A Fool & His Money...
Remember the old saying: "A fool and his money are soon parted?"
There is nothing like a public showcasing of one's aptitude for fiscal foolishness when
in bed with the liberal left and their causes. Read on:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060921/ap_on_bi_ge/branson_global_warming
The above article proves two things: A) People still rally around a skirt chasing womanizer who lies, cheats, and steals anything he can get his hands on, and B) Billionaires are not smarter than the average citizen when it comes to stewardship- at least not this billionaire! $3 billion to combat global warming? Come on...
Several months ago, I penned the following article which was published in one of our
area newpapers to good review. The problem is, the editor is wanting more articles
and the research is slow to producing timely results. Perhaps you have heard snippets
of arguments for why the general population should throw their money into this
"effort" or "global cause" or "catastrophic climate change"....?
Climate of Fear: The Controversy Over Global Warming Theory
Once again, it is summer time in the United States and the news media’s appetite for creating doom-and-gloom scenarios for our citizenry remains at an all time high; serving as chef for this macabre buffet is the liberal left’s views on the theory of “global warming” and the supposed negative effects to our planet’s climate. From late April of this year, story after story has been on most of the newswires including the three evening alphabet networks. I suspect that it will continue to be at the forefront as long as the temperature outside remains at 90 degrees or higher. When ambient temperatures subside to 75 degrees and cooler (around late October), you will likely not hear another word about it within the mainstream media.
You might ask, why? When it’s late fall or winter in the United States, most of the public relations firms for global warming become groundhogs until spring thaw of the following year. It’s difficult to convey discussions about “warming” when the citizenry is bundled up and snow and ice is lying on the ground. When was the last time you heard anything on the nightly news about this subject in January? February? How about at Christmas?
Michael Crichton’s book, Climate of Fear, though a work of fiction- is spellbinding. Crichton takes this subject head on through massive amounts of scientific research and digging through hundreds of studies dating back to the 1960’s and 70’s. The characters in his book endure the liberal left’s portrayal of this subject - and to what lengths they will go - to perpetuate the theory and keep the general public brainwashed until corporations and major industrialized nations cease to exist, thus keeping all pollution in check. Al Gore’s documentary is now in theatres and the left’s champion of the environment is giving it his all when it comes to scaring the public about what he calls An Inconvenient Truth. Inconvenient? Try wholly inaccurate…
For those of you who have been tucked away in solitary confinement for the past few years who may not have heard any of this, global warming is the condition of the earth’s atmosphere that comes as a result of “greenhouse” gases (Carbon Dioxide, Monoxide, Nitrogen Oxide, Sulphur Dioxide), being trapped in the earth’s outer atmosphere and acting like a blanket, keeping heat from the earth’s crust (caused by solar radiation) from escaping into space. The buildup of gasses causes the so-called “greenhouse effect” which stipulates that temperatures at ground level remain constant and/or rise over time instead of balanced, normal temperature fluctuation. The theory goes that as this condition worsens; polar ice caps will melt with subsequent sea level rise which will wipe out a majority of cities located on or near seaboards around the globe. Most predictions put sea levels rising by as much as twenty to fifty feet depending on the time span, exact temperature rise, and which study you happen to believe at the moment of publication.
Admittedly, I’m not a scientist. My scientific knowledge is somewhat finite. However, many known and recognized bodies of scientific research post their information on the internet for all to see and thus any lay person can scan documents, studies, statistics and analyses to one’s content and come to their own conclusions. The majority of the research that has been done to date continues to fuel debate on both sides of this issue. But the political left beats this drum constantly, loudly and sometimes - defiantly. They demand immediate action.
The Democratic Party, both moderates and liberals, usually agree that “big business” is bad for the environment. They contend that the pollutants exposed to our atmosphere through all manufacturing, refineries, coal fed industries, and cement producing factories are solely to blame for our current climactic anomalies. One way to rid our planet of the source of the pollution is to close all industries. If that happens, what are we to do for the products and services provided?
Several other questions have to be posed here: Why is the United States government spending billions and billions of dollars to fund these research activities when global warming is a theory at best? ($55 Billion spent as of 2004 according to the General Accounting Office.) Where is the money coming from? Who is benefiting? Why are renowned scientists on the opposing end of the debate suddenly finding their government sponsored funding withdrawn and their careers and credibility viciously attacked in the media?
Does anyone remember the cry from the meteorological and climactic weather gurus in the 1970’s? They said we were headed for another ice age! How is it that in the span of 35 years we have turned the millennial thermometer completely upside down in our climactic trend models?
Most climactic/temperature data at hand for the United States begins in the late 1880’s. We are basing this theory of future global warming on 125 years of earth’s history or approximately .000000003125 percent of the earth’s estimated age. Does anyone else see the problem with this logic? But therein lays the rub. The pro-global warming claxons are telling us that temperature increase is so dramatic over the last 125 years that it should be cause for alarm. Okay, what’s the average global increase recognized over the last century? Are you ready for this…point five (0.5) degrees Fahrenheit. One half of one degree is what these so called experts are getting excited about. According to a University of Indiana science website, the average annual temperature at the North Pole (where the ice cap is about 10-12 feet thick) is 0 degrees (F). At the South Pole (where the ice cap is thousands of feet thick) the annual average temperature is minus 57 degrees (F). For the North Pole ice cap to melt at the current pace of temperature increase shown by weather patterns over the last century alone it will take a minimum of 8,000 years. The South Pole ice cap would require 22,500 years.
Some questions I have yet to find answers to in the research: What about the role of solar flares- which are increasing in size and frequency- from the Sun? What of the oceanic waters warmed by underwater volcanic activity? What about the massive, annual eradication of rain forests in Central and South America? Certainly these are factors in search of the truth and must be thoroughly examined before reaching any definite conclusions. Many scientists and politicians should cease beleaguering the populace on this issue until such questions are thoroughly examined.
This is not a time sensitive issue and the urgency with which some environmental groups continue to convey their public communiqués on the subject is ridiculous in the least. Could it be that certain greedy researchers, scientists, lobbyists and special interest groups are scrambling to get a piece of the U.S. Treasury pie? The next time you hear another story about global warming you had better secure that wallet or purse. You might just feel an extra tug from our politicians in Washington.
So, what do you - the reader - say about this "theory"...?
There is nothing like a public showcasing of one's aptitude for fiscal foolishness when
in bed with the liberal left and their causes. Read on:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060921/ap_on_bi_ge/branson_global_warming
The above article proves two things: A) People still rally around a skirt chasing womanizer who lies, cheats, and steals anything he can get his hands on, and B) Billionaires are not smarter than the average citizen when it comes to stewardship- at least not this billionaire! $3 billion to combat global warming? Come on...
Several months ago, I penned the following article which was published in one of our
area newpapers to good review. The problem is, the editor is wanting more articles
and the research is slow to producing timely results. Perhaps you have heard snippets
of arguments for why the general population should throw their money into this
"effort" or "global cause" or "catastrophic climate change"....?
Climate of Fear: The Controversy Over Global Warming Theory
Once again, it is summer time in the United States and the news media’s appetite for creating doom-and-gloom scenarios for our citizenry remains at an all time high; serving as chef for this macabre buffet is the liberal left’s views on the theory of “global warming” and the supposed negative effects to our planet’s climate. From late April of this year, story after story has been on most of the newswires including the three evening alphabet networks. I suspect that it will continue to be at the forefront as long as the temperature outside remains at 90 degrees or higher. When ambient temperatures subside to 75 degrees and cooler (around late October), you will likely not hear another word about it within the mainstream media.
You might ask, why? When it’s late fall or winter in the United States, most of the public relations firms for global warming become groundhogs until spring thaw of the following year. It’s difficult to convey discussions about “warming” when the citizenry is bundled up and snow and ice is lying on the ground. When was the last time you heard anything on the nightly news about this subject in January? February? How about at Christmas?
Michael Crichton’s book, Climate of Fear, though a work of fiction- is spellbinding. Crichton takes this subject head on through massive amounts of scientific research and digging through hundreds of studies dating back to the 1960’s and 70’s. The characters in his book endure the liberal left’s portrayal of this subject - and to what lengths they will go - to perpetuate the theory and keep the general public brainwashed until corporations and major industrialized nations cease to exist, thus keeping all pollution in check. Al Gore’s documentary is now in theatres and the left’s champion of the environment is giving it his all when it comes to scaring the public about what he calls An Inconvenient Truth. Inconvenient? Try wholly inaccurate…
For those of you who have been tucked away in solitary confinement for the past few years who may not have heard any of this, global warming is the condition of the earth’s atmosphere that comes as a result of “greenhouse” gases (Carbon Dioxide, Monoxide, Nitrogen Oxide, Sulphur Dioxide), being trapped in the earth’s outer atmosphere and acting like a blanket, keeping heat from the earth’s crust (caused by solar radiation) from escaping into space. The buildup of gasses causes the so-called “greenhouse effect” which stipulates that temperatures at ground level remain constant and/or rise over time instead of balanced, normal temperature fluctuation. The theory goes that as this condition worsens; polar ice caps will melt with subsequent sea level rise which will wipe out a majority of cities located on or near seaboards around the globe. Most predictions put sea levels rising by as much as twenty to fifty feet depending on the time span, exact temperature rise, and which study you happen to believe at the moment of publication.
Admittedly, I’m not a scientist. My scientific knowledge is somewhat finite. However, many known and recognized bodies of scientific research post their information on the internet for all to see and thus any lay person can scan documents, studies, statistics and analyses to one’s content and come to their own conclusions. The majority of the research that has been done to date continues to fuel debate on both sides of this issue. But the political left beats this drum constantly, loudly and sometimes - defiantly. They demand immediate action.
The Democratic Party, both moderates and liberals, usually agree that “big business” is bad for the environment. They contend that the pollutants exposed to our atmosphere through all manufacturing, refineries, coal fed industries, and cement producing factories are solely to blame for our current climactic anomalies. One way to rid our planet of the source of the pollution is to close all industries. If that happens, what are we to do for the products and services provided?
Several other questions have to be posed here: Why is the United States government spending billions and billions of dollars to fund these research activities when global warming is a theory at best? ($55 Billion spent as of 2004 according to the General Accounting Office.) Where is the money coming from? Who is benefiting? Why are renowned scientists on the opposing end of the debate suddenly finding their government sponsored funding withdrawn and their careers and credibility viciously attacked in the media?
Does anyone remember the cry from the meteorological and climactic weather gurus in the 1970’s? They said we were headed for another ice age! How is it that in the span of 35 years we have turned the millennial thermometer completely upside down in our climactic trend models?
Most climactic/temperature data at hand for the United States begins in the late 1880’s. We are basing this theory of future global warming on 125 years of earth’s history or approximately .000000003125 percent of the earth’s estimated age. Does anyone else see the problem with this logic? But therein lays the rub. The pro-global warming claxons are telling us that temperature increase is so dramatic over the last 125 years that it should be cause for alarm. Okay, what’s the average global increase recognized over the last century? Are you ready for this…point five (0.5) degrees Fahrenheit. One half of one degree is what these so called experts are getting excited about. According to a University of Indiana science website, the average annual temperature at the North Pole (where the ice cap is about 10-12 feet thick) is 0 degrees (F). At the South Pole (where the ice cap is thousands of feet thick) the annual average temperature is minus 57 degrees (F). For the North Pole ice cap to melt at the current pace of temperature increase shown by weather patterns over the last century alone it will take a minimum of 8,000 years. The South Pole ice cap would require 22,500 years.
Some questions I have yet to find answers to in the research: What about the role of solar flares- which are increasing in size and frequency- from the Sun? What of the oceanic waters warmed by underwater volcanic activity? What about the massive, annual eradication of rain forests in Central and South America? Certainly these are factors in search of the truth and must be thoroughly examined before reaching any definite conclusions. Many scientists and politicians should cease beleaguering the populace on this issue until such questions are thoroughly examined.
This is not a time sensitive issue and the urgency with which some environmental groups continue to convey their public communiqués on the subject is ridiculous in the least. Could it be that certain greedy researchers, scientists, lobbyists and special interest groups are scrambling to get a piece of the U.S. Treasury pie? The next time you hear another story about global warming you had better secure that wallet or purse. You might just feel an extra tug from our politicians in Washington.
So, what do you - the reader - say about this "theory"...?
posted by Troy M. Stirman | 11:55 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home