Comments (105) | Add a comment
EDITORIAL
Global warming?
Tools
In modern public relations, half the battle is won if you can get the media to embrace your choice of wording.
For example, take "carbon pollution."
No one supports "carbon pollution." So when the activist pro-regulation group Greenpeace said it welcomed last week's announcement that the "EPA has finally announced the schedule by which it will regulate carbon pollution," the casual listener might have cheered that something was finally being done about nasty, gritty, airborne soot.
But sooty particulate emissions from furnaces and power plants have long been subject to strenuous regulation.
Instead, those who promote vastly greater and more expensive regulation of the energy industry -- those who would love to see America's industrial output decline as our personal electric bills soar, in part to purposely paralyze industrial and economic development in America and Europe until the unregulated Third World can "catch up" -- are purposely using the misleading phrase "carbon pollution" when they really refer to power plants emitting carbon dioxide.
When a single carbon atom has bonded with two oxygen atoms, it forms a colorless, odorless, non-toxic gas that is not a pollutant, but is in fact used in the metabolism of plants, vital to the survival of life on earth. To now brand carbon dioxide a "pollutant" is verbal manipulation of the first order.
Environmentalists theorize that the activities of mankind are churning historically unprecedented amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and that this carbon dioxide is acting as a "greenhouse gas," trapping solar heat and thus causing the planet to warm to such an extent that it many endanger life on earth.
There are several problems with this theory. First, while there might have been some minor warming in the late 20th century -- a whistle-blower has revealed much of the supporting data was unreliable or simply faked -- there appears to have been no warming in the past decade, despite the fact that none of the Draconian penalties now proposed has been in effect.
Second, the geological and historical records indicate there have been periods of higher carbon dioxide concentration in the past, and that they lagged rather than preceded solar warming. There is also evidence that earth was once much warmer than it is now -- and that life did just fine.
But the biggest problem with global warming theory as now propounded is that it lacks a vital component of any legitimate scientific theory: deniability. The theory allows any change in weather to be attributed to global warming, while preventing any climate pattern from disproving it. Far from sound science, it is an article of faith.
Global warming theorists predicted a warm, dry winter. Instead, English and Northeast American airports are shut down under unusually heavy snows. It's snowing in Tasmania (where it's now high summer.) The National Weather Service says Nashville and Atlanta could see serious snowfall this week for the first time in 17 years.
So, if there's drought and unusually warm weather, we should attribute it to man-caused global warming. But if the world is seized in a new deep freeze, we can also attribute that to man-caused global warming?
That's quite a theory. It's almost as honest as the term "carbon pollution."
Trending topics:
Comments
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The Review-Journal does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please use the Report Abuse button.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
The current drought that exists in the western U.S. is but an illlusion, it doesn't exist. It was brought on by insensitive, anti-business oriented environmentalists; these have employed Las Vegas strip magician-illusionists to create what we currently see (or imagine) at Lake Mead...decling water level. It is an illusion only, the lake is full to capacity. All you have to do is close your eyes and you can really see it; your vision is clouded by the illusionary haze cast by these magicians on the strip. Close your eyes and listen...hear it? the water is actually flowing over the intakes at the dam. The white alkaline that apears to indicate a falling water level due to drought, that doesn't really exist at all, it is anothe illusion created by Lake Mead Recreation area workers painting the sides of the lake white just to fool you.
It is all illusionary and faked by environmentalists, wacko scientists and some crazy people who think a drought might scare people into believing the faked story.
The massive melting of glacial ice, the receeding mountain glaciers world wide, the dying of coral reefs due to warming seas, the increase in desertifidation world wide and not signs of global warming? This paper has always been anti-science and anti-advancement in science because living in the 19th century is much easier to dream about than the future. To George Bernard Shaw, "You see things and say Why? I dream things that never were; and I say why not?" I dream of great scientific-technological advances but you, the RJ editors, dream of horse and buggy science. You may not believe in global warming as a man made effect but it will be a reality soon enough and your children and future relatives will face it as reality. World starvation and drought are not very nice prospects for their future. Contemplate that and think of it as a "cycle of nature".
MAN-MADE global warming is a HOAX!!
Our military, law enforcement, and ELECTED OFFICIALS need to HONOR THEIR OATH TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION!!!
oathkeepers.org
This is a test of the Web filter
Tom.Reynolds wrote: “Corruption starts not with the government, but with the corrupt companies that bought influence on the government in the first place.” Tom, you may want to look at the effect that the Slaughter house case had on the relationship between business and government. The end result was that the SCOTUS ruled that local governments had the authority to grant exclusive franchise to a business in a geographic region. This truly was the start of the fascist type of relationship between big business and government.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaughter-House_Cases
Another good example is Microsoft which was as apolitical as one could get up to the time that legal action taken against it at the request of companies such as Sun Microsystems. Since that time, Microsoft became one of the most politically connected and politically generous companies on the planet.
DT, what you might find most disturbing is how many of these posts go off-topic. * * * Your responses could have come from people, who lived in the 18th or 19th Century. That observation alone has made your post worthwhile. * * * And yes c-tiger, there is a good chance that we will be flanked by methane, while arguing about carbon dioxide releases. If not that, then a new strain of virus. * * * But again, from this post response, we will not tackle whatever problem arises, as an intelligent, coordinated team. We'll go down quibbling, making smart-alec remarks. * * * Evolution...accept no substitute.
Whoever wrote this is not educated in science and either did not watch or understand "An Inconvenient Truth." * * *
The big deal over using "carbon pollution" is overblown and impertinent to the carbons dioxide build-up. * * *
Challenge: Check out the Siberian Glacier meltdown and how a huge methane release will make all of the CO2 releases irrelevant. * * *
Before the term "global warming," I noticed as a teen that Ohio's winters were getting milder and commented on it often. And that was back in the late 60s. * * *
What is amazing is how well constructed that actual grammar and use of English structure, this writer commands. It's an educational paradox kinda.
blackvegas,
get educated, then write something pithy.
This is really becoming a backwards newspaper. Does the R.J. purport that the Earth is flat also?
(Deep Thoughts has no clue that he glaringly contradicts himself. Further evidence that Obama's election has caused some Republican's to lose all touch with reality.)
Deep: Do you really understand what you just wrote?