1809 : Thomas Jefferson Worried About Climate Change, Declining Snow Cover

7 Responses to 1809 : Thomas Jefferson Worried About Climate Change, Declining Snow Cover

1. Grumpy Grampy ;) says:

   June 30, 2011 at 10:43 am

   That could be one of today’s climatologists writing to another about the quality of information they have.

   Reply
2. Grumpy Grampy ;) says:

   June 30, 2011 at 10:46 am

   Maybe Hansen writing to Jones! De Mann is to young!

   Reply
3. gator69 says:

   June 30, 2011 at 12:39 pm

   This writing is obviously before the advent of western white guilt, Jefferson is stubbornly refusing to accept responsibility for natural phenomenon.

   Reply
4. Andy WeissDC says:

   June 30, 2011 at 2:37 pm

   Evil, greedy, rich, exploitative, slave holding straight white male bullies were already beginning to cause global wierding, even going back to 1809!

   Reply
5. Jimbo says:

   June 30, 2011 at 5:31 pm

   What would Jefferson say to the Alarmists if he were alive today? Would he be a sceptic?

   Reply
6. Andy WeissDC says:

   June 30, 2011 at 10:18 pm

   In 1809, Jefferson no doubt thought the warming was natural, because there was warming. Except for the period 1979-1999 there hasn’t been significant warming since the 1930’a.

   Also interesting to note, DC averaged less snowfall when Jefferson was President over 200 years ago than they do now.

   Reply
7. pouncer says:

   July 2, 2011 at 8:40 pm

   Am I the only reader who thinks TJ is being a bit tongue in cheek here? “When I was a boy, the snow often came up to my waist. Now that I’m a grown (and historically tall) man, it rarely reaches my calf. When I was a boy of five or six a winter spanned a tenth of a lifetime; now as I am over sixty a winter scarcely mars one percent of my memories. And, just as when I was a boy facing the long winters and deep snow, thinking them formidible — yet the men who then were the age I am now assured me that the winters in their own youth were worse. ”

   I’m thinking he’s pointing out the subjective nature of the, er, subject.

   Reply