An Ol' Broad's Ramblings
Yet, So Many Actually DO Take Him Seriously
Jury still out on how much mankind has affected the global environment
Kevin Edwards
Al Gore announced he is finishing up a new book about global warming and the environment. Yeah, the first chapter talks about how you shouldn’t chop down trees to make a book that no one will read.” —Conan O’Brien, late night TV talk show host and comedian.
So far, a pretentious Al Gore, an irresponsible press and an agenda-driven Kyoto Protocol have caused growing numbers of people to doubt the claims that man is responsible for climate change.
Whether or not you agree with his opinions on climate change, it’s difficult to take Al Gore seriously. He lives in a huge energy-consuming house in Nashville, travels the world by private jet, refuses to debate skeptical scientists about man’s contribution to global warming, and calls those who disagree with him “deniers.” His promotion of carbon offsets, by which one can pay a “green company” to produce energy or plant a tree to balance out a person’s use of fossil fuels, is reminiscent of the selling of indulgences by the Church centuries ago. Each is an effort to soothe a guilty conscience without changing one’s lifestyle and each is an attempt to make money from the faithful.
However, the media have to share responsibility with Gore for casting doubt on assertions of a human-based warming climate, or whether global warming is actually taking place. Newsweek magazine in the early ’70s pondered in a cover story if earth’s falling temperatures during that decade were a sign of global cooling. Time magazine claimed in a 1974 article that “the cooling trend … could tip the climatic balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age …” Evidently in the ’70s, the planet was becoming a snowball, now in 2007 earth doesn’t have a snowball’s chance … Obviously, magazines must be sold and reporting impending worldwide calamities does the trick. The publishers defended their stories by claiming they only report what the scientists say.
It’s noteworthy, though, how often scientists use so-called irrefutable evidence to predict future events, only to be eventually proven wrong. Weather forecasters predicted more numerous and intense hurricanes the past two seasons since Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans, only to see milder and fewer storms instead. There are more variables than we can imagine when forecasting even short-term weather patterns.
One thing is for sure: Climate change is a cyclical phenomenon that repeats over thousands and hundreds of thousands of years and has done so since before man showed up. The jury is still out on the degree to which man has affected his global environment.
That being said, we humans must be good stewards of our planet. The problem is this responsibility won’t be achieved with treaties like the Kyoto Protocol. It’s no wonder our country has refused to sign it. The Kyoto treaty exempts China, India, Russia and most third-world nations from compliance. According to a Christian Science Monitor analysis of industry data, China is expected to add over 560 coal-fired plants with India adding 200 more over the next five to eight years. Those two countries alone could pour out over half the world’s CO2 emissions within the next decade.
Only a treaty with greenhouse emissions limits on all nations could be acceptable and such a treaty would need responsible, open-minded debate on the science of global warming. Otherwise, another Kyoto-style effort will be perceived not only as anti-U.S. and disastrous to American businesses but also impractical and useless.
You can’t legislate the weather. We just aren’t that important in the big scheme of things. Sorry to burst a bubble or two, but there it is! This is NOT our fault, and we can’t control what the planet does. Yes, we can cut down on the pollution, we can make the effort to clean up our own messes, but the planet will survive, with, or without us.
