Good evening, Netizens…

Today cartoonist David Horsey takes a shot at global warming and climate change in light of the blizzards, snowfall and bad winter weather on the Eastern Coast that largely shut down several major US cities. There are some who persist in believing that the largely unprecedented snowfall in Atlanta, Georgia is somehow related to climate change. There are perhaps even more who swear vociferously that the freezing spell to hit Florida's citrus-growing areas are likewise caused by climate change rather than weather.

The question remains largely unanswered whether these dramatic weather changes are normal cyclical aberrations of weather or part of an evolution in our climate.

I'll concede pollution of our atmosphere caused by fossil fuels and airborne hydrocarbon byproducts are being largely blamed for changes in our climate, and perhaps that is so. Al Gore would have us believe this is true, as would some of our most-critical thinkers in atmospheric studies.

Still, in our climatological history, we have seen the Deep South and portions of the Eastern United States have severe cold snaps and occasional blizzards in other eras long before we polluted our atmosphere with hydrocarbons.

Perhaps the only viable understanding of climate change requires that we as a learned people, discuss and analyze the long-term weather trends to see what is or is not truthful.

Dave

Good morning, Netizens…

Strictly in the Spirit of the impending Christmas Season, once again I present cartoonist David Horsey’s Climate Carol, an irreverent play on that old favorite, “Santa Claus is Coming to Town”.

Now I have read the portions of several recent message threads about global warming, and while I am aware that there are many opinions of global warming, both pro and con, at the same time I have to admit Horsey’s cartoon is pointed and quite funny.

Your opinions, however, may differ. By all means feel free to contribute a Christmas Carol of your own.

Dave

Good morning, Netizens…

Cartoonist David Horsey once again takes on the Global Climate debate by depicting Mother Nature departing the climate conference in Copenhagen.

My initial reaction to this cartoon is what is Mother Nature doing riding in what appears to be a limousine? Then the next question is, if she wouldn’t be riding in a limousine, just how would she be getting around? A horse-drawn carriage? A Model-T Ford? How about a 1949 Dodge Pickup Truck with a boom box stereo?

As for Mother Nature’s recommendation we might want to find a new planet, when do we leave?

Hoo boy! Now there is the question of the day. It becomes a question of not if but when.

Dave

Good morning, Netizens…

Now before I get down to the serious business writing about the Russian journalists who were visiting Spokane this week, a visit which Jeanie and yours truly played small but emotional roles, I must open this can of worms called Global Warming, at least viewed by cartoonist David Horsey.

It should be noted that, from my position and thinking, the threat of Global Warming is true. However, this is just an opinion based upon what limited facts I have from which to draw my conclusion. In the cartoon, even David Horsey suggests that scientists are hyping the truth about Global Warming, which also might be truthful.

However, Horsey also draws the same conclusion that others have reached, that it is altogether too often that both scientists and government leaders “massage” the numbers to match their opinions. Thus David Horsey’s ethical question does not contain another element which I have often found to be far too truthful, and thus is inelegantly unethical.

There are people throughout the Blogosphere who have developed a considerable following when speaking of Global Warming, who lack either the scientific acumen nor have the political authority to declare Global Warming either exists or does not. Yet because they are purportedly unbiased, that they are not swayed by either scientific researchers nor political persuasion, they are therefore more ethical and thus more likely to possess the facts. Thus is not always the case, in my opinion.

The truth or untruth about Global Warming depends upon which source(s) you find most ethical. That perhaps is the more difficult question than whether or not Global Warming exists or its impact upon our lives.

Dave

Good morning, Netizens…

As David Horsey suggests in this morning’s cartoon, the world’s leaders are hemming and hawing over climate change like a group of farmers sitting around the Grange after a bad harvest is complete and they are wondering if they have enough profit to buy seed for the next year’s planting. They haven’t solved the problem, but instead constantly poke at it, constantly rehash it over and over again, and maybe if they are lucky, they might even agree on but not solve the issues. You cannot beat Mother Nature when it comes to handing out a good butt-kicking.

 Perhaps worse than that, you cannot get the purported experts upon whose opinions we depend to tell us how bad the climate is or is about to become in another generation or two. One set of scientists are broadcasting doom and gloom, such as how the icebergs in the Arctic and Antarctic are melting faster than ever before, while other scientists say, “Piffle. That is a bunch of poppycock.”

 Getting scientists to agree with one another is about like getting meteorologists to accurately forecast the weather over a long period of time.

 So what David Horsey is saying is at least partially true. If each of the world leaders are listening to different scientists, each coming to the table with their very diverse opinions, the world’s leaders probably will sit at the Great Table and instead of taking active steps to combat global warming, they make vague, lofty-sounding statements that play well with the “folks back home” while accomplishing very little. Isn’t this what is happening right now?

 Sometimes I wonder when or if the pendulum will swing the other way; instead of global warming will might have global cooling.

 Dave

Good morning, Netizens…

Cartoonist David Horsey gives us some clinically-flawless examples of medieval thinking this morning which would be highly functional, were it not for the Republican Caucus hiding behind their covert doorways advancing their theories about science.

I can see it now. In the Arctic Regions, icebergs hold covert but unsentient meetings and vote unanimously to “melt down for the heck of it”. You cannot deny they are melting down, because there is proof what is taking place. Giant icebergs calving is not that scientific in nature: just pull up your lawn chair, have a seat and watch. If you can’t figure out why they are melting down, you call the scientific theory of the time a hoax and be done with it.

Asking members of the Republican Caucus to approach scientific thinking, or even critical thinking for that matter, with a clear path of thought seems an anachronism to some, but then long ago in history we had people who swore on their honor that the world was flat and that the sun revolved the planet earth. Time changes things; things change time. It will be interesting to see what the theories we currently hold about Global Warming will be like in a few decades, perhaps.

Perhaps by then we might even have some theories about how Republicans feel about Global Warming then.

Dave

Good evening, Netizens…

Yesterday, the Eiffel Tower is shown just after the 20,000 bulbs illuminating the tower went out for five minutes. The City of Lights went dim when thousands of Parisians joined in an hour “lights-out” campaign aimed at showing citizens concern over climate change. (AP Photo/ Thibault Camus)
(March 28, 2009)

This was all a campaign to highlight the threat of climate change. Did you turn your lights out? To put it a bit more succinctly, do you care?

Which would I rather see, half the world turn the lights on their big commercial building lights off over concern for world climate change or eliminating nuclear weapons from the world’s arsenals? At the rate they are continuing to grow in numbers, won’t nuclear weapons eventually get used unless someone stops the madness?

The question which I feel challenges us all, which is more likely to eliminate mankind as we know it to be, global warming or nuclear holocaust? We must stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Dave