News from the Secretary by Larry Gabriel How do you like this global warming?
The temperature rose above zero today and I appreciated it, even as I read a news story saying, "Top summer temperatures in Iowa will be as much as 22 degrees higher in the next 100 years if the government does not move to address global warming, a panel of scientists said Tuesday."
The news story contained dire predictions for future residents of Iowa. It tossed around phrases like "Dust Bowl of the 1930s," "unprecedented challenges," and "more dramatic than warming seen since the last ice age."
I have tough time swallowing this kind of stuff.�What kind of a "scientist" uses terms like "top summer temperature" or "irretrievably mutilated" to describe how global warming may damage the planet?�I don't know about you folks, but I am getting a little tired of people passing off computer generated games and hyperbole as "science."�
There are no accurate records of temperatures in Iowa 12,000 years ago.�Even in the last 50 years, recording instruments changed, recording locations changed, and the "normal high temperature" is changed every 30 years.�
Scientists "think" that the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction wiped out around 85 percent of all species about 65 million years ago, and that mass extinctions caused by global warming or cooling occur about every 30 million years. The truth is that we don't know much about this subject or what "cycle" we are in today.�Nor do we know how much or why temperatures or ozone levels fluctuate over long periods of time.�
This little gem of "science" (the changes predicted for Iowa) is from the "Union of Concerned Scientists" (UCS), which you can join, by the way, without being a scientist if you have the money and want to support their idea of the five things that "we must do" to save the world.
The five goals that will save the world according to UCS are:
1. bring environmentally damaging activities under control;
2. manage resources crucial to human welfare more effectively;
3. stabilize human population;
4. eliminate poverty, and
5. ensure sexual equality and abortion rights.
Such goals do have a purpose, but won't save the world. If an asteroid impact or geothermal eruption doesn't get us first, even our sun will run out of fuel someday.
UCS grew out of a 1969, faculty-guided, war-protest movement at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.� Their number one goal was to "initiate a critical and continuing examination of government policy." Their number two goal was to shift government research funding away from military and weapons to environmental and social areas.
Despite my doubts about such organizations, I must admit they have done well with their original goals.�So, when you read such a story, just think of it as "wallet warming."