If global warming is a ruse, as some have suggested, the hoax is getting out of hand.
One look at the United States government's 2009 report on climate change shows the impact around the world over the past 12 years is anything but humorous. The report says:
The world's oceans levels have risen by an inch and a half since 1997.
Temperatures have risen by 0.4 of a degree.
Species such as polar bears, butterflies, frogs and pine trees are struggling amid the climate changes.
Those who pinpoint global warming as the culprit say an increase in carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels is the culprit. They say a 31 percent increase in global emissions in the 12-year period is warming the world faster than even the gloomiest models suggested more than a decade ago.
They point to industrialized China, fast emerging as a world economic power and now the world's biggest carbon dioxide polluter, for doubling its emissions since 1997, and to the U.S. and India, the world's other largest emitters, for not doing enough fast enough to stop the trend.
Others argue against carbon dioxide emissions as the cause of the climate changes, saying the world is warming as it has before, naturally in a historical cycle. They say blaming global industrialization, which relies heavily upon fossil fuels, is a waste of time and money that ultimately hurts business.
I'm no scientist, nor am I a fan of the political lines often drawn on the subject of global warming and its culprit.
But I've learned through the years that erring on the side of reasonableness when both doubt and the stakes are high makes sense. That's why the startling facts and the mere suggestion that carbon emissions are causing the problem get my full attention.
I don't want to see half of Louisiana, the Florida panhandle and the barrier islands off South Carolina half submerged in ocean water. Nor do I want to lose the Arctic, polar bears and butterflies. Also, I like February snow in the South and June cool breezes in the Northeast.
So call it the safe bet. If global carbon emissions are curbed and the world still warms, the punch line will yield a hearty laugh. But if nothing is done under suspicion the blame is a hoax and carbon emissions are, in fact, the problem, nobody will be laughing at the results.
Text Size:
I think the Hitchens perspective a vaild one.
And if it keeps cooling off? What's safe about freezing weather? You want those polar bears in YOUR backyard, McGee. I thought not.
The Earth is going to warm or chill as it darn well pleases and nothing piddly mankind does will change that. We are like a poot in a hurricane on that issue.
It is about nothing but control and pork.
You worry about CO2? Want to reduce it for some reason? Demand the UN outlaw all clearcutting of forests and the cutting of our world's rain forests. Green things eat CO2 for breakfast...
There is nothing safe about destroying your economy with "cap and tax" in order to make greenies feel good about themselves.
There is nothing safe about living under a government so big and invasive that it can tell you what kind of car you can drive, what type of light bulbs you can buy, and how much water your toilet can use to flush.
I'll take the possible risks of global warming (or cooling, which the scientists were threatening us with back in the 70s) over the certain loss of liberty inherent in a government big enough to influence the weather.
I too might err on the side of reasonableness for the same reasons as you, David. It does seem rather harmless to want Mother Nature to survive, doesnt it? However, the leaders of the global warming movement are frauds and phoneys who know how to use the passionate, naive, and radical to wage their wars.
What happended to the widening black hole that was going to burn our planet some 20 years ago?
The ozone hole? It's still there:
http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/index.ht...
See:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/big-id...
Unfortunately, any rational, scientific discussion on the consequences of climate change and the finding of a solution has been superseded by politics.
Nature is a relentless, spontaneous, non-linear process that has been operating for a few billion years and will continue to operate for a few billion years more until the sun expands as a red giant and consumes us. What the heck, in a 100 years all life that exists today will be replaced, so let it be THEIR problem!
On a positive note: Today is the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin's book, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection", one of the greatest scientific publications, ever. He said, "Natural" not "Supernatural". The origin, existence, and extinction of all plant and animal species is just another process of nature (like the afternoon rain shower).
You were on solid ground up until that last paragraph, una61. You have your beliefs on the subject...we have ours. They aren't mutually exclusive, you know, although some insist otherwise.
Where I come from its called weather.
Well written Mr. Magee, these climate change issues are only the tip of the iceberg if we leave our current situation unchecked. All we have to do is look around to see how the changing climate is affecting the productivity and usability of our land and oceans.
Drier conditions alter the makeup of the state’s forests, increase the frequency of wildfires, and hurt Tennessee’s timber industry. More extreme floods and droughts contribute to costly property damage and losses in crop production. Not to mention the loss of tourism dollars from hunting/fishing/wildlife viewing and an increase in health problems like asthma and Lyme disease.
Global warming throws ecosystems out of balance, harming not only Tennessee’s wildlife habitats but also the people and economies that depend on a healthy environment. I commend legislators who have already shown support for climate legislation and urge Sen. Alexander and Sen. Cork to do the same!
fierisq: "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"
Pray tell, what is the optimum global temperature? And why has the globe never stayed at that temperature for more than a split second of geological time?
It is arguable that an increase in global temperatures would help more people than it hurts. Just for starters, it would extend the growing season and allow land further north/south (depending on what hemisphere you are in) to be cultivated.
rolando,
If the origination of plant and animal species is not a natural process, then how do they originate? On the science portion of ACT, SAT, and TCAP exams maybe there should be an additional option that says, "God did it".
How, indeed, una61. I recognize your jest, but maybe you are right and there should be such an answer.
Seriously, that's an area where one gives the PC answer if one wants to succeed in today's "progressive" educational institutions. Tell the prof he is a crackpot or whatever and you are out on your ear; so give the party-line and let it go.
David,
Just wondering were I can find concrete data that supports your statement that species such as polar bears, butterflies, frogs and pine trees are struggling amid the climate changes.
You state that you will take the safe side when it comes to global warming. The U.S. economy can not afford to take the same stance based on faulty, possibly fraudulent data.
If you want to use the better safe than sorry philosophy, I would recommend that you not ride in an automobile (or participate in other everyday task) where the data is indisputable that your life is at an increased risk. I believe that you will quickly find that it is an unacceptable choice for your personal economy.