Latest from The Spokesman-Review
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.
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.
Gov. Chris Gregoire said today she’s checked out some energy-efficient cars while at the climate sumitt in Denmark, talked up Washington state with “green” manufacurers, had meetings with other governors and provincial premiers and spent time assuring delegates from around the world that things are happening in the United States to address climate change.
She got a chance to watch reports of the maiden flight of the Boeing 787 on Danish television, and while she didn’t understand what the newscaster was saying, the video looked good.
But she hasn’t seen any of the protests, which is part of the coverage many Americans are getting seeing from the UN Climate Summit in Copenagen.
“It’s sad that’s the representations we’re left with. I have not seen any of the disruptions,” Gregoire said in a telephone press conference.
Although she’s been told Danish security is respectful of free speech rights, she described their reaction to protests as anything but: They’ll round up 700 protesters, let 699 go the next day and just cite one.
“Nothing gets started. They take immediate action,” she said.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Maybe there is such a thing as Global Warming?… Nah.
Global warming is a hot debate topic in our country today, but is it actually in existence? Cliff Harris and Dr. Douglass attack the concept from an opposing stand point.
In “The ‘cold truth’ from Dr. Douglass about global warming,” Cliff Harris dissects the research performed by Dr. William Campbell Douglass II, M.D., to disprove the idea of global warming. A chart with global temperatures dating back to 2500 B.C. and running through 2040 A.D. pointed out major temperature swings, which Harris then used to compare against averages from recent times. His findings weren’t anything extraordinary, either.
In Harris’ opinion, the concept of global warming has been blown out of proportion due to politics, paid researchers, and environmental activists. He says, “Until this global warming hubbub, climatology wasn’t considered a life-or-death issue the way medicine is. …Since global warming has become a divisive political minefield, there’s big-time grant and research money being tossed about to help politicians (regardless of their stance on the issue) make their points. …The same climatologists and researchers who advocate global warming are often being paid to study it.”
His opinion, research, and evidence may or may not be enough to sway someone on the topic, but check this out. He concludes his article (published February 20th in a local newspaper) with weather predictions for the rest of February and early March, based off the data he gathered from earlier temperature swings. Cliff Harris’ predictions for February were dead on, as are his March predictions thus far. Harris wrote, “Early March should feature some snowy and cold periods with lower than usual snow levels down to the valley floor locations, even along the warmer lakes that are currently free of ice. …Stay tuned.”
Even if the entire idea of global warming is not real, the fear of its possibility is enough to “scare” the United States into acting for the benefit of the environment, which can protect the U.S. from other environmental problems. By acting in environmentaly concious ways, the United States safeguards itself from negative environmental effects AND global warming, if global warming exists. Could this whole issue be nothing more than a scare? If so, is it because no one knows whether global warming exists, or is it for other reasons?
Cap and trade bill clears a key committee, but is much stripped down…for now, it’s mainly cap, not much trade…
In tomorrow’s paper:
A controversial “cap and trade” plan that would put Washington at the forefront of efforts to combat global warming has been dramatically watered down under pressure from businesses and rural Republicans.
Nonetheless, proponents say they remain optimistic. The bill, requested by Gov. Chris Gregoire, cleared a key House committee Tuesday.
“It’s still viable. It establishes a real cap” on greenhouse gases, said state Rep. Hans Dunshee, D-Snohomish. “That’s a critical first step.”
Among the sharpest critics of the bill: Rep. Joel Kretz, R-Wauconda. Saying that the plan will destroy rural industries, he’s blasted it as “cap and extort” and says that trading pollution credits would spawn cronyism. He’s publicly suggested that disgraced former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich would be a good fit to run it.
“He’s well-suited to run a system like that,” Kretz said in an interview Wednesday. “And he’s looking for work.”
More Info: As Barack Obama takes office, the public’s focus is overwhelmingly on domestic policy concerns – particularly the economy. Strengthening the nation’s economy and improving the job situation stand at the top of the public’s list of domestic priorities for 2009. Meanwhile, the priority placed on issues such as the environment, crime, illegal immigration and even reducing health care costs has fallen off from a year ago.
Question: No surprise that economy and jobs are the top two concerns that Americans have as the Obama administration begins. Are you surprised that global warming is dead last?