global warming

Apparently, the EPA, Congressional Black Caucus and White House all think that the threat of "global warming" is the greatest threat we face as a nation. I would differ with the proposition. Domestically, for example, one could make a strong argument that trillion dollar deficits as far as we can project are a far greater threat. Paul Driessen (July 31, 2010) refers to the "threat" that unwed mothers present, and the need to make sure they have the needed support from local organizations in order to avoid the danger. I would add that the threat to all of Western Civilization from the barbarians at the gate, namely, Islamic militarism, is a far greater threat.

Driessen goes on to make a point that I have been struggling to make with some of my friends. Let us assume that human carbon dioxide emissions will cause average global temperatures to rise a few degrees more than they have already since the Little Ice Age ended. The policies proposed to deal with it will harm minorities the most, in contrast to the position of the Black Congressional Caucus.

For another point, and this should be obvious, human activities have not replaced the complex natural forces that drove climate change throughout Earth’s history. I think it arrogant in the extreme to think otherwise. Still further, even if manmade greenhouse gases do contribute to planetary warming, slashing US emissions to zero would bring no benefit, because steadily rising emissions from China, India, Brazil and other rapidly growing economies would almost instantly replace whatever gases we cease emitting. Driessen goes on to point out that fossil fuels power the economic engine that ensures justice and opportunity in America today. Policies that make energy less reliable and affordable reduce business revenues and profits, shrink investment and innovation, imperil economic recovery, and hobble job creation, civil rights, and the pursuit of happiness and the American dream. Whether they take the form of cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, restrictions on drilling and coal mining, or EPA rules under its claim that carbon dioxide “endangers” human health and welfare, anti-energy policies frustrate the natural desire of poor and minority Americans to improve their lives. As he puts it, "We cannot have justice without opportunity, or opportunity without energy. We cannot have justice by sharing scarcity, poverty and skyrocketing energy prices more equally – especially on the basis of erroneous, speculative or manipulated climate science."

After reading this article, I hope the reader can see where the policies that activists propose to deal with global warming (I would include the United Methodist Church as one of those activists) are a far greater threat to human justice than is global warming itself.

Gulf Spill and Global Warming

An article in the New York Times quotes John Amos, president of SkyTruth, an environmental advocacy group that sharply criticized the early, low estimates of the size of the BP leak, noted that no oil had gushed from the well for nearly two weeks. “Oil has a finite life span at the surface,” Mr. Amos said Tuesday, after examining fresh radar images of the slick. “At this point, that oil slick is really starting to dissipate pretty rapidly.”

According to the article, some of the compounds in the oil evaporate, reducing their impact on the environment. Jeffrey W. Short, a former government scientist who studied oil spills and now works for the environmental advocacy group Oceana, said that as much as 40 percent of the oil in the gulf might have simply evaporated once it reached the surface.

An unknown percentage of the oil would have been eaten by bacteria, essentially rendering the compounds harmless and incorporating them into the food chain. But other components of the oil have most likely turned into floating tar balls that could continue to gum up beaches and marshes, and may represent a continuing threat to some sea life. A three-mile by four-mile band of tar balls was discovered off the Louisiana coast on Tuesday.

In a Washington Post article, "the light crude oil is biodegrading quickly," NOAA director Jane Lubchenco said during the response team daily briefing. "We know that a significant amount of the oil has dispersed and been biodegraded by naturally occurring bacteria." Much of the oil appears to have been broken down into tiny, microscopic particles that are being consumed by bacteria. Little or none of the oil is on seafloor, she said, but is instead floating in the gulf waters.

Both articles raise concerns, of course, being the good alarmists that they are. However, these statements should make clear that earth is quite resistant to anything that would destroy parts of it.

Such science should be a lesson for Global Warming activists as well. Not even an unintentioned human-caused oil event in a body of water as large the Gulf is of much concern to "mother nature." It has processes like evaporation and bacteria that take care of it. We think (arrogantly) that we are doing something to a victim that we call earth. Earth is far stronger than that. Earth is stronger than human beings, which should be a "duh," but in the political environment of today, it seems to be in question.