|
I did take some time to offer my rebuttal to Telender's column. My comments are in bolded red, his column in black.
I'm getting sick of these super libs running around chiming like Global Warming is a sure thing and they know it. It is not. The temperature is slightly trending upward, but does not appear to be doing so at an alarming rate relative to what it has done historically. And if the problem is Solar related, we need to cope, because the Sun does not have a dimmer switch.
Time to warm up to reality
It makes no difference if it's a cold day in January or a sizzler in July; we'd better start paying attention to how we're destroying our planet.
Let me start this column on global warming by saying I'm a guy who believes in cleaning up after his dog.
So when I walked my little fur-ball on the sidewalk across the street from my house late Wednesday night, I vowed to return and pick up the, uh, stuff when it was daylight.
Thursday morning, I'm walking the dog again and I reach with a plastic baggie -- the bag this very newspaper comes in each day, to be honest -- and attempt to pick up the object.
It won't budge. I use a stick. Nothing.
What we have here is a carbon-steel dog turd welded to sheet ice.
So why talk about global warming on a day such as this, with snow drifts everywhere in Chicago and a wind chill of minus-4?
Because it's happening, folks, and individual cold or hot days have almost nothing to do with the overall warming of our planet.
Simply implying that if this is the case, it is because of CO2 emissions and not a natural process, when this has not been proven and there is a growing number of anti-global warming scientists saying otherwise, is a bit naive, but anyway...
I know there are two things some of you are going to say: Why bring up a political issue when you, toy-department columnist, don't know a caucus from a cuticle?
And what in the hell does this have to do with sports?
First of all, global warming is no more political than a raindrop.
Really? In 2007, a survey found that 95% of the 41 Congressional Democrats surveyed agreed that "it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth is warming because of man-made problems". On the Republican side, of the 31 surveyed, just 13% agreed with that statement. Hmmm... 95% vs. 13%? I'm no mathematician, but this sounds a bit left leaning to me, don't you think?
You may dislike Al Gore, think his Nobel Peace Prize was given in error, but you no longer can shoot the messenger to ignore the news he bore.
Our globe is a closed system that has been likened to a single complex superorganism, one that responds to the things we humans do to it the way a domed stadium responds to the games and hot-dog stands within.
The globe has been responding to things that all creatures on this planet have done to it since the beginning of time. This is the process of life, which is as natural as it gets. The growing theory regarding global warming is that increased sun spot activity, as trended back 1,100 years ago, is usually the result of global warming. CO2 emissions studies go back 100 years. For over 1,000 years, when sun spot activity increases, the Earth's temps rise in a cyclical pattern. This theory is getting legs and I think it will replace the current CO2 emissions theory completely within 10 years.
We have been digging and building and burning on this planet for quite a while, and simple logic tells one that the continually escalating conversion of old things like oil and coal to new things like heat and exhaust has to change the environment of a system that is encapsuled by gravity and bounded by outer space.
All things, not just Earth or planets or stars, are encapsulated by gravity. All matter pulls on all matter, in a relationship measured by distance, but what you need to know is that the farthest stars you can see are pulling on you, but their gravitational fields are so minute, you don't feel them. Gravity is relative to distance. Forest fires have been going on for millions of years. This guy has a problem with digging and building, as well as burning, so he sounds like he is against civilization in general.
Scientists from everywhere have declared global warming unequivocal, adding that our human carbon dioxide production must be harnessed and reversed or big trouble awaits -- for Democrats and Republicans alike.
In 1992, 47 scientists in the "Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming" disagreed. So did 4,000 scientists in the "Heidelberg Appeal" in 1992. Then there were the "Leipzig Declaration" and the "Oregon Petition", the latter of which had nearly 18,000 signatures of scientists disagreeing with global warming. A group known as "Sixty Scientists" signed a petition in 2006 asking Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to reopen debate on Kyoto. Perhaps we have different definitions of "unequivocal".
And sports?
Maybe you don't include hunting, fishing, sailing, surfing, swimming, skiing, ice skating and snowball-throwing as sports.
But even a couch slug should understand how a rising sea, retreating snow belt and mass dying off of species will affect everyone from soccer players to snowshoers to scuba divers.
Rising sea? Current projections say the sea will rise about one foot over the next 60-70 years. He's right. One foot? That means the beach will disappear about 6 feet inland in 60-70 years. I don't think I'll notice considering the tides come in an out about 60 feet twice a day. The retreating snow belt? I'm sure those that live in Chicago will be thoroughly disappointed about having a little less snowfall every year. Mass dying off of species? Scientists have estimated that 99.997% of all animals, plants, and micro-organisms that have ever existed on Earth have gone extinct. If it wasn't for this process, human beings would not be here. Creatures adapt to change or they die off. That is the way of things. Nature is a brutal, vial force, and it has no feelings or emotions. It simply operates on set rules and if you don't measure up to the changing tides, adios. Human beings are a natural creature. Everything we do is natural, including building cities, driving cars, etc. Termites build 7 foot tall mounds in the African landscapes that would be the equivalent to humans building 50 mile high skyscrapers. They don't care if the other animals don't like it if it makes their life better. Tough. Beavers re-route rivers and stop entire fish migrations with natural dams, but if humans do the same, its unnatural. Why? What's the difference? Do beavers have special pathways that allow fish to migrate through their dams? I don't think so. They also cut down trees to build these dams. Lions chase down antelope to kill them and eat them. If they kill too many, then antelope go extinct and lions find something else to eat. If they can't, then they start to dwindle in number until nature balances things out again or they go extinct. Its the way of the world.
Nothing but the facts
As a United Nations panel of top scientists reported last fall, our pollution is driving Earth toward ''abrupt or irreversible climate changes and impacts.''
He is referring to the IPCC, who is the same group that refused to led the contingency that disputed global warming into their debate on the subject. They would not allow a dissenting opinion on the matter before making their ruling. 4,000 authors, scientists, etc. contributed to the 350 person panel known as the IPCC, yet when nearly 18,000 scientists ask to be heard, the IPCC deems them not worthy, primarily on the grounds that they don't know what they are talking about since they dispute the man made cause of Global Warming. Sounds about right for the UN. Did I mention that the Kyoto Protocol destroys a significant proportion of US businesses, while giving free passes to countries like China and India who we compete with? Sounds like the same old UN, back at it again with their anti-US positions.
Here are some facts:
• • Glaciers and ice caps are melting at an unprecedented rate.
Its not unprecedented in Earth's history. Just in the last 100 years. But 100 years isn't even a nanosecond in the history of this planet. Historically, the ice cap melting happens all the time, in numerous periods of melting and refreezing. They are called Ice Ages. Ever heard of one? The ice previously extended all the way to Kentucky and the expansion and recession caused the Great Lakes to be dug out. I don't think this is an unprecedented event. During the last Ice Age, the ice was over one mile thick where present day New York City is located and Central Park still has smooth rock sheens cut out where the ice receded from. That receded pretty far and pretty fast, too. Were the creatures on the planet whining about what they would do when the ice melted?
• • Mosquitoes that carry West Nile and dengue fever, which once could not survive the cold above 3,300 feet, have been found at 5,600 feet.
That's a shame for people who live over 3,300 feet, but the vast majority of the population lives near a major river, lake, or ocean, which means they are pretty close to sea level. And another huge percentage live agrarian lifestyles on vast plains, most of which are well below 3,300 feet. Overall, I would guess that about 95% of the World's population was already in prime mosquito territory. People in Denver can't be too happy about this news, but people in Florida, Illinois, Arizona, Texas, Wisconsin, and Delaware are surviving just fine with this hoard of disease carrying mosquitoes.
• • The thawing around the North Pole never has occurred in modern history.
The Earth doesn't care about Modern History. The Earth deals in tens of millions of years, not the hundred years of North Pole history humans have that this idiot is referring to. We know of a half dozen times over the last 2,000 years that the Earth's climate has been warmer than it is now based on core samples of ice taken from the North Pole. I don't think the Egyptians and Vikings were panicking when the temps rose a few degrees and the snow didn't come down quite so hard or the rivers were a few feet lower. They dealt with it and they survived.
• • Inuit hunters in Greenland are falling through the bizarrely thin ice of their ancient hunting grounds and drowning.
I'm sorry. Am I missing something here? Is global warming turning the Inuit into idiots? They can't tell where thin ice is all of a sudden and where it isn't? I've seen shows on these people and their giant snow shoes. They seemed pretty adept at picking out thin ice before. How is this the fault of global warming? Adapt or die. It has been the same for a billion years of evolution. If you are too stupid to see the ice is thin, then it must be God's way of thinning the herd, right? The last ice age is supposedly what created the land bridge that allowed these folks to trot into Alaska from Asia anyway. Now when the cycle reverses, they are the first ones whining? Double standard, folks. Perhaps somebody should tell them they got here by walking over ice that comes in cycles, not from a giant Eagle in the sky who gave birth to the Sun, the Moon, and an Inuit.
• • The Inuit have no words in their Inuktitut language for the strange southern animals they are now seeing: robins and finches and dolphins.
I'm guessing they had no words for a lot of things they saw when they crossed the land bridge into this land 10-20 thousand years ago. Such is the flexibility of language. Its like a fun game. Just make some new words up. See how hard that was? This is not concerning to me. Why not just group all of these new animals into one word...food? Then you wouldn't be falling through the ice chasing your old food. By the way, these people are slaughtering endangered whales. Don't they deserve to die according to environmentalists?
• • The United States, India and China produce the majority of the greenhouse gases that affect the nearly 200 other countries of the world.
True. We are the most industrialized nation in the world and those two are the most populated...by far. So this stands to reason as a good time to bring up the question about why the Kyoto Protocol, which this guy stands for I'm sure since most flaming libs do, doesn't hold India and China to the same standards it does to the US. Wouldn't that create an unfair advantage for these nations and threaten US National Security in the long run? One would think it would, but then again, the Inuits don't have a word for "dolphin", so let's shut it down, put half a million Americans out of work, reduce our GDP by a trillion dollars over 15 years, and raise prices on everything we buy so we can abide by Kyoto and the Inuits can have their ice shelf back and not be forced to give a finch a name like Tkuhcktik.
• • The emperor penguin colony so beloved in the 2005 film ''March of the Penguins'' has declined by more than 50 percent because of global warming.
The population of dinosaurs was reduced to zero almost instantly. Life happens. Adapt or die. But here's my question for you. We have evidence that the world was a hotter place 1,000 years ago when the Vikings settled Greenland (which was green at the time), and 10,000 years ago marking the birth of civilation. Penguins are not a new species to the planet, so when temps were warmer then, how did they survive? They are still here and nature did not select them for extinction then. Why would we think they would not pull out of this now? Perhaps their previous numbers marked the largest population of all time for Penguins and a little thinning them back to regular levels would do them some good. Maybe weed out the bad genes and allow the strongest genes to move on to a new generation? As humans, we are limited by our perspective to that of a human lifespan, not the millions of years of evolution that these creatures have been alive.
• • Montana trout rivers were closed from 2 p.m. to midnight many days last summer because the water was so hot, it was becoming fatal to the fish.
Interesting. But he doesn't mention that their summers are longer, their winters shorter, their fishing season starts earlier and runs later, they have to shovel and plow less, the early Spring blizzards that were known for killing off large swaths of livestock are less likely to occur here, and they anticipate increased growth in the State's forest that will boost the State's forestry industry, providing more jobs and putting food on the table for lots of human babies, just to name a few benefits. Plus, while the rivers are closed in Summer, they are open in Spring and Fall later in the year to compensate, and the problem isn't dying fish, its low water levels.
• • The ice mass in the Arctic might melt completely sometime between 2020 and 2040, causing Greenland to turn, well, green. ''If that happens,'' says Larry J. Schweiger, president and CEO of the National Wildlife Federation, ''sea levels would eventually rise over 14 feet higher.'' That would flood millions of people across the planet.
Scientists believe this may begin to melt at an alarming rate in the year 2100. By then, I'm sure we'll be out of fossil fuels, so CO2 emissions should decline, right? Isn't this banking an an unlimited supply of fossil fuels? Most studies say at current consumption levels, we'll be out of them within 40 years. If we are not burning fossil fuels, where are all the emissions coming from? The cows? Let's kill them all!!!
• • The sugar maples of the Northeast and upper Midwest, from which we get maple syrup, are dying and relocating, if at all, across the border in Canada as the climate warms. When those forests, which include birch and beech trees, disappear, so do the animals that frequent them, such as deer, moose and snowshoe hares.
Why don't the animals retreat into Canada like the trees? Is there an invisible animal fence that prevents this? Are we concerned that the cost of Maple syrup will go up once the Canadians get their greedy little hands on the stuff? They will begin a Maple Syrup cartel, like those in the Middle East? I'm in the wrong business. This all sounds like a man who just doesn't want anything to change, but if anything is a certainty in life, it is change. It has happened since the beginning of time and it will happen until the end of time. It happens whether humans are here or not. Deal with it.
• • Man-made pollution has caused a 2.2 percent increase in global humidity from 1973 to 1999
As an example, Florida is a pretty humid place and my guess is that based on the sheer number of old, dying humans that call this place home, humidity is a tolerable thing for the elderly. Plus, is another 5% increase in humidity before you die really going to cause that big of a problem?
• • Rising carbon levels might kill off the world's reefs by 2050.
Lots of maybe's and if's here, but the World's reefs have been generating and degenerating with changes in the environment for 25 million years. The Great Barrier reef first appeared 12 million years ago, but the current reef has only been there for 6,000 years. During that 12 million years, the reef has gone through many changes related to water temperature, current direction and rate of flow, sea level change, etc. And before mankind, the sea level fluctuated naturally, species came and went, and life continued to get us where we are today. The Earth will always create balance.
• • Balmy weather has allowed the emerald ash borer to destroy weakened ash trees, the staple for traditional wooden baseball bats.
Once baseball nips steroids in the but, they can worry about the disappearance of ash trees over the next 200 years and its affects on the competitive advantage in baseball.
• • The number of killer heat-wave days in the Midwest is expected to increase by 70 percent by the end of the 21st century.
If this concerns you, move North. Again, using Florida as an example, there are tons of people over the age of 65 living in Florida, where it is both hotter and more humid than in Chicago. Florida had 21 consecutive days over 100 degrees down here in June and July this summer. But guess what? There were not an unusual number of old people dying. 1,000 people move to there every day (roughly 400,000 a year). If Chicago turns into Florida, from a Climate point of view, by the year 2400, I think old people everywhere will be safe.
Let's address the problem
Sure, there's more, but why go on?
The point is to recognize what is happening and address it.
And there are things we can do -- indeed, the economies of the world could advance and profit once we embrace a new way of thinking.
For instance, a startup Seattle company called Imperium Renewables, funded by $145 million in venture capital and private equity funding, is beginning to make biofuel from carbon-dioxide-gobbling algae. That is, slime.
Sounds good. Let's contribute money for funding. I want energy independence, so any biofuel, fuel cell, wind mill, etc. that will provide that, I'm all for it. Let's get chopping. Plus, less pollution is better on your lungs and I want to live to see my grandkids. But fossil fuels are gone in the next 40 years anyway, so this problem is on track to work itself out.
Then there's me and my dog problem.
I finally did get the frozen stuff into my baggie, which I threw into a larger garbage bag and put in the trash can.
It all will be landfilled -- waste inside plastic -- unchanged for decades if not centuries.
A new way of thinking, anyone?
I've got an idea, why don't you pick up your dog's business and store it in your house. Then you can take it to the park when its full and dump it around the trees to help them grow taller and stronger. Why is he putting it into a plastic baggie? Hypocrite.
|
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
