicted of DUI can continue to make a living, Healy is entitled to the same.
The problem is that a certain segment of the general public — not just Democrats — will see this and the DeLuca matter and the lack of a state budget as more reasons not to like or trust anyone who works in government, as if there is some special group of “superangels” who debate and make our laws.
Let those without sin cast the first stone … and seek to serve the public. It would be a very lonely place in Hartford if that were the threshold.
The piece
It’s one thing to be an alcoholic. It’s quite another to get behind the wheel of a vehicle and turn it into a homicide weapon. It’s yet another leap to do it again. He is not “responsible.” He has not “learned” anything. He is not a “victim.” He has effectively been convicted twice of attempted homicide. He should resign now. Zero sympathy from me.
Drunken driving usually results in the death of an innocent person?
Absurd.
People are frequently driving drunk. Very infrequently, the result is a death.
The standard for DUI is often very low, so tons and tons of people drive with alcohol levels above the DUI minimum without really thinking about it. They’re simply lucky to not get pulled over for a discussion with a cop.
I’m not saying that it is OK to drive drunk — it’s obviously not OK — but anyone who says that drunken driving usually leads to death is making extremely false statements …
CT law requires that someone’s license should be suspended for 3 years for a second offense. SC law requires that someone’s license be suspended for 2 years for a second offense.
So the question is, is DMV Commissioner Bob Ward going to suspend Healy’s license? It’s a question that should be asked of Ward.
Stamfordinho,
Putting a single bullet in a gun chamber, spinning it, and shooting at a child will not usually result in death. I don’t think someone who does that repeatedly should be a state party chair. To argue otherwise is called enabling.
Mike, as another proud spokesman of the moderate majority, what recourse would you suggest for Representative Kevin Ryan
MikeCT, I think you missed my point. I didn’t say anything about whether or not there should be a new CT GOP chair …
Senator Edith Prague will certainly call for Healy’s execution.
Of course she has demanded on two occasions that a Republican Representative resign because of a DUI.
But then, when Rep. Kevin Ryan (DWI-Montville) was actually SENT TO DO JAIL TIME, she argued he was a good man dealing with a difficult problem.
Her reaction will be interesting… Republicans must resign! Democrats are wonderful people dealing with difficult health issues…
Nonetheless, I am annoyed about not knowing about this sooner, but he isn’t a public official the way a legislator is.
Isn’t it a violation of the law to refuse to take a blood or breath test?
Nevermind that he was pulled over while driving around on a college campus where there are kids presumably walking around.
By the way,
Pat Dillon has her one strike.If she EVER gets caught behind the wheel drunk again she should be forced to resign and I’ll be the first and most vocal making that call even though I think there is noone in this state that knows their constituents better than she does.
Kevin Ryan should be expelled by the Democratic Leadership.3 convictions for DUI means he’s not only a drunk but it’s just a matter of time before he kills someone.
When did being involved politically come to mean the laws and standards of us ordinary citizens no longer apply and were to be replaced by an even lower standard?
Republican or Democrat, the same standard should apply. But Healy isn’t a legislator, or someone who holds public office. He holds a political office, but one there needs to be clear standards for. GOP State Central committee members will decide his fate.
This event will bring out the predictable, hypocritical demogogues (Prague) without question…
Good Lord.
What a bunch of hacks without lives. Seems like some of my fellow left wingnuts have gone straight past laughable and into the land of the unhinged.
I’m not going to offer my opinion about what Healy or the party should do. It’s none of my business. I will say that from what I’ve read, it appears he’s handled this very appropriately.
I have no opinion as to whether or not Chris Healy should resign for the good of his party. That’s up to the GOP. He may need to resign for his own sake though. That job surely has trigger after trigger that could lead to a another relapse.
I believe that alcoholism is a disease that can be controlled and managed, but a disease nonetheless. What Mr. Healy did was a bad lapse in judgement and personal control and he clearly acknowledges that.
Though he is an elected official (all party members are regardless of party), he is only in the public eye due to his internal election. I believe that people need to lay off on this one. Sure he attacks others in public, but that’s his job as spokesperson for the RSC. He should not be held to the same high standard as state legislators or other generally elected public officials.
Piling on here just seems wrong. However, defending his actions are equally wrong. And the comments about Rep. Ryan and hypocrisy are on-target. To me this is a personal matter first and only a RSC matter if Healy so chooses to make it so – which he has,
Yes, Bob Ward will suspend the license. It is automatic, absent some technical glitch during the arrest. So assuming the Columbia PD followed the procedures, then Healy will lose his license. He also is entitled to apply for a work permit to drive to and from his job during the suspension, if he has not already had one with his first offense. So if he is driving around in the near future, let’s remember this before everyone starts screaming about preferential treatment. As for not taking the test, under CT law that results in a longer license suspension than taking and failing one. Hope Healy can conquer his demons. He is a very bright guy and he is helping to revitalize a party that has been down too long. Now, you may all continue with your abject hatred of anyone with an “R” after their name…….
Oh come on famillionaire. Healy tears other people down for a living. (When he’s not a lobbyist.) As another “leader” of the CT GOP, he is certainly a public person, and no holds barred. (And what was he doing in South Carolina when he got arrested? Oh yeah Republican business.)
The real question isn’t whether Healy is a good guy. The question is whether he’ll receive preferential treatment under the law…
Can anyone tell me what the appropriate legal penalties are? I tried to suss them out last night, but was told that what I posted was incorrect.
KEEP HEALY CHAIR!
A RESPECTABLE LEADER, for
A RESPECTABLE CT GOP!
And if you think that’s rough, wait till MADD chimes in. Healy should wise up, and go away for several years. That’s the only way he gets through this.
ps- Rep. Ryan is a disgrace to all Democrats. And he, too, should go away.
[quote comment="12817"]Wow, according to CT DUI Laws, Chris Healy should be obligated to a minimum of 120 days in jail, and a 3 year license suspension!
Second Offense
(within 10 years) Test results of .08 or higher!
Test results of .08 or higher
Fines: $1,000 to $4,000.
Jail: 2 years; 120 days minimum mandatory and 100 hours of community service.
Suspension: Three years (or until you are 21 years of age, whichever is longer).
I wouldn’t want to feel too badly for Chris Healy, but you have to imagine his goose is cooked. By State law he needs to spend four months in jail, (which I’m sure he’ll never serve), but that should prohibit him from the future spotlight….[/quote]
The arrest happened in SC, not CT… which means SC law applies. Sorry TBCT to disappoint you, no perp walk for you.
And no BAC test was administered either.
Amazing how quick you are to close ranks Archie. If it was my State Chair, I’d be calling for a resignation. (But perhaps less quietly than on a blog).
What it with you guys and the simple notion of accountability? Is this what the Grand Ol’ Party has become under the Chimp-in-Chief? IOKIYAR?
So let’s play the game. What are the South Carolina laws? Or, as an out-of-stater, is Healy immune from any consequence?
Obviously, you’re not an attorney “Architect”…otherwise you’d know that Connecticut and South Carolina have reciprocity and this may very well count as his second offense under Connecticut law. Healy is a strong Chairman, and he’s been effective by pointing out the shortcomings of others and instances where people, such as the Speaker, have either broken the law or violated ethics standards……….how can he continue to do that with a straight face now?
[quote comment="12859"]Amazing how quick you are to close ranks Archie. If it was my State Chair, I’d be calling for a resignation. (But perhaps less quietly than on a blog).
What it with you guys and the simple notion of accountability? Is this what the Grand Ol’ Party has become under the Chimp-in-Chief? IOKIYAR?
So let’s play the game. What are the South Carolina laws? Or, as an out-of-stater, is Healy immune from any consequence?[/quote]
Stop trying to change the subject Blue.
Wheres the accoutability you say? Healy could have decided not to say a word and cruise to re-election but he voluntarily disclosed this before the SCC vote…. and voluntarily decided to face the wrath of the SCC, voters, and the media. His license will be suspended for at least a year if not three once the legal process plays out. Or is that not good enough for you?
[quote comment="12860"]Obviously, you’re not an attorney “Architect”…otherwise you’d know that Connecticut and South Carolina have reciprocity and this may very well count as his second offense under Connecticut law. Healy is a strong Chairman, and he’s been effective by pointing out the shortcomings of others and instances where people, such as the Speaker, have either broken the law or violated ethics standards……….how can he continue to do that with a straight face now?[/quote]
Scratchy, when did I say I was an attorney, can you please cite that post? Thanks.
How more effective can one be than pointing out their own shortcomings, particularly when it is not even necessarily a matter for public consumption? He’s come clean and is facing the responsibility that the GOP preaches.
…and if I had to answer to Lisa Moody, I’d be throwing a few back too.
NEW HAVEN – The approval of a plan that would give legal identification cards to illegal residents by the New Haven Board of Aldermen and supported by Mayor John DeStefano shows how the Democrats still don’t grasp the rule of law, according to Chris Healy, Republican State Party Chairman.
‘People who come here illegally are breaking the law and the Democrats have rewarded lawbreakers,’ said Healy. ‘If people want to get identification and are immigrants, they should apply for citizenship and go through the same process as legal residents.’
———————————————————————–
ACR,
you guys gonna “reward Lawbreakers” by “Sticking with Healy”?
Whats Next,Is the Ct Republican State Central Committee going to call for former Rep. Mark Foley to move to CT. to help “raise the ethical Standards and perceptions of our Party”
Blew – I am not sure who is closing ranks – this isn’t a public matter as the state GOP is a private organization and they can decide to have whomever they choose as their chairman. I would think it’d be hard to do the job with this great a challenge facing him, but that’s up to the party.
Tony-
So you’re advocating he stays, or goes?
To date every last one of you guys has said, “2nd conviction, no problem.” It’s amazing to me.
[quote post="630"]Obviously, you’re not an attorney “Architect”…otherwise you’d know that Connecticut and South Carolina have reciprocity and this may very well count as his second offense under Connecticut law. Healy is a strong Chairman, and he’s been effective by pointing out the shortcomings of others and instances where people, such as the Speaker, have either broken the law or violated ethics standards……….how can he continue to do that with a straight face now? [/quote]
Scratchy, I believe the reciprocity just affects his drivers license, much like how if you get a speeding ticket in South Carolina your license in CT would be impacted. As far as any criminal implications all of that would be a South Carolina matter and whether or not it’s considered a “second offense” for that purpose would be handled down there. Similarly, if he got another DUI in CT the one in SC would be considered for any criminal penalties here in CT.
Actually, Architect, he’s forcing what should be his own decision onto the backs of others. Yes, he’s admitted he has a problem…yet he persists in a profession where alcohol and temptation lurk around every corner…the times he has had the greatest problems with the drink have been centralized around political stuff–whether you run in Dem or Rep circles, that’s no secret. If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, then we might as well just accept that Healy will be reelected, and we should just prepare for the next relapse. I for one would love to see him commit to a rigorous program where he can make some life changes, remove some of the temptations, find ways to control the desires of his disease, and live a very full life. I’m really worried that the compassion of others now will lead to a worse situation in the future.
TB,
Are you calling for the resignation of every democrat legislator with a DUI in the past?
Ryan? Dillon? And let’s not forget about Patrick Kennedy last year. Talk about preferential treatment. Where was the outcry over that?
Also, under your definition of a “winger” the other day:
“Yep, you’re a â€winger. That’s my term for folks who put blind partisan loyalty before rational, independent thought.”
I’m assuming your failure to do so would classify you as such.
[quote comment="12866"]Tony-
So you’re advocating he stays, or goes?
To date every last one of you guys has said, “2nd conviction, no problem.” It’s amazing to me.[/quote]
As far as I can tell Blue, you obviously aren’t a Republican, much less a member of the Republican State Central Committee…so my question is what business is it of yours to advocate for him to stay or to leave? Who the hell cares what you think…quite frankly, your opinions don’t matter on this subject, nor are they going to be welcomed by the elected members of the party. You are not one of his constituents…CT GOP members are his constituents. If they decide to oust him, then that’s their collective prerogative…not yours, so relax.
>>centralized around political stuff–whether you run in Dem or Rep circles, that’s no secret
Not true; there’s loads of people in both parties that simply never have a drink or never drink outside of their own home ever.
Here’s a tip; the Half Door on Sisson Street has Omar Coffee and if you tip they’ll knock out a fresh pot of the stuff (it’s even better than DD which is saying something) *and* you can stand outside and hear the band just fine while enjoying both a really good cup of coffee and a cigarette.
It’s like paradise.
Blew – It is up to the state central committee. I am not advocating one way or the other. If I had a vote I’d probably ask him to step down becuase having that type of issue in your life has to be a distraction.
Drunk driver have killed too many kids in Connrcticut for this to be no big deal…
Just wait until the first reporter turns to CT’s MADD chapter for comment.
And Just Shut Up, last I knew this was a site for political commentary. All I’m saying is that the writing is on the wall, even if you all are too dumb to see it.
[quote post="630"]Drunk driver have killed too many kids in Connrcticut for this to be no big deal…[/quote]
TB, that doesn’t explain your lack of outrage over democrat DUIs.
Again, I’ll use your definintion of “winger.”
“Yep, you’re a â€winger. That’s my term for folks who put blind partisan loyalty before rational, independent thought.”
Ahh yes…I must be dumb for pointing out the obvious that you’re opinion on this subject is worthless…thanks for enlightening me…
[quote comment="12874"]And Just Shut Up, last I knew this was a site for political commentary. All I’m saying is that the writing is on the wall, even if you all are too dumb to see it.[/quote]
Elitist Lib Checklist:
1) Everyone else is dumb except me. Check.
2) I know the real story (in this case the obvious (apparently to TBCT) attempt that will be made by GOP insiders to give Healy preferential treatment) behind everything. Check.
3) I know everything (even other peoples own thoughts on what they really mean or would say under other circumstances). Check.
You’re lookin’ good on the checklist Blew.
This DUI stuff never hurt Bush or Cheney – and some Dems, too, TS.
I am very surprised (NOT!) that the GOP site you link to saw fit to not allow my comment that simply asked them to slow down on the Local CT GOP scandals so we Bloggers can concentrate more on the national GOP scandals.
Snarky, YES, rude and typically deletable offense? UMMM, NO!
They seem to have a problem with allowing civil discourse over there.
This is a non-story. He is not elected. There are many elected officials
hiding such secrets. They are able to in part because first time offenders
have DUI/DWI taken off their records if they agree to take the AA classes
and such. You will never know who these current people are and I am
certainly not going to say here. Now you may say well we would still
know if it is in the paper. Well, sometimes these people were arrested
before they were elected so it is hard to trace. Anyway this gotcha
society is in a bad way for sure.
agreed Dark Horse but he put the public at risk; I have no problem with his disorder – it’s the serious of the offense — out a state folks often, well you know….
Hmmm…. I see MADD going after Healy and Dillon in a wonderful bipartisan effort. Again too many innocents have been killed by drunk drivers in CT for them to pass on this one. I can see the headlines now, “MADD Protests Re-Election of CT GOP Chair”…
[quote comment="12880"]This is a non-story. He is not elected. There are many elected officials
hiding such secrets. They are able to in part because first time offenders
have DUI/DWI taken off their records if they agree to take the AA classes
and such. You will never know who these current people are and I am
certainly not going to say here. Now you may say well we would still
know if it is in the paper. Well, sometimes these people were arrested
before they were elected so it is hard to trace. Anyway this gotcha
society is in a bad way for sure.[/quote]
It is absolutely a story. Healy has been the CT GOP’s primary spokesman for some time now. He is in the public eye as the leader of his party. Also, in his capacity as party chair, he has chided officials on the other side of the aisle countless times. Healy knew that this job would make his private life more public. That’s part of the deal when you accept a position like State Party Chair.
Again, I’m ambivalent as to what Healy or the State GOP should actually do. But it’s absolutely a legitimate news story.
TrueBlueCT:
Here’s my third straight day of asking this question…
Can you explain why the planet cooled from 1940 to 1970?
You called me out for not knowing facts. This is a fact, the planet did cool for a thirty-year period. Now, I want to know… did you know this? If you didn’t, now you do — and what do you think? If you did know it, what makes you dismiss this fact in favor of Al Gore’s movie?
We can go on and on from here, TrueBlue. What category hurricane was Katrina? Al Gore’s movie says it was a Category 5, but in reality it was a Category 3. Again, these are just facts. You’re harping on accuracy and attention to facts — and now that I’ve presented them, what are your thoughts? Or are these just “talking points”?
I’m willing to listen to people who disagree with me on global warming — I am not ignoring that the planet is getting warmer, I just think that there is no evidence that this is irreversible, or that it is strictly our (humans’) fault. However, many people who believe that global warming is catastrophic to our planet’s future and that it is primarily humans’ fault refuse to listen to any opinions or facts — indeed, facts, not “talking points” — to the contrary. By your silence, you appear to be in that camp.
So, TrueBlue, I ask again — do you know why the planet cooled from 1940 to 1970? Because it did, indeed, cool down for those 30 years. Please stop ducking this fact and my question.
Jack,
I’d argue that whether global warming is caused by humans or not (and there’s some good scientific evidence out there suggesting it is–at least in part), doing things like reducing emissions, etc., still makes a lot of sense.
Frankly, I’m more worried about climate changes and weird weather than global warming.
A few people have commented that there has been a ‘cover-up’ or delay.
I’m not on the state committee, but seems to me that it makes sense for Healy to have waited until he knew the outcome, which was June 1st.
The meeting with the state committee was on June 11th. A mailing went out to the members on June 7th.
Doesn’t seem like much of a delay to me?
And I can certainly understand his wanting to meet with the committee before it its the newspaper so they don’t read about it first.
I do see several double standards. And worse, some who regularly prey on other’s vulnerabilities.
Politics is rough and tumble. But the ugliness demonstrated on this blog at times really is a turn off.
Dobb–
You’re right. Global Warming is a myth.
Honestly, arguing with you about it would be like trying to convince Sam Brownback the world is more than 6,000 years old…
TB, you miss the point, once again. Dobb was not arguing whether global warming was occuring, he’s questioning whether humans are responsible for it. A position you attacked him for having no facts to back it up. When he provides facts that might lead to a different conclusion you’ve refused to answer. Clearly you’d rather argue your own point. And yet, you still haven’t answered his question.
I believe there are now at least 2 questions open for you in which you’ve attacked someone for not having “facts” and then when confronted gone and hid.
1) Dobbs’ global warming question and 2) Starks Gonzalez question. Not to mention the several questions I’ve asked your opinion on comparing and contrasting democrat behavior in several circumstance re: both Healy’s incident and Lieberman’s “ethics.”
Again, I’d like to point out your definition of a “winger” and ask you if your wholly inconsistent application of standards is consistent with your definition:
“Yep, you’re a â€winger. That’s my term for folks who put blind partisan loyalty before rational, independent thought.”
and Dobb, what is your point about Hurricane Katrina? I haven’t seen Al Gore’s movie, but Katrina was the sixth-strongest hurricane ever recorded in the Atlantic. (and yes, luckily it declined from Cat 5 to Cat 3 before hitting land.)
ps– I’m not sure you’re old enough to remember, but Al Gore actually invented the internet.
Seriously Blew, you won’t even argue or articulate a point you are trying to make. It doesn’t make sense – why do you even bother bloggng if you’re not willing to discuss or even defend your positions.
Bring back Rowland’s lackey Cruella DeVille. She’s good for so many laughs!!!
Len-
First I don’t have the energy to argue with evolution-deniers, holocaust-deniers, Global Warming-deniers, etc. Sorry.
Second, your claim that I’m like you in being a blind partisan is just ridiculous. I’m a progressive who proudly, and vocally has taken on my own Democratic Party on more than one occasion.
Third, Starks is going to hide behind his talking points re Gonzales, no matter what I say. Why should I get into it with him? (and there is a there, there, as evidenced by what so many Republicans have said, on the record.)
Okay? Now will you quit hounding me?
oh, hey Starkie, why don’t we get into a long drawn out argument about whether Libby and Gonzo actually did anything wrong? I mean you guys impeached a sitting President for perjury in a civil suit. But Libby committing perjury AND obstruction of justice in a criminal matter involving our country’s national security is no big thing? Sure, let’s argue that.
And in terms of Gonzo, I understand that despite all the hullalaboo, you can’t differentiate between what he did, and what happens under a normal administration. Mere ethical nuances, and I understand why they are difficult to grasp….
No one’s perfect – Nature’s nature.
Any individual affected. Alcoholism is a disease that requires ample constructive support (within reason of the law) from the surrounding environment.
Not rejection.
For those who truly seek recovery, it is a long and winding journey, often a life long struggle.
CT’s Republican Central State Committee chose to embrace Mr. Healy rather than make an attempt to sweep his struggle under the carpet. It is a constructive actuation of CT’s Grand Old Party new brand, certainly not a choice of destructive denial and/or the easy way out.
We all need copious improvements – we’ll always have.
Respectfully,
Bo ItsHaky
[quote post="630"]First I don’t have the energy to argue with evolution-deniers, holocaust-deniers, Global Warming-deniers, etc. Sorry.
Second, your claim that I’m like you in being a blind partisan is just ridiculous. I’m a progressive who proudly, and vocally has taken on my own Democratic Party on more than one occasion.
Third, Starks is going to hide behind his talking points re Gonzales, no matter what I say. Why should I get into it with him? (and there is a there, there, as evidenced by what so many Republicans have said, on the record.)
Okay? Now will you quit hounding me? [/quote]
You don’t have the energy? Why do you come here? Just to preach and walk away? Global-warming deniers? See, that is exactly the propoganda used on the left…as if, if you think there might still be a question as to the extent that humans play in global warming you’re a “denier” on par with Holocaust deniers. It’s a pathetic game and you ought to engage the debate if you’re going to make such allegations.
TB, you really need to wake from whatever dream-world you’ve entered. You are, in fact, one of the most partisan posters here. I’m sure if you polled the community you would rank among the top “blindly” partisan democrats. The fact that you can’t see that, is exactly what makes you “blindly partisan” per you definition:
“Yep, you’re a â€winger. That’s my term for folks who put blind partisan loyalty before rational, independent thought.”
Also, where you seem to break from you party never really seems to be towards the middle either. Taking the democrats to task for not being liberal enough isn’t exactly the same thing as being middle of the road.
Also, please note, not one thing you’ve pointed out in your previous post is a substantive response to the substantive questions asked. They are mere deflections to issues that are still up for answers.
[quote comment="12905"]oh, hey Starkie, why don’t we get into a long drawn out argument about whether Libby and Gonzo actually did anything wrong? I mean you guys impeached a sitting President for perjury in a civil suit. But Libby committing perjury AND obstruction of justice in a criminal matter involving our country’s national security is no big thing? Sure, let’s argue that.[/quote]
Did you read my comments yesterday? I actually think Libby was rightfully convicted of perjury. I don’t think the investigation should have gone forward because the prosecutor knew that Plame wasn’t covert and knew who perpetrated the leak, but it did and Libby lied in the course of that investigation. In terms of it being a criminal matter, Libby wasn’t being investigated for criminal conduct as Fitzgerald already knew who leaked Plame’s name and knew it wasn’t a crime. Despite his guilt, I think his sentence should be commuted to be more in line with how we treat perjury. I think Clinton was rightfully adjudged a perjuror too – and shouldn’t have gone to jail either.
You also said:
“in terms of Gonzo, I understand that despite all the hullalaboo, you can’t differentiate between what he did, and what happens under a normal administration. Mere ethical nuances, and I understand why they are difficult to grasp….”
I might be able to grasp the “nuances” if you would explain to me what he did that was illegal or unethical. I don’t know how you can be all over a guy’s case and be unable to explain what he did to deserve it. Tell me what he did wrong that was illegal or unethical.
Good God Len. Are you a Global Warming denier too? What on Earth makes you believe you know better than the consensus view among the scientific community?
[quote comment="12908"]Global-warming deniers? See, that is exactly the propoganda used on the left…as if, if you think there might still be a question as to the extent that humans play in global warming you’re a “denier” on par with Holocaust deniers. It’s a pathetic game and you ought to engage the debate if you’re going to make such allegations.[/quote]
Read what he said Blew.
TB,
What on Earth makes you just accept the fact that there is a “concensus.” The IPCC “concensus” of 2,500 scientist has had it’s number of scientists severely questioned, that 2,500 does not at all hold up under scrutiny.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=c47c1209-233b-412c-b6d1-5c755457a8af
And if you need a password for that one you can see the text here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1843910/posts
For someone as “open minded” as you claim to be you seem pretty eager to cut off debate on this topic and just accept certain claims.
LenS–
You do realize the article you linked to was really a column in a right-wing rag. I know it was joyfully spread all over the right-wing blogosphere, but that hardly makes it true.
In case you’re wondering, Media Matters thoroughly debunked it, here.
And yes, Big Energy, like Big Tobacco before them, is spending millions on psuedo-science to protect their profits.
No TB,
Nice spin again, 1) your link questions one survey cited to in the article, nearly 3/4 of the way down, not the article itself. As a matter of fact, the survey appears as almost and after thought. 2) Media Matters is about as objective as the Free Republic, the only difference was that the article I posted to wasn’t produced by the partisan site.
But keep going. Let me ask you this…who’s funding the the global warming alarmists? What happens if there is no global warming…oops…no more funding.
See, I’m not saying my side is absolutely right. I’m saying we don’t know enough yet whether humans are the cause. Again, why do you want to stiffle debate on this subject when there are still clearly questions about both the cause and effect?
TBlewCT – The media matters article didn’t debunk the assertion by the columnist in the Post that the “scientific consensus” you talk about consists of a list of 2,500 scientists that the IPCC won’t identify and that many have asked to be taken off of. The whole point was to stop saying that there is a consensus until you can actually identify who is a part of that consensus.
It also didn’t debunk the open letter to Stephen Harper that LenS linked to and that was signed by a number of scientists asking Canada to reconsider its participation in Kyoto.
Not relly sure how that link was relevant as nothing LenS posted has been debunked.
Do you have a citation for your assertion that “Big Energy, like Big Tobacco before them, is spending millions on psuedo-science to protect their profits”? I’d love to see it – and please don’t cite to any “partisan rags.” I’d hate for peopel to think of you as a hypocrite
Oh, and no rush if you’re still trying to come up with an answer to my previous question about Gonzalez or explaining why the earth cooled from 1940-1970 (a time of increased CO2 emissions). I’ll wait my turn. I’d hate for you to strain something.
Stark–
Look man. If you and Dobb and Len want to believe Global Warming is a myth, go right ahead. Just as you can’t prove that 9/11 wasn’t an inside job, (plenty of internet sources say so), I guess I can’t prove to you that GW is real.
[quote post="630"]Look man. If you and Dobb and Len want to believe Global Warming is a myth, go right ahead. Just as you can’t prove that 9/11 wasn’t an inside job, (plenty of internet sources say so), I guess I can’t prove to you that GW is real.[/quote]
That’s the level of debate? Nice work. Not like that you can’t convince me. And just to clarify, nobody said global warming is a myth. Again, you spin facts and statements into the argument that you want. We’re saying 1) global warming may be occuring, we’d like to see more research before turning our economy upside down, and 2) if it is occurring we’d like to see more evidence that it is being caused by humans rather than some other natural force.
Perhaps you can look at this article by those rightwing kooks over at National Geographic and conclude that global warming is obviously man made because some unnamed “concensus” of scientists says so, but I like to look at things a little more objectively, with an open mind, and not buy into the hysteria at face value.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
You still haven’t really come up with any reason to question our sources.
What on earth makes you think that I believe that global warming is a myth? Or Dobb or LenS for that matter? We’re not talking about the substance of the science – the argument we’re having is whether or not the “debate is over” as to man causing global warming and/or whether there is a “scientific consensus” to the same. I don’t know if it exists or not – I do know that the science isn’t settled. That’s all.
What do you think?
Tony–
I think cigarettes don’t cause cancer.
And you guys are right, the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels isn’t causing an increase in global temperatures.
ps–I hope you like the link, seeing as it came from Bush’s own Department of Energy.
Very good link.
That’s correct, CO2 are highly suspect as the driver of global warming. It it makes up less than 1% of the atmoshpere, around .035% according to this link actually.
http://www.met.fsu.edu/explores/atmcomp.html
You know the largest greenhouse gas…water vapor. And, as the link states, “Given the natural variability of the Earth’s climate, it is difficult to determine the extent of change that humans cause.”
If you want I’ll forward you some studies about the harmful effects of cigarettes. You can try to refute those, but I’ll need to see some actual sources.
First of all, please read my previous e-mail and try to understand my point. I am not arguing that an increase in CO2 causes or doesn’t cause global warming.
Oddly enough, neither does the link you sent from the Dept. of Energy. The only mention of warming states that “[a]ssessments generally suggest that the Earth’s climate has warmed over the past century and that human activity affecting the atmosphere is likely an important driving factor.” If that is what you are citing as definitive proof of global warming then why does it use modifiers like “important” and “likely”? Wouldn’t it be more definitive?
Again, not saying that it is or is not caused by human activity – simply that the debate isn’t over.
Tony–
It’s not more definitive b/c the Bush administration still won’t make the link between soaring CO2 levels, human activity, and rising global temperatures. (wouldn’t want to offend Big Energy.)
Then why are you citing it for that proposition? Again, you fail to support the claim that there is no more debate that man causes global warming. I am not saying it is or isn’t happening or that man is or isn’t the cause, just that there is legitimate debate on all sides of the issue. Your willingness to stifle debate is troubling and (Tony) Stark
Still waiting on your answert to Dobb’s question re: cooling from 1940-1970 and mine re: Alberto. Just a reminder.
Look at it this way:
If the evidence and science is overwhelming that man is causing global warming and that the results will be catastrophic, then shouldn’t you welcome debate on the issue? You’d be able to dispatch with those claims easily – obviously you can’t or you’d be able to dismiss Dobb’s point summarily. Again, the debate isn’t over and the science is not definitive.
Of course there is no more debate. Don’t you know that auto emissions killed the dinosaurs?
Stark–
I don’t know why you’re hung up on this “cooling from 1940-1970″ bit. Maybe this bit from the generally non-partisan Brookings Institution will help you get unstuck.
If you look at this graph of Global temperatures, you’ll see that the Earth warmed between 1930-1970. So what, it’s all still an idiotic red herring. (and that’s the reason I haven’t bothered to respond to you.)
Maybe if you boned up on GlobalWarming101 you wouldn’t be so beyond the times.
“Increased industrial production in the years between 1940 and 1970 caused an increase in aerosol emissions, most notably sulfates. These particles are highly reflective and created an albedo effect in the upper atmosphere, blocking solar rays. Pollution control implemented during the 1970s caused the concentration of aerosols in the atmosphere to decrease. In fact, if it had not been for the presence of reflective aerosols, the global temperature would have likely risen, not fallen, during that period of time.”
And your whole premise that b/c someone, somewhere is still arguing, a scientific premise isn’t “settled”, well it’s just head-up-your-ass stupid. According to your logic, evolution isn’t “settled”, and for all we know the world might still be flat…”
[quote comment="12864"]NEW HAVEN – The approval of a plan that would give legal identification cards to illegal residents by the New Haven Board of Aldermen and supported by Mayor John DeStefano shows how the Democrats still don’t grasp the rule of law, according to Chris Healy, Republican State Party Chairman.
‘People who come here illegally are breaking the law and the Democrats have rewarded lawbreakers,’ said Healy. ‘If people want to get identification and are immigrants, they should apply for citizenship and go through the same process as legal residents.’
———————————————————————–
ACR,
you guys gonna “reward Lawbreakers” by “Sticking with Healy”?
Whats Next,Is the Ct Republican State Central Committee going to call for former Rep. Mark Foley to move to CT. to help “raise the ethical Standards and perceptions of our Party”[/quote]
How pathetic is this.
GC, care to weigh in?
Wow. A thread about Healy’s DUI turns into a global warming pissing match.
Only on Connecticut Local Politics.
And yes, global temperatures did decline slightly during the post-war decades. No, that’s not proof that global warming is a myth. Neither is the fact that the last ten years have been the hottest ten year period on record proof that global warming is happening.
The evidence for global warming is measured over larger time scales. Take a look at the last 150 years and what is clear is not only a trend towards significantly warmer temperatures, but an accelerating rate of warming over the last 40 years.
Aw hell. I’m too tired to go on. A very good place to start learning the facts about global warming is the NASA website here.
TrueBlueCT:
1. The comment was that the planet cooled from 1940 to 1970. Not from 1930 to 1970. Your graph shows that it cooled from 1940 to 1970. I was right.
2. Your graph also shows that the planet warmed from 1850 to 1880, then cooled from 1880 to 1910, then warmed from 1910 to 1940, then cooled from 1940 to 1970, then warmed from 1970 to today. That tells us two things: one, the planet is probably going to cool very soon, and then get warmer than it is today in the next 75-100 years. Two, these increases and decreases have occurred independent of CO2 emissions.
3. Why should Stark or anyone rely on a site called “Global Warming 101″? What would you say if I promoted a site called “Hoax 101″? I’m guessing your reply would sound something like “talking points.”
4. Here’s another question for you: did you know that grapes and figs once grew in England, yet cannot grow there today? I’ll help you on this one, because I don’t feel like waiting three more days: grapes and figs cannot grow there because it is too cold, yet they once grew there… because it was warmer then!
5. CGG, this one’s for you: earlier today, you deleted my post from lunchtime, in which I agreed with Genghis’s comment about finding more clean, efficient energy sources, and I called TrueBlueCT “the poster child for liberal demagoguery.” You chose to delete THAT, but you’ve left up TrueBlue calling Stark “head-up-your-ass stupid” for the last two and a half hours now. What gives?
Jack, you should have said “the poster child for head-up-your-ass stupid” … then everything would have been fine.
This global warming stuff has been very profitable for Al Gore. He says that it is a more critical issue than the war with terrorists — yet he uses energy as though he’s in a competition to use more energy than every other person on earth. Most important for him is that his bank account has grown tremendously because of this issue.
At the next debate among Democrats, Hillary should be asked whether or not she wished that her husband’s administration would have done much more to help the world combat global warming.
[quote comment="13000"]
2. Your graph also shows that the planet warmed from 1850 to 1880, then cooled from 1880 to 1910, then warmed from 1910 to 1940, then cooled from 1940 to 1970, then warmed from 1970 to today. That tells us two things: one, the planet is probably going to cool very soon, and then get warmer than it is today in the next 75-100 years. Two, these increases and decreases have occurred independent of CO2 emissions[/quote]
I think I can answer these questions. What man-made activities could have caused global warming during those pre-automobile years? I think I know:
1850-1880 – Global warming caused by slavery. Also, please note, the nation was under four Republican Presidents (if you include Johnson).
1910-1940- Global Warming caused by Theodore Roosevelt’s safari trips, William Howard Taft’s flatulence, Warren Harding’s affairs and Herbert Hoover’s economy.
1970- today – Watergate, Dick Nixon and cars!
Headless–
Are you really joining with Dobb, Len and Stark in denying that Global Warming is a real threat, and also maintaining that the world’s man-made CO2 emissions don’t need to be reduced?
For the rest of you, how many dittoheads are needed in a room to conclude something isn’t settled science? (or fact?)
See, TrueBlueCT, this is your problem:
No one is saying, conclusively, that global warming isn’t a “real threat.” No one is also saying, conclusively, that “CO2 emissions don’t need to be reduced.”
(And no one is calling you a “dittohead,” but it’s clear there are different standards for liberals than for conservatives or even objectives on this site.)
This is what we’re saying — the science is NOT settled, and there are thousands of scientists out there who agree that it is not settled.
Let me be perfectly clear on my opinion: more research must be done as to the causes of increasing temperatures on the planet — on both sides of the issue. How could you possibly be against more research?
Sorry TBCT… while I do believe in global climate change, the info I have read on it makes me believe it has more to do with solar activity than it does CO2 emissions.
I’m all for the environment, don’t get me wrong.. I think we have a long way to go in being good caretakers of the land and water.
But there have been much more significant global cooling and heating trends throughout the ages prior to the dawn of man.
As far as “settled science” goes, I’m glad your crowd didn’t settle on the science of the 1970’s claiming we were heading for a global cooling trend and another ice age.
To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”
TrueBlue, do you agree with these words?
Boldface AND italics? Yeesh.
TrueBlueCT, I’ll admit — post 114 was a trap. Those words were written not by me, but by a writer for Newsweek magazine, on April 28, 1975.
The title of his article was “The Cooling World.” Here are some extracts — do they sound familiar to you?
“There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now.
. . .
“The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.
. . .
“A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.
“To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average.
“Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.
“Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”
“Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies. “The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.
“Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.“
Genghis, sorry about the bold and italics.
Booooooold!
I find it a little disturbing when questions of science start coming down to what one “believes.” Science isn’t one of those things that should be taken on faith.
That said, there is some strong evidence out there that the globe is getting warmer, and that humans are (at least partly) to blame. There’s also some small but significant disagreement.
What bugs me is that this has been used as an excuse by people with political agendas to point to a bit of the evidence either way and thunder “I’M RIGHT BECAUSE SCIENCE SAYS SO!” in the same sort of manner as the a religious zealot might club his or her enemies with the word of God. This doesn’t help us get at the truth.
As I’ve said before, though, we shouldn’t let whatever disagreements are out there in the scientific world stop us from acting to protect the environment and reduce emissions.
Maybe bold will turn off…
No more bold!
GC – I agree with your conclusion but take exception to your statement that:
“there is some strong evidence out there that the globe is getting warmer, and that humans are (at least partly) to blame. There’s also some small but significant disagreement.”
I truly believe that the scientific support for manmade global warnming is overstated (judging by the fact that the “consensus” won’t even identify itself) and that the opposite view is understated. I think there is science on both sides that is equally presuasive and strong. I just wish each side would get past the notion that their “beliefs” (as you put it eloquently) on the matter are absolutely correct.
Tony,
A good example of the strong scientific support for humanity’s role in climate change is the IPCC Report which has been in the news as of late, and you can see a list of the organizations which endorse the stance given in the report here, which states that there is more than a 90% chance that the current increase in global temperatures is caused by man.
It’s not an absolute statement–the actual language is that it’s “very likely” the case, not that it “is” the case. So in fact the scientists themselves don’t believe that they are absolutely correct, and that there is no chance that they are wrong. They’re pretty sure. But they aren’t ruling other possibilities out entirely.
Is there “consensus”? Not entirely. But supporters of the theory that global temperature increases are probably at least in part attributable to greenhouse gas emissions do seem to significantly outnumber dissenters at the moment.
You must log in to post a comment.