Great column, Rachel, and dead-on accurate!

When ever I've spoken to people about "glo-bull" (I love that term) warming, I'm amazed at how naive people are. What I get is: glaciers are melting; storms are more intense; summers are hotter; summers are colder (huh?); winters are warmer; winters are colder (again, huh?); global warming is responsible for colder winters and hotter summers.

When I ask how that last statement is possible, no one can explain. If the planet were warming, how could ANYTHING on that same planet get colder?

Let's review the "ice-cube" example.

Fill a glass with ice right to the top, then fill it with water and let it sit so the ice melts. As the ice melts, does the glass overflow? No. In fact, sometimes the level of water actually recedes as the ice melts, making it look as if the amount of water has lessened as if someone had taken a sip, yet that isn’t the case.

Now, the reverse. Fill a glass with water right to the top and then add ice. Now, wipe up the counter where the water has spilled.

So, glaciers melting are not necessarily the cause of the oceans rising.

Overfill an ice cube tray with water and freeze it. What happens? Does the ice recede into the tray? No. It expands past the top and sometimes you get some nice little "spikes" as the water expands.

Ever leave a plastic bucket outside that fills with rain water then freezes when the temperature drops? When the water can’t expand any further as it freezes, the bucket can crack.

Ever leave an outdoor water hose outside without emptying it and the water inside freezes? When you use it in the Spring guess what? It may have cracked (not always – I’ve been lucky at times) because the expanding ice had no where else to go.

Ever consider what 2 inches of rain would translate to in inches of snow? It’s not 2 inches of rain equal 2 inches of snow.

Scientific facts: water expands as it freezes; frozen water takes up more space than water at room temperature.

So, if the sea levels are rising, doesn't it seem logical that the ice below the surface is thickening (taking up more room)? This would cause the sea levels to rise.

The sea levels rising may be a combination of ice caps melting AND ice thickening or expanding below the surface but this is NOT "glo-bull" warming. This is nature. It happens.

We've had warmer periods in the past than we have today and we (mankind) were not producing the "greenhouse gases" we are producing today.

"Glo-bull" (love that term) warming is nothing but a typical liberal Democrat communistic tyrannical scare tactic to separate you from your money and your rights and to convince you to voluntarily give others more control over you and your life - yet - they are allowed SUV's and everything else YOU are supposed to give up.

Global Warming is b.s. Don’t fall for it!

Excellent column Rachel,

As an academic, all I can say about glo-bull warming is "Follow-the-money."

As politicians continue to warm-up to the "glo-bull warming mantra" for political expediency versus having the courage to actually study what science is known and recognizing there is still an awful amount of speculation going on, I predict billions of our tax dollars will be awarded to academics in grants to "study" the problem. It is always easier to "study" a problem than make a "decision" to solve a problem, especially for politicians and, in particular, for academics. Remember, for academics, doing studies is their "bread and butter."

Doesn't it make you feel "warm" and fuzzy when a politician tells you he or she is funding a study. More so today than ever, this has become the political means to avoid making a decision while projecting the appearance that you are concerned and doing something. In my opinion, this is NOT why we elect people to go to Washington - we elect them to make tough decisions, but alas we are adrift studying everthing to death.

Don't think for a second that climatology/meteorology departments will be the only university departments applying for and receiving these grants. There isn't an academic department that I can think of that won't be eligible for a grant or grants. Even culinary schools will be applying to "study" the effects of glo-bull warming on cooking pasta.

What disturbs me the most about all of this glo-bull warming hand wringing, is the form the scientific conversation has taken over the past years. Apparently, glo-bull warming science is now based on the "opinions" of the majority versus being based on the scientific evidence. Skewing and distorting the data to make your point does not count as scientific evidence. To even hint there may be another explanation or different theory on glo-bull warming places the academic at high risk for his or her job, if not their life. Unfortunately, if you are not 100 percent in agreement with the majority on glo-bull warming your peers stoop to name calling instead of scientific debate. Name calling plays so well with the media and to the public.

Another crowd that benefits financially from the glo-bull warming agenda is the environmental activist organizations. Think about it, for the first time in over a decade since "sustainable development" took center stage and corporations took control of the environmental conversation away from the environmental activists, the activist are attempting to regain their public position through glo-bull warming. From an environmental activist organization's perspective, glo-bull warming is the "perfect storm" to seed and reap financial benefits.

It is going to be fascinating to watch the presidential candidates over the next two years grapple with their stand on glo-bull warming. I suspect it will take on the same litmus test quality as each candidate's stance on abortion.

If only our country would wake up to the real threats (Terrorism and Illegal Immigration) we are facing today maybe, just maybe, we could eliminate or at least control this threats. Believing we can eliminate or control glo-bull warming is at best "Tom follery" and at worst a VERY expensive road the American public better be ready to endure, both in opening their wallets for increased taxes and in life-altering ways.

When all is said and done, if we cannot defeat the REAL threats we face today, what difference does it make it the planet's temperature increases one or two degrees Fahrenheit by 2100?

Next step - watch marketing firms' create "feel-good" advertising for people to buy certain products to "stop" glo-bull warming. It is the "do it if it feels good 60's" environmental movement all over again. Advertsing agents will measure their success by how and when the general public treats non-belivers much like the scientific community treats non-belivers today. Again, "follow-the-money."

I can only hope the American public will wake up to the reality of what we are facing today in time. Unfortuantely, Hope is neither a stragey or a method.

PS: Thanks LynnJG for reminding me about the "ice-cube" experiment. I'll use it in my "Air Pollution and Health" course this summer.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: