There isn't a hot-button issue that gets my goat more than that of global warming (aka climate change). Recently, Fox News Channel said they had "the video that will change the global warming debate." You only had to watch "Hannity's America" Sunday night to find out what it was.
My apologies for not taking the time off of my weekend to watch cable news. But today I asked around to see if anyone had seen the episode. Evidently the show revolved on Al Gore flying on an airplane that is a big polluter...and he has incandescent light bulbs in his home.
How on earth does that change the global warming debate? It doesn't! It only aggravates the people who continue discussing it. I've studied climate change for over a decade now. Do you really want to know the truth about what is happening? The atmosphere is warming up. There is no evidence to the contrary. If there is, I'm always in the mood to read about climate. Someone please mail it to me. Still don't believe the facts? They are right on the Environmental Protection Agency's website in plain sight.Recently, I was talking with a few other Meteorologists about the subject and we all wondered how this got to be such a political issue. We all agreed that this shouldn't be political at all! The only argument is whether you choose to believe in global warming's severity. For those who don't believe in global warming, don't we all have a moral obligation to keep our earth inhabitable for generations to come anyway? Why are we arguing? Let's all just keep the place clean!
As far as Al Gore goes: to be honest I don't think he's the greatest spokesperson for climate change (after all, he's not even a climatologist). Should he fly on a greener jet? Yes! Should I be driving a car that gets 60mpg? Yes. Should we all recycle? Yes. Should we all put at least one or two flourescent bulbs in our homes? Yes. Should we...
The whole point with global climate change is this: There shouldn't be a debate over whether global climate change exists. What we should be arguing about is how much needs to be done to fuel change. In my opinion, if every one of the 302,836,592 Americans vowed to clean their lives up just a little bit, our world would be a far better place for our great-grandchildren to live in.
Fox proclaiming they have an end to the debate is absurd. They may have exposed one of Al Gore's flaws, but no scientific evidence was presented that gives me a reason to believe that the world is suddenly cooling down.
Eric Sorensen
Chief Meteorologist
WREX-TV
Rockford, Illinois
9 comments:
...But this is Fox News we're talkin about here. What did you expect?
Fair and Balanced reporting...that is what Fox News is suppose to report.
I hope someone utubes the report so we can see it.
Have to agree with Eric here. The evidence is right there on the EPA website. Gee, wasn't it another Faux Noiser, Chris Wallace, who said good reporters get the facts? Hmm...
And it's nice that the description has morphed from "global warming" to "climate change". Too many people think global warming means it's going to feel like July in March, when in reality we're talking about much larger-scale changes in weather patterns. More people need to be educated about how that will affect things like growing crops, etc.
And while we're talking about treating our world better, how about eating locally and supporting CSA's, and slowing down all the blacktop, and . . .
It seems that every post I make on global warming turns into a controversial argument...except this one. Are the planets in alignment? ;-) -ERIC
That NOAA graphic precludes the area between the time of Christ and 1880. Why? It shouldn't preclude anything before 0, either.
The reason that there is, or should, be a debate is because people get it wrong. By people,
I mean scientists. They haven't exactly had a good record here. I don't find it at all odd that the terminology has changed, because they couldn't get it right. If they can't get it right, then what exactly are they trying to say?
This is a little more complex than right or wrong, though. It is about varying degrees of risk. Legislatures legislate based on risk. Certain activities carry more risk than others. They are legislated accordingly. The political problem comes down to determining what level of legislation is necessary to reduce a risk to a level that is appropriate. There is a level of loss that is acceptable; always has been. Bridge safety is a good example of that. America is not precluded from accidents, nor should we expect it to be or else we'll lose a system that has worked pretty well.
Sean Hannity is merely pointing out that this is very political - it has been since Gaylord Nelson was elected in 1962, and that it has morphed into something that is quite profitable!! Gore did make a lot of money. "Climate" groups, which really used to be "environmental" groups, have seen significant increases in contributions and clout. In the end, everyone agrees that elevated risks need to be controlled, but the environmental groups took that concept way to far. Where they want to eliminate all risk, everyone else understands the concept of acceptable loss. It would not be unacceptable to lose some species or habitat. It's a loss, but a loss does not = any other loss. Some losses should be much more important.
Vanishing Polar Bears don't scare me. I am not sure why they discuss this but to draw upon emotion and, thus, some kind of political leverage.
Science is very poltical, but that aside, I want to see the graphics showing the little ice age and medieval warming. Global cooling of the late 1970s should also be acknowledged.
Post a Comment